Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 7

message: In the biography bit near the top, origins and musical beginnings, it says:
"His grandparents were Jewish emigrants from present-day Turkey and Russia...His paternal grandparents sailed from Trabzon to the Black Sea port of Odessa in Ukraine from where they took off to immigrate to America."
In the first sentence it should say immigrants, not emigrants, and it should say emigrate, not immigrate in the second.
I can't alter this because the article is locked.
:Fixed. Adam McMaster 08:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made up words 

message: :Image:Bootleg1-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know what this is about?  The bot is tagging album cover after album cover for deletion, when they are being used to illustrate the album's article.  That's fair use.  What is going on? Carlo 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the key phrase here is "consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale".  When you upload an album cover to Wikipedia, you have to make sure you check the right boxes and stuff on the upload page.  My theory is that the users who uploaded the pictures that this bot is targetting overlooked the proper procedure, and so the bot believes the images have no rationale, or insufficient rationale.  And let's be fair, it's not the responsibility of the bot owners to double-check all improperly uploaded images to make sure the bot isn't in error, it's the responsibility of the uploaders to make sure they do it correctly.  It may seem like beaurocratic nonsense on the surface, but the upload form really isn't that hard to use. - Ugliness Man 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. An overly aggressive bot program is tagging all album covers in Wikipedia that do not have a unique fair use rationale. The problem is particularly harsh for older uploads when the  template was sufficient. I see that Rhobite has added one for this image. --Knulclunk 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Bootleg1-3.jpg 

message: There is a bot going around that is tagging every fair use image for deletion, i went around and added fair use rationales for all dylan's album covers, book covers, etc in the proper format so that they shouldn't get deleted. If anyone sees any i missed please add rationales! (i think this is retarded, but thats not going to stop them from getting deleted.) SECProto 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. That damn bot is starting to annoy me :) Adam McMaster 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationales added. 

message: Is it just me or do little flag icons on pop/folk singer articles look silly?  —Gaff ταλκ 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag Icon 

message: I think that "grammy award winning" could probably be taken out of the opening sentence; while a single award might be important for a lesser artist, Dylan is of sufficient stature that it doesn't add much to his notability. And isn't "grammy" supposed to be capitalized, anyways?  Brianyoumans 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This article isn't for his fans, it's for people who may not have heard of him. He's won awards which are generally thought of as important, and the usual place to mention that would be right at the beginning. Adam McMaster 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Adam here. The sentence was added to give some immediate recognition of his notability or success for those who know nothing about him. SECProto 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Compared to his real achievements, these awards amount to a few handfuls of tinsel (although I'm not opposed to listing them elsewhere in the article... but right after his name? No way). And how many in the Western world (the presumed audience of the English Wikipedia) haven't heard of him? Perhaps a fair proportion of the under-12 set haven't, but even for them, we should not be holding up these popularity awards as his top accomplishments. JDG 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't read this closely, i thought we were discussing the last paragraph in the intro, which describes many awards he has received. But JDG, in an article, we have to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject - that's why they're here looking at it, right? nevertheless, I agree that it makes it flow somewhat poorly, and we should move the mention of those awards to the last paragraph in the introduction, which describes them in more detail. SECProto 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we have consensus. Removing mention of prizes from first sentence. JDG 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: These sentences: "Many in the folk revival had embraced the idea that life equaled art, that a certain kind of life defined by suffering and social exclusion in fact replaced art.[49] Folksong collectors and singers often presented folk music as an innocent characteristic of lives lived without reflection or the false consciousness of capitalism.[50] This philosophy, both genteel and paternalistic, was ultimately what Dylan had run afoul of by 1965." are dangerously close to sentences in Greil Marcus' "The Old Weird America". Go to the following url and click the "On Page 27" link (you need an Amazon account with which you've purchased something):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312420439/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/102-9538556-5600964?v=search-inside&keywords=exclusion&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21
What do you think?  Really in any case they are subjective and POV and OR, whether lifted or not (and, sorry, but the citations are a bit dubious-- how can you have fact-style citations for a poetic insight like "so-and-so felt life replaced art"). So I propose deletion. JDG 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JDG I see what you mean. As you probably noticed, these sentences carry a footnote which points to the same pages of Greil Marcus that you're pointing to: pp 27-28 of The Old Weird America aka Invisble Republic. So I guess the sentences are paraphrasing Marcus and Georgina Boyes - who are footnoted. Would it be valid to attribute the ideas to Marcus explicitly, as in "Critics, including Greil Marcus, have argued that....." Would you leave in second half of para which contains Dylan's splendid insight into folk music, as delivered to Nat Hentoff? Mick gold 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I actually didn't notice that the second footnote was to The Old Weird America. Personally, I'd just quote Marcus and leave the Dylan quote to Hentoff there as well... One other thing I've been meaning to do, Mick, is include some decent lyric excerpts. You may recall Monicasdude was standing in the way of that, and with him (presumably) gone, there's no reason not to. You've done such good work on the article, I think you would have the best feel for which lyrics at which points. My votes would be A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, Subterranean Homesick Blues and Blind Willie McTell, where each is currently mentioned... There's simply no excuse not to have short excerpts from an artist whose stature rests more on lyrics than anything else. JDG 05:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for remarks. Personally, I don't think article needs quotes from lyrics. The significance of the 3 songs you mentioned are described in the article. (Quite well, I think.) Mick gold 10:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, surprised to see you say that. However high an opinion we may have of ourselves, I don't think we can say we're imparting anywhere near the idea of the songs as would lyrics... There's no copyright problem at all with short excerpts and we're lucky our subject works in a medium perfectly reproducible in the article. JDG 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaque à son goût! (I had nothing to do with comments written on A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, but I thought they successfully conveyed what was innovatory about that song.)  I just don't think it's the job of the article to quote extensively from his songs. Dylan's lyrics are there for all to read via his official website. I think it's the job of the article to put his life & work into an interesting biographical & historical context. best wishes Mick gold 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Si tout est une question de goût, le goût est la réponse de totalité. Et il n'est pas! There are also encyclopedic works on Dylan for all to read at the neighborhood bookstore. But here we attempt to give a very incisive, yet detailed, view of his career. The uninitiated would hardly know where to begin among all 500+ songs. We're here to help-- and very limited lyric excerpts are the only primary tool we haven't used yet. Anyway-- a good weekend to you. JDG 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifted? 

message: I’ve substituted Robert Hilburn’s Los Angeles Times interview for the first New York Times quote in this section, because the NYT extract seemed less clear, and Hilburn contains a direct quote from Dylan.  Hilburn’s interview was recently re-printed in Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, ed. Jonathan Cott, Hodder & Stoughton, 2006, ISBN0340923121. Pages 279-285.
I changed “Dylan’s embrace of mainstream religion” to “Dylan’s embrace of Christianity” because that is consistent with ref cited, which is Sounes, pp 334-336. In those pages, the following express dismay at Dylan’s embrace of Christianity: Harold Leventhal, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen, Keith Richards, Ronnie Hawkins, and Howard Rutman.  Leventhal, an old Jewish friend of Dylan, is specifically discomforted by a cross that Dylan wore.  Leventhal is quoted as asking Dylan: “What have you got this cross dangling around you for?” (Sounes, 334) Mick gold 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Hilburn 

message: I added a short paragraph about the unreleased sessions which Dylan recorded with Allen Ginsberg in 1971. Any comments, or does anyone know any more websites that could be referenced?Warchef 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginsberg/Dylan sessions & Duets 

message: This talk page is huge. I propose using User:MiszaBot I to automatically archive old threads. What does everyone else think? Adam McMaster 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. John Carter 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you please explain the practical consequences of your proposal? Some of the exchanges on the Talk page about Dylan's religion have been perhaps inordinately wordy, but, apart from that, I've found Talk page easy to follow. Mick gold 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, having my own talk page archived, all that happens is that the older comments are placed on a separate page, and that a box with a link to that archive page is included on this one. Then, threads which have not had comments added to them in for a given period are eventually automatically archived. The comments can still be found on that archive page, though. John Carter 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page already has several pages of archived discussion. Using this bot would simply automate the process. Adam McMaster 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archiving 

message: The anonymous user keeps adding the "Background" heading again, should we re-protect the page? Or is there anything else that can be done? Adam McMaster 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought semi-protection was a pleasant respite from the interminable ROHA "Background" editing.  Mick gold 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the subject, what the heck does ROHA mean anyway? Adam McMaster 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROHA is just jargon. You don't have to know what it means. Bus stop 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are incorrect - it's not jargon. It is purportedly the user's name - see this.  He spent some time doing the same kind of thing on Cat Stevens.  Semi-protection is the only thing that stops his persistent edits, as he comes in on a variety of IPs.  Tvoz |talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I stand corrected. Bus stop 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: IIRC it stands for Hans Rosenthal. he's been vandalizing this page for upwards of 2 years. SECProto 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Just curious is there's a WP logo for being a fan of Bob Dylan?  Cheers, --Dylanfly 12:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This user is a fan of Bob Dylan logo? 

message: My wife has recently told me she saw an interview by Ira Glass with Mr. Dylan. In this said interview, he explained that his hit "Mr. Tambourine Man" was not about drugs. My wife said in this interview he explained that it was about the emerging folk music scene, and how he, in a dream, foresaw it saving the world. Did anyone see this interview, and if so, is this something that can be put into this page, or mentioned in the page for the song?
:I've read on the Mr. Tambourine Man entry that it was inspired by an instrument played by Bruce Langhorne. It's also believed that it was written due to Bobby's LSD use. However, he's denied that LSD had anything to do with it, and it's been stated that he never actually used LSD anyway. I'm not sure of any facts regarding this, and I've never seen that interview, but I'm sure it would be of no use, anyway. He tended to mess with interviewers when giving answers. Either way, I don't think it matters much, and I don't think Bob intended anyone knowing how or why he wrote it. RapMasterK 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Tambourine/Dylan Interview 

message: It is good to have a recent picture of Bob Dylan, but wouldn't it be better to have a picture of the 'classic' Dylan at the head of the article? The present picture I found completely unrecognizable, not having been a fan in recent years. For most people, I think the 60s or 70s Dylan is the one they recognize. Brianyoumans 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's the conclusion we came to in a similar discussion months (years?) ago. Those new pictures added, however, are terrific, infinitely better than the other live pictures where he is a blurry figure on a stage. But yeah, they should be put further in, with a 1960s-era dylan at the top. SECProto 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The Dylan entry is lessened overall by the inclusion of song interpretations. There is no reliable "Dylan to English dictionary".
My discomfort starts where "Blood On the Tracks" is described as a chronicle of Dylan's marriage difficulties. I don't believe this is necessarily true at all. Dylan spoke of "pain" in the album. I believe there is no evidence beyond this, and I have no respect for the sad crowd of writers and interpretators who claim superior knowlege and superior perceptions.
I know Dylan's son has accepted this hogwash. This is most unfortunate. Lowgen 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song Interpretations 

message: I am think of adding a sentence or phrase to section 1.2  pursuant to Dylan being referred to as 'Hammonds Folly" at Columbia Records. Also feel free to go ahead and make the edit yourselves if you like. I don't want to be bold and barge in so I thought I would ask first. Albion moonlight 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mick gold 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections ? 

message: This “Born Again” section of the Dylan article ended up with 2 quotes from Dylan which were remarkably similar:
:"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light" – that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs". 
And:
:"Those old songs are my lexicon and my prayer book . . . All my beliefs come out of those old songs, literally, anything from 'Let Me Rest on That Peaceful Mountain' to 'Keep on the Sunny Side.' You can find all my philosophy in those old songs. I believe in a God of time and space, but if people ask me about that, my impulse is to point them back toward those songs. I believe in Hank Williams singing 'I Saw the Light.' I've seen the light, too." 
Both these statements tell us that Dylan finds religiosity in music rather than in formal religious practice, and both these statements name ‘Let Me Rest On That Peaceful Mountain’ and ‘I Saw The Light’ as touchstones of his religious feelings. I thought there’s no point in quoting both statements. I marginally preferred the first because the line “I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists” has been widely quoted. I’ve also given the source for this interview. (Newsweek, 10/6/97) 
In an earlier version of this article, a quote from the Jon Pareles interview in the The New York Times reported that "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."  I’ve restored this line, since it offers a resolution of the question of Dylan’s current religious adherence with a WP:V source.  I don’t think the sentence “According to Rabbi Manis Friedman, Dylan did immerse in a mikvah, as required of a former apostate.” should be in a Wikipedia article, unless there is a WP:V source. Mick gold 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight re-write 

message: The article, "Slow Train Coming" has a lengthy section on Dylan's conversion to Christianity. It's well done, but I think it's out of place there. An in-depth treatment seems more a part of Dylan's biography than a discussion of that record album. The Bob Dylan article links to that one for further infomation about his conversion. It ought to work the other way 'round. That is, the "Slow Train" article should briefly discuss the the conversion as important context for the album, but point elsewhere (either to the Bob Dylan article or another separate one) for the full story. (I've made essentially this same comment on Talk:Slow Train.) Hult041956 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan's conversion is the dominant theme throughout said album. Thus, it belongs there. 82.176.216.87 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I'm not convinced. No question that Dylan's conversion is the essence of "Slow Train," and thus needed background to any understanding of that album. My concern is that important biographical information about this artist (e.g., he was in a rough patch psychologically in '78; he had his awakening experience; he read and was influenced by various persons; he expressed his new beliefs "on stage"!) is found only in that article, while this one handles the whole topic with two opening sentences ("Dylan became born-again" and "Dylan participated in Bible study") and a half dozen or so quotes. Hult041956 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In which article does his conversion belong? 

message: I don't know why this keeps happening. A proper reference has been listed for it. If you don't like the way it is worded, then alter it somewhat. Please stop removing it completely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.252.22 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, a citation has been provided. But the source (a concert review from Nov. 2006) only says Dylan used this technique "sparingly" on this occasion. (The reviewer is pleased by this.) Do you have sources for the claims that a) Dylan began doing this "around 2000 and especially in 2001", b) that he did it in "sizable portions of his live show[s]", c) that the ending high note is the tonic of his ending chord, or d) that this technique is "unprecedented in the world of popular music" ??  Hult041956 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the questions raised by Hult041956 are valid, so I have watered down this "upsinging" section. Mick gold 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done, Nick.  User 150.160 gets his upsinging reference (and to be fair, this word does Google to a bunch of Dylan web sites), but without making way too much of it. Hult041956 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Hult041956, if you're serious about editing this Dylan article & contributing to Wikipedia, why don't you create an account & register your Username? Then you'll have a Talk page on which unbelievably interesting conversations will take place, best wishes Mick gold 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indeed very interested in helping out on Dylan-related articles.  You can see I've made some copy edits to the article and several comments on this talk page in recent weeks.  In fact I have recently registered as user and do have a bit of a talk page. I have not created a user page yet, which is perhaps what you mean. I look forward to working with you and hearing from other Dylan editors (either on my talk or on this page).  Hult041956 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop removing the section on upsinging 

message: I'm on board with the revised section on upsinging, but I don't know why it says that only "a few" fans have bemoaned upsinging. As anyone who follows Dylan's tours can tell you, this is a gross understatement. "A few" should be changed to "many," or at least "some."
There seems to be a tendency to downplay what might be taken as criticism of Mr. Dylan on this page. Doesn't that kinda fly in the face of objectivity?  Bill Hazel 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more bit on upsinging 

message: The following quote from the article (referring to Forever Young) doesn't really read well to me, and I wondered if anyone would mind of I changed it, or if they had any suggestions for improving it?:
"The phrase may be a reference to John Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, ("For ever panting, and for ever young") but Dylan turned it into a strangely (for Dylan) sincere and openly heartfelt work (thought to have been inspired by his newfound family life and his children) which has become one of his most popular concert songs"
There's a lot of 'maybes', and 'though to have been's here - and also the inference that Dylan is nearly never sincere in his songwriting rings particularly false (I'm similarly sceptical of the inference that he is also rarely openly heartfelt). I think the Keats thing is unnecessary, but a reference could keep it there; the thing about the song being for his kids has some minor relevance, but also needs a reference (Heylin mentions it, does anyone have a direct quote or reference?); that it's one of his most popular concert songs is fine (although maybe referring to the fact that it's oft-performed is less subjective than saying popular-but that's a very minor point); and the stuff about it being strange that Dylan should be so heartfelt or sincere (gasp!) has to go.
any suggestions?Warchef 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warchef I agree this wording is dodgy, I never noticed these phrases before, perhaps they’ve been added recently? The idea that ‘sincere and openly heartfelt’ lyrics are strange for Dylan is ludicrously POV, and I would disagree. I like the Keats reference and Christopher Ricks certainly makes that point on p. 453 of his Dylan book. Dylan talks about the inspiration for the song in the Biograph booklet: “Forever Young I wrote in Tuscon, I wrote it thinking about one of my boys and not wanting to be too sentimental”. I’ll try a re-write, please edit it if you don’t like it. (btw, there’s a fascinating 12 page passage in Ricks book where he explores the parallels between Keats’ Ode to a Nightingale and Dylan’s Not Dark Yet. I think I’ll put that into Time Out of Mind with a ref since it’s one of the best things in Ricks book.) Mick gold 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Many thanks Warchef. I think you're completely right about your Gaelic blessing/song, both the imagery and the rhythm seem close to Dylan's song. A pity we can only put these ideas in place when we find a critic who has has had the same brilliant idea as you have? "May the road rise with you" is the backbone of one of PiL's best tracks, 'Rise', but that sounds nothing like Forever Young! :) Mick gold 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forever Young - rewording needed 

message: :Image:Loveandtheftcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Loveandtheftcover.jpg 

message: I believe it's the Bootleg Series Vol. 6 that the 1964 "Halloween" show took place. Does anyone know what's going on (I think it's either before or after Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues, somewhere around there) before Dylan says "Who cares?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.191.77 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1964 Halloween Show 

message: The article is incoherent, lacks citations, and is poorly written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.161.125 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved above comment (i.e., this section) from top of page to the current bottom. I'm making no comment or judgement... only putting new topic at the bottom of the list per convention and allowing the various informational boxes and notes to appear at the top.  Hult041956 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent 

message: Hi Boab, you’ve put  twice by the references to Dylan’s many musical influences, and you’ve made the valid point that Dylan has not written Broadway songs. Of course, Dylan’s musical evolution is self-evident – from youthful rock’n’roll to folk (Freewheelin’) back to rock music (Highway 61 Revisited) to country (Nashville Skyline) to gospel (Saved) to acoustic blues (World Gone Wrong) & everything else including adaptations of Irish, English & Scottish material. (With God On Our Side cf. The Patriot Game, Bob Dylan’s Dream cf. Lord Franklin’, Highlands cf. Burns). What citation is needed?  With “Love and Theft”, many critics remarked Dylan’s musical eclecticism had reached new heights, e.g.:
On Summer Days (which owes a debt to Shake, Rattle & Roll) and Lonesome Day Blues, the musicians (his touring band) spew out serrated roadhouse blues behind lyrics like You're gonna need my help, sweetheart/You can't make love all by yourself that manage to be taunting and jaunty at the same time. With its four-to-the-floor rumble and whistling slide guitar, the ambivalent love song Honest With Me consciously evokes Highway 61 Revisited; the hillbilly love serenade Floater (Too Much to Ask) is set to graceful Western swing. These songs crackle with energy -- kudos to slam-banging drummer David Kemper. High-Water (For Charley Patton) is a doomsday warning set to backwater bluegrass banjo and guitar, with Dylan coming off as a fanatic preacher warning us of the pending flood. (Adding to the roots ambiance is the way he drops in snippets of borrowed folk and blues lyrics.)
Entertainment Weekly October 1, 2001
"Love and Theft" presents an assured master working with a cornucopia of tuneful frames, all set out on leisurely, laconic display. There are blues forms and jazz forms here, gypsy-jazz folk forms, Tin Pan Alley and rockabilly, boxcar rounds, campfire sing-alongs and sea chanteys, cowboy songs, madrigals, and various alchemical mixtures as they're needed. 
Village Voice : October 2, 2001
So I’ve added these comments as a ref., for want of anything better. Mick gold 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I recently discovered three WP articles that cover Bob Dylan tours: Bob Dylan and The Band 1974 Tour, Rolling Thunder Revue, and Never Ending Tour. Anyone mind if I add these links to the navigation template? Seems like they belong. I haven't found any others... it would be great if there were an article about the 1966 tour. Hult041956 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Mick gold 12:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you agree.  I went ahead and did it.  Hult041956 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan tours in the navigation template 

message: Sorry, but I couldn't help laughing when I saw that. I don't know how anyone could think it was pronounced DIE-lan. I don't think it really needs to be there but I'll see what other people think. SteveRamone 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose you're right. It just seemed odd to me. SteveRamone 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I laughed as well. Certainly there's no harm in providing the pronounciation, but it's hardly a vital addition either.  Oddly, no editor has yet seen it necessary to provide pronounciation help at Alison Moyet, Robert Goulet, or .. get this.. Dylan Thomas. ;-)  Hult041956 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DILL-an 

message: I’ve deleted the newly added section on influences, because it seems to me that the list of musicians, writers, artists, and movies that have influenced Dylan is infinitely long. Robert Johnson is included. What about Blind Willie McTell, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker and Jimi Hendrix? All of them Dylan has emulated and paid tribute to. Woody Guthrie is mentioned. What about the Carter Family who influenced both Guthrie and Dylan? What about the Stanley Brothers and Johnny Cash whose influence Dylan has acknowledged. Chekhov is mentioned. (!!???) What about The Bible - probably the biggest "influence" on Dylan? What about The Book of Isaiah or the Sermon on the Mount or the Book of Revelations, which clearly resonate in some of Dylan’s lyrics? John Keats is mentioned. What about Byron, William Blake, Tennyson, and T. S. Eliot whose influence on Dylan has been noted by Christopher Ricks? What about movies? As Michael Gray has shown (The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, pp. 224 –231) Dylan has been borrowing from movie dialogue all the way from Gone With the Wind to The Hustler. Early on, Dylan was asked about influences and he replied “Open your ears and you’re influenced.” He was right. Dylan has been recording for 46 years, and everyone who met him in Greenwich Village in 1962 described his startling ability to soak up influences “like a sponge”. (Liam Clancy’s phrase). Dylan has broadcast more than 50 episodes of Theme Time Radio Hour; every show contains about 14 songs. Dylan talks about every one of them with real affection, and erudition, so that gives you a potential list of 700 “influences” just by listing the artists on his radio shows. He also reads aloud from Edgar Allan Poe, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens and many more. The idea of listing Dylan’s “influences” seems profoundly unencyclopedic to me, because the list potentially stretches to over a thousand “influences”, and even then you’re only just beginning. Please let me know if other editors strongly disagree. Mick gold 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: Now look at this: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2198&a=699913 - no idea whether this is a hoax or real. But it's a nice read in any case. :) -andy 84.149.65.230 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's your Swedish? 

message: In the (British) Telegraph (Nov10/07) a review of Nana Mouskouri's Memoirs by A. Miller states:
..in the 1980s Nana "struck up an unlikely and somewhat intense friendship with Bob Dylan. After they were introduced by (who else?) Leonard Cohen, Dylan went to several of Mouskouri's concerts, enjoyed some late-night suppers with her and even wrote her a song: the sublime Every Grain of Sand."
How far fetched is that?91.92.179.156 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every grain of info 

message: I raised concern earlier (up there somewhere) about the fact that the 2000s section is much to long and sprawling, with too much information and without a clear line running through it, and i do genuinely feel it's impinging quite negatively on its readability. So I'm going to be bold and start editing it down a bit under the following 2 guidelines:
1) use the hyperlinks - much of the info can be achieved through the hyperlinks, so it's unnecessarily messy to include it all here as well - one prime example of this is that of the 2 paragraphs on "I'm not there"; what prizes it won etc is not especially pertinent to dylan and can easily be found through the hyperlink to the film's page
2) footnoting - much of this can be footnoted to improve readability (e.g. the mention of cadillacs in "talking ww3" etc.)
please feel free to undo any of the edits that you feel to have missed a point or cut out necessary info. peace Warchef 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warchef, good work! I think your editing has improved the flow of the info. Mick gold 08:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Mick gold, I think it looks a little better now too. I was planning on being a little more ruthless, but I decided to go with baby steps in the end. no harm either i suppose. however do you think that internet rumour about an album next year should be there? i'd personally remove it cos i think it's a crock and not encyclopedic or noteworthy, but i thought i'd ask here firstWarchef 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Warchef I totally agree with you about the worth of the internet rumor of new album. I'm deleting it now! I'm glad you proceeded with baby steps, I think there's a lot of good info in there but it was worth pruning.        cheers Mick gold 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: hehe, that's hilariousWarchef 11:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000's section in need of a good pair of scissors 

message: Another contributor added the film 65 Revisited to the Bob Dylan nav template today. It showed as a red link. I did a bit of reading (found some reviews on the web), and then wrote a short article. It's real rough; please feel free to expand and improve. Hult041956 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  65 Revisited 

message: The article refers to Subterranean Homesick Blues as being Dylan's first recordings with electric instruments. I understand that Mixed Up Confusion is earlier and dates from November 14th 1962. The documentation with Biograph also refers to it as his first single, which was subsequently withdrawn. It was available in the Netherlands for quite a while, which is where I got my copy from. To be pedantic we should also remember that Bruce Langhorn played electric guitar on Freewheelin.
Delverie 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've added a couple of sentences on 'Mixed Up Confusion' to acknowledge this experiment with a rockabilly sound. In the Biograph notes, Dylan comments: "I didn't arrange this session. It wasn't my idea." I think when Langhorne plays 2nd guitar on 'Corrina Corrina', he's playing acoustic. The sound of 'Mixed Up Confusion' is fast, propelled by drums, bass and piano, I think the guitars here are acoustic but I'm not sure. Neither is Bruce Langhorne, see [] Mick gold 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early electric recordings 

message: Just wondering....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big dumb townie (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't I edit this article? 

message: As you know "Factory Girl" will be released Feb.2 in the U.S.It features a character called "Billy Quinn" who is supposed to portray Bob Dylan.The movie previews makes it look like Bob and Edie Sedgwick(Andy Warhol's Factory Girl)had a relationship.Does anyone know if this is true?(I know it's none of my business bur I want to know anyway.)
:Dylan claims she was a nice girl but he didn't know her especially well.  Edie's brother Jonathan claims his sister had to abort Dylan's child because she was anorexic and a drug user.  Either way, there's no real evidence to support much of anything.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.237.183 (talk • contribs) 00:05, June 29, 2007 (UTC)
i was just curious, if the girl "bob dylan" married in factory girl was joan baez?
      no, in the movie, he married sara lownds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.165.147 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fling with Edie Sedgwick? 

message: I’ve tried to give a better account of the mystery surrounding the 1966 motorbike accident, and its significance in Dylan's career.  In his clearest comment on the significance of the crash, Dylan said: “When I had that motorcycle accident ... I woke up and caught my senses, I realized that I was just workin' for all these leeches. And I didn't want to do that.  Plus, I had a family and I just wanted to see my kids." (Rolling Stone, June 21, 1984) So to make it clear that Dylan had a family by 1966, I’ve added an account of Dylan’s marriage to Sara Lownds in the previous section.  Mick gold (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the Crash: re-write 

message: These section headings, "Trust Yourself", "Not Dark Yet" etc, were instituted after long discussion among several Wikipedia editors, archived above see []. User: Moisejp has suggested deleting them because "these descriptions are not very encyclopedic". I can see what he/she means, but I would argue for their retention. They in no way compromise the factual quality of an article that is comperehensive and well referenced. And they do give some flavor of the themes of Dylan's later work. In other words, they add a bit of wit, even a bit of fun, and surely it isn't necessary for Wikipedia to be as dry as dust. Obviously, if there's a consensus for their removal, they should go.  Mick gold (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mick Gold. In the original (archived) discussion on the titles I also raised the issue of how encyclopedic they are (or are not) and had some reservations about them - but in the end they're a million times better than just 19xy-19xz, or "the 1990s" (god forbid - just because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't mean it has to have every single bit of life drained out of it), and I have much less to nearly no reservations about them at all now on mature reflection (why I eventually voted for them); I think they're informative within the context of the article and still supply the time period under analysis; and I also agree with Mick Gold that they in no way compromise or impinge upon the quality of the article itself (an article which I would argue is one of the best on the whole website - it's extremely well-researched, well-edited, informative, and interesting [i.e. not boring as in "1973-1978: In 1973 this album was released. in 1974 he went on this tour. In 1975 that album was released, etc."]. Still, of course these things are always open to discussion and good ideas, and I'm happy to go along with any good suggestions, but I'm against reverting back to 1973-78, the 1980s, the 1990s, etc. so my opinion for now is keep. peace Warchef (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm not against simple headings like "1980s," but I can understand if some people find these too dry. But I still think titles like "Trust Yourself" are unenyclopedic. They reflect someone's opinion about how one song is somehow a reflection of the time period for Dylan, and thus are inherently subjective and not NPOV. What if, for the sake of argument, someone (not me) thought "90 Miles an Hour Down a Dead End Street" was a better heading for the 1980s? That person's opinion would be equally valid, just as subjective, and I would argue, just as meaningless. By adding titles like "Not Dark Yet" and "Trust Yourself" we are adding a positive spin to something that should be objective and neutral. How is that any different from someone who writes a Wikipedia album article and adds "This is a really great album"? I understand Mick Gold and Water Chief's point that the titles don't compromise the well-referenced content of the article itself, but I still think even titles should abide by Wikipedia's neutral, objective standards. I vote to delete that part of the titles. Moisejp (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moisejp, do you have any suggestions for good subtitles that could be substituted for the ones that are currently there? perhaps if you give us an idea of an example of what you think would be more appropriate titles we could all discuss them, or the direction they should go. beyond the dryness issue, which i think is germane, if they are reverted back to simple dates, they will not be consistent with the para titles of the first half of the article, which all have titles/ subtitles.peace Warchef (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Warchef and Mick Gold, I must admit I don't have any suggestions. My idea was to leave the earlier headings ("Going electric," etc.) as they are, and then strip down the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s titles to just their years. But I was also hoping other people would join this discussion and throw in some suggestions too. Maybe some people will still yet. Anyway, let's just leave the titles as they are for now, at least until someone comes up with a better idea that everyone is happy with. Take care. Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic? 

message: The name described as Dylan's Jewish name in the article is actually his Hebrew name.  See  http://www.jewfaq.org/jnames.htm.  -Larry Siegel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.32.158 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish name? 

message: This article incorrectly identifies the song from hearts of fire "the usual" as being written by Bob Dylan. Its written by John Hiatt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.2.30 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Yhanks for pointing it out!Warchef (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Usual" 

message: Hello everyone. I'm planning to try to rewrite the article for The Basement Tapes as it is unreferenced and could perhaps be organized better. I'm also hoping to have The Basement Tapes (Sessions) article merged into this article; please see the discussion going on at The Basement Tapes page. In any case, if anyone would be willing to contribute to the rewriting of the article, that would be very appreciated. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Basement Tapes 

message: In the origins section is states that the Mesabi Iron Range is Northwest of Lake Superior. This is false, it is located West of Lake Superior. Please fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.59.59 (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fixed Mick gold (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesabi Iron Range 

message: The 2000-2003 paragraph makes it seem as though "Train of Love" was recorded between "Love and Theft" and Modern Times when it actually comes from a 1999 performance at a Johnny Cash tribute show.24.148.7.199 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, point taken. Mick gold (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train of Love 

message: Several editors have queried why there should be a separate section devoted to Chronicles: Volume One so I've integrated the material into the 2004-2006 section. Mick gold (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronicles: Volume One 

message: it was my understanding that sometime in the past decade, he suffered a life threatening pericardial effusion.i was going to link to that article, but i see no mention of it. am i wrong?Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the 4th paragraph of Bob_Dylan#1990s:_Not_Dark_Yet. Adam McMaster (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illness 

message: And re: Anyone That Personally Knew The Late Al Aronowitz
I am conducting an extensive journalistic investigation on Bob Dylan's July 29, 1966 "motorcycle accident" querying if or if it didn't actually occur according to Mr. Dylan's public claim that he (Mr. Dylan) sustained a serious cervicle vertebrae neck injury causing "paralysis" over a given period.
Having filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry with the Woodstock Police Department Dispatch Unit and Emergency Squad, my purpose is to accurately get to the bottom of this issue and would be grateful for any protracted knowledge of and/or information about motorcycle repairs, i.e.: paint, and/or parts delivery for a Triumph model 500 motorbike, emergency room check in for rider's injuries, hospitalization, and/or treatment/therapy.
Please e-mail at ucpyramidsicm2@aol.com where other contact information can be made available to reliable sources.
Thank you,
--Carlobarlo (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Does Al Aronowitz Know (For Sure) About Bob Dylan and "The Crash" on July 29 1966 

message: Someone had slipped in a parenthetical about Dylan's "fullness of sound at the bottom" he was seeking on the piano as having to do with "ten fingers" on a keyboards and "six strings" on a guitar.  I removed it, because it's not relevant and has nothing to do with the "fullness of sound" in question that is simply a function of the piano having several octaves of range below the guitar's lower limit, giving Dylan a "fuller bottom."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimiraywinter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Ending Tour 

message: In 45 years of being a Dylan fan, I've never heard that he ever was known anywhere, by anyone, by his Jewish, Hebrew or Yiddish name.  Always ready to learn .... Sca (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews living in Gentile lands took local names to "fit in" until it became so common that Rabbis ruled in the 12th century that Jews must have a Hebrew name. The Hebrew name is vey important as it is the name used in Synagogue on birth certificates, marriage contracts, writs of divorce etc. Dylan's Hebrew name is Zisel and not Zushe. I hope that you find this helpful. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zushe ben Avraham 

message: Dylan's Hebrew name is Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham not Zushe which is Yiddish not Hebrew. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, 650 Norton (1951), I've included your ref in a footnote to Dylan's Jewish name. Mick gold (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and your'e most welcome. Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew name 

message: Since Robert Zimmerman legally changed his name to Bob Dylan in August 1962, at the age of 21, he has released all his recordings under the name Bob Dylan, all his songs are copyrighted to Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan is the name on his passport and on legal documents pertaining to him. It seems ludicrous to begin the lead paragraph of a featured article with the name Robert Allen (not Alan) Zimmerman. Clearly Robert Zimmerman ceased to exist in August 1962. All his artistic and professional achievements have been authored by Bob Dylan. This convention is observed in Wikipedia articles on Elton John, David Bowie, and every other artist I have looked at whose achievements were created using a new name, legally valid, from the inception of their career. Mick gold (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight correction: he changed his name to Robert Dylan, and the name on his passport is Robert Dylan. I would still argue that Dylan's significant achievements, his recordings and song writing, have all been under the name of Bob Dylan, which should therefore take priority in this article. Mick gold (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, is this being disputed? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm with you now. No, the lead should not be "Robert Allen Zimmerman", it should be as you correctly state: "Bob Dylan" 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a point regarding Elton John and David Bowie. Elton John has released several works under the name "Reginald Dwight" and David Bowie never legally changed his name and his copyrights are legally in the name of "David Jones." So while I take your point, the situations are not exactly comparable. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very interesting. Which works did Elton John release under the name of Reginald Dwight? Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan's name 

message: Does Howard Sounes present any detailed information about Bob Dylan's Lithuanian-Jewish ancestry, such as where in Lithuania (in its various historical forms) they were from? This is particularly interesting to me as both an inveterate Dyaln fan and someone who has lived in Lithuania. Sca (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: I don’t think it’s accurate to summarise Dylan’s work in the 1980s as a ‘Return to secular music’. Shot of Love includes the explicitly Christian ‘Property of Jesus’. On Empire Burlesque,  ‘Dark Eyes’ and ‘Something’s Burning Baby’ have been analysed in terms of their religious message and their scriptural allusion by both Scott Marshall (in his book  ‘Restless Pilgrim’) and Michael Gray (in his book ‘Song and Dance Man III’). Marshall also considers Christ allusion to be a central theme of ‘Jokerman’ on Infidels. ‘Death Is Not the End’ on Down in the Groove and ‘Ring Them Bells’ on Oh Mercy also have strong Christian imagery. Moreover, I think it’s simplistic to divide Dylan’s work or decades into religious and secular ones. Clearly Slow Train Coming followed by Saved was an explicitly evangelical moment in Dylan’s music, but ‘I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine’ and ‘Father of Night’ addressed religious themes in the 1960s and 1970s. 
 
I like the idea of naming the 1980s after Dylan’s song ‘Trust Yourself’. Partly because he said he considered it to be a key work – in an interview in the 1986 BBC film ‘Getting to Dylan’, and partly because I think it conveys a sense of Dylan trying to hang onto his integrity in a troubled, commercialised decade. If other editors think this is bad, could we agree on something like ‘A  diverse decade’? It’s hard to isolate one theme in Dylan’s very varied output in the 1980s. I would certainly argue against the idea that the 1980s can be characterised as a period of ‘artistic decline’ for Dylan. Mick gold (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A return to secular music? 

message: The referencing of the article is no longer good enough for FA standard. Should the article have another FA review (last one in 2006)? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: First paragraph in Origins and musical beginnings section - lots of talk about his family history. Then, out of nowhere, "Bob Dylan was also known as the "King of Chill" by his producers."?  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and musical beginnings section 

message: While this article was a featured article it has degenerated hugely since then. It's almost become a live blog of Dylan's recent (and mostly unnotworthy) actions. We don't need to know about every radio session or tour in an encyclopedia article.
Also,there's a few offending sections at the end - the 'fan' section reads more like a referenced list of people/things dedicated to him in the middle. He has been influential but what's in it is boardline trivial and Wikipedia is trying to rid itself of such things.
Oh. And a section on 'Eastern Europe Fans'? Please.
I propose a fresh revision of the page that makes it more of an article and less a patchwork fanwork.
Syferus (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Very Convoluted Article 

message: Why Zimmy is redirected to here? This name is not even mentioned in the article. --Zimmy (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it's because it's mentioned in Gotta Serve Somebody – presumably short for "Zimmerman" Adam McMaster (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimmy 

message: I’ve removed the following quote from the Bob Dylan article:
:Interestingly in the publication Register for March 16, 1983, Dylan was quoted as saying:
:"Whoever said I was Christian? Like Gandhi, I’m Christian, I’m Jewish, I’m a Moslem, I’m a Hindu. I am a humanist.”
The source given for this alleged Dylan “quote” is: []
This source is a Christian evangelical blog, Lighting The Way Worldwide, which is concerned to point out “the influence of false Vineyard theology, which focuses on experiential feelings, visions, voices, personal prophecies, healing, tongues, spirit slayings, and such things.” This is not a WP:RS. 
Curious about where this alleged “quote” came from, and why it doesn’t appear in the 2 most substantial books of Dylan interviews, Younger Than That Now (ed. Jim Ellison) and Dylan on Dylan (ed. Jonathan Cott), a google search led to the following quote from The Detroit Free Press which someone has posted online. This can be found at []
:Shirley Eder's column in The Detroit Free Press, Sunday March 13, 1983:
:DYLAN GOES ON RECORD ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION
:Bob Dylan is going into a recording studio late this month or early April to do a new album for Columbia records. When asked by someone at the record company if the new music was going to be another "Born Again" Christian album, and if he were still Christian, Dylan for the very first time (in spite of having been asked so often) answered the latter part of the question. He said, "What are you talking about? What makes you think that? Whoever said I was Christian? Did you see the movie 'Gandhi?' Well, like Gandhi, I'm Christian, I'm Jewish, I'm Moslem, I'm a Hindu. I am a humanist!"
:P.S. Don't look for music and lyrics with religious overtones in Dylan's next album. His religious-theme records didn't sell too well, and he's going back to the old Dylan kind of music: some folk pop, a little protest and a few love songs.
The person who posted the quote then adds the following comments (which I agree with):
:A few notes on this (my personal opinion, just as this column quoted above is Shirley Eder's personal opinion):
:1) The alleged "quote" from Dylan is based on a report that "someone at the record company" asked Dylan a question, to which this was his response.
:2) The "someone" is never named. Did they take notes? Was it someone with an axe to grind? Is this their paraphrase, as told to someone else and then repeated to Shirley Eder? We are not told.
:3) I do note that the prediction made by Shirley Eder in the P.S. re no religious overtones is certainly a big miss when it comes to Infidels, the album recorded in April and May of 1983. Songs like: Jokerman, Death is Not the End (recorded at those sessions), Man of Peace, License to Kill, Sweetheart Like You, I and I, Tell Me, Lord Protect My Child -- no religious overtones? Hardly an accurate prediction. 
The quote on the Bob Dylan page refers to “the publication Register for March 16, 1983”. What publication Register? A further google search unearths the following -
[]
:An article in the San Luis Obispo (California) Register for March 16, 1983, quoted Dylan as saying: 
:“Whoever said I was Christian? Like Gandhi, I’m Christian, I’m Jewish, I’m a Moslem, I’m a Hindu. I am a humanist.” 
So “the publication Register” is the San Luis Obispo Register. I have searched for such a publication, but have been unable to find it.  In any case, the date of this so-called publication is 3 days after The Detroit Free Press, so it would be a secondary rather than a primary source. 
This alleged “quote” from Dylan has been re-printed several times, including The Times of London: []
My conclusion is that this alleged “quote” does not come from a WP:RS and cannot be referenced by any authoritative publication, so it should be deleted. Of course, if someone can produce a credible version of a Dylan interview from which this “quote” was taken, it could be re-instated. 
For a similar, though different, misquote from Dylan, see this interesting post on Right Wing Bob: [] which debunks an alleged Dylan “quote” printed in the Christian Science Monitor:
:Dylan, who declined to comment for this article, remains, as ever, an enigma. (Three years ago, he called himself “a 62-year-old Jewish atheist.”) But he’s more open than he’s ever been about his past, even opening himself to interviews for Scorsese.
Mick gold (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like Gandhi 

message: I believe "Radio Presenter" would be a significantly more appropriate term for Bob Dylan's job role on BBC 6 Music. While "Disc Jockey" may have been the correct term 20-30 years ago, the role of a disc jockey has changed very much as to express soemthing completely diferent and has been replaced with the title "Radio presenter". 82.6.99.108 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc Jockey? 

message: To put this song forward as "vocal support of Dylan's work" is ridiculous.  I'm sure Watt and the Minutemen respect(ed) Dylan but seriously...you know what I mean.  Jamieli (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they did, but I tend to agree with Jamieli, it hardly consitutes "strong vocal support" of his work. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan Wrote Propaganda Songs 

message: I don't know how long the picture of dylan has been up, but its kinda a bad choice. I would suggest a picture from Dylan's prime as a better representation of him for the only reason was thats when he was a) most popular and b) at his best. I don't know if there's a rule that says the picture has to be as recent as possible or something, and I don't mean to make a big deal, I just suggest it. 99.250.147.70 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreeThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I just found a supposedly public domain pic of Dylan on Flickr, I suggest we use that since the current one is terrible http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/286476690/ If there are no objections, I'll change it soon. Adam McMaster (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Adam McMaster (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pic 

message: This is one of the best written Wikipedia articles that I have ever seen. A very fine work. 
Sean7phil (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: Would it not make sense to have a more up to date picture of Dylan on the infobox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnoustie2008 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be any recent good quality, freely-licensed pictures of him, but if you find one feel free to add it. Adam McMaster (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: While this article was a featured article it has degenerated hugely since then. It's almost become a live blog of Dylan's recent (and mostly un-noteworthy) actions. We don't need to know about every radio session or tour in an encyclopedia article. Also,there's a few offending sections at the end - the 'fan' section reads more like a referenced list of people/things dedicated to him in the middle. He has been influential but what's in it is boardline trivial and Wikipedia is trying to rid itself of such things. Oh. And a section on 'Eastern Europe Fans'? Please.
I propose a fresh revision of the page that makes it more of an article and less a patchwork fanwork. Syferus (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Very Convoluted Article 

message: This has just been removed from the article: but should this be included in the article? It is the longest running fanzine about Dylan and is quite well known amongst fans. This would need citation certainly but just want to ask opinion on whether it's appropriate or not. Also i'd like see if it's as well known as i believe it is. What do others think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Isis is the longest-running printed forum of serious Dylan news & criticism, especially since the demise of John Bauldie's Telegraph in 1996. The 'Wicked Messenger' feature has been called the most detailed record of Dylan's many activities. So I've re-instated the info with some footnotes. Mick gold (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, I've heard about this fan-zine in several notable biographies. As it's been about a month since this inquiry was first raised, maybe someone should un-do the deletion of the passage about Isis? Shamrox (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shamrox I wrote (in my posting above yours, 18 June) that I had re-instated the mention of Isis, with some additional references/footnotes. Mick gold (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isis Magazine 

message: I agree with both the praises and criticisms.  The sections covering 1960-2000 are generally well written and the latter part, particularly so.  From 2000 on, the article does become something of a patchwork, because of the way detail gets tacked on but without a story to develop. However, to me, the greatest weakness is the omission of events that are central to how an unschooled, untested wannabe became one of the most acclaimed songwriters of the century:
*Dylan blew into Greenwich Village with little money and no place to live.  His singing and guitar skills were unremarkable, and to this point, he had written just a couple, highly derivative songs.
*On his first night in town, he played harmonica at an open mic at Café Wha'. He soon became a fixture at Wha', Gerde's Folk City and Izzy Young's Folk Center, where he met the scene's major figures, including greats such as Cisco Huston, Pete Seeger, John Lee Hooker, Dave Van Ronk, and among others, Joan Baez.  Besides absorbing their music, he also found a couple sofas to sleep on.
*While staying with Van Ronk and others, he read through his hosts' book collections, gaining exposure to a wide range of classical and contemporary works and ideas.
*Through Van Ronk, he played regularly at Gerde's hootenannies beginning in February, which eventually led to the performance covered by Robert Shelton in the Times. The article cites April as the start of his performing and is vague about the rest.
*At his first paid gig, a folk fest at Riverside Church in July (the performance broadcast by WRVR), he met Suze Rotolo, who for a teenager had a strong background in the arts and civil rights. Rotolo was as important an influence on Dylan in those first couple years as Baez was during the next stage of his early career.
*A few months after signing with Columbia, Dylan finally got his own apartment on W. Fourth Street. He and Rotolo moved in, living together on and off over the next two years or so, the period in which he wrote the songs for Freewheelin', Times They Are a-Changin' and Another Side. Yet Rotolo is only mentioned in relation to No Direction Home at the end of the article.
*As Jack Elliott's ex-wife points out in the film The Ballad of Ramblin' Jack, Dylan's genius was exceeded only by his drive.  He came to NYC to "make it" and didn't let up until he did.
Every biographer, from Scaduto through Scorsese, considers these details critical to the story of Dylan's early development.  Without them, he pretty much just shows up in town, does a few local gigs, gets signed by Columbia and then in a six-year period, records seven albums, five of them masterpieces. Given the length of the article, some things should probably be cut, and the details I mentioned woven in. For sources, I'd suggest Sounes, Heylin, No Direction Home, Chronicles, Positively Fourth Street (the Dylan-Baez-Farina bio) and Rotolo's recent autobiography.Allreet (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Allreet Thanks for your copy editing of the article, and your attention to detail. You make some interesting points above. Is there any reason why you're not re-writing the article in the manner you suggest? You seem very competent and have access to the right references/sources. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I do have some hesitation making these changes. One is the article's length: adding more means paring other things. That should happen anyway, but it's difficult to cut within a collaborative process, especially when the material conforms with standards (subjectivity raises its head). Along those lines, I also think extensive rewriting is needed, because with all the adds, the style has suffered. Then there's the article's importance, something that ups the ante both for and against change. Based on your feedback, however, I'm much more inclined to exercise WP:Bold and forge ahead. Down the road, I'll post suggestions to see what others think about a wider revision. And thank you for the encouragement. Allreet (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details missed in early career 

message: I use yyyy-MMM-dd format. First sentence reads: Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman, Hebrew שבתאי זיסל בן אברהם, 1941 May 24 in Duluth, Minnesota) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 04:57, July 27, 2008
: Yeah, the Hebrew text does seem to do some odd things. For me, when editing (in Safari) I'm unable to change the character immediately after the text. Is there a way of encoding it with standard ASCII characters? Adam McMaster (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Mad Hatter has carried out a massive re-edit and restructure of the post 2000 section of the Dylan article. I think he has done a good job in reducing an article that was becoming too long and unwieldy, but he has lost some valuable information which I would like to restore. Also I disagree with his putting some recent Dylan events into a new section called ‘Tributes and legacy’. For example, it makes no sense to include Dylan’s exhibition of his art in Germany last year, and the accompanying catalogue, in ‘Tributes and legacy’ since clearly this was an important new development in Dylan’s career, in the same way the publication of Vol. One of Dylan’s autobiography was an important development. Mick gold (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted the restructure myself. Reduction is clearly needed but cutting important info (not to mention good referencing!) is not the way to do it. I agree regarding the Tributes and legacy titling Mick. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim and restructure 

message: I reworded the phrase, "..has been a major figure in popular music for five decades," to "...has been a major figure in popular music for nearly five decades," but someone changed it back.  Saying that Bob has been a major figure in popular music for five decades is incorrect--that would mean that he has been influential since 1958, which isn't the case.  There is a difference between one's career spanning five different decades and one's career lasting for five decades.  The former could mean he went from '69 to '01, a span of 42 years that happened to include five different calendar decades, but wasn't actually five decades long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is common to use decades as units of time in dicussing pop music and pop culture. For example, "In the decade of the 1960s, The Beatles dominated pop music." This is widely understood, although a pedant could point out that The Beatles' dominance did not last for ten years. Their significance in UK pop began when 'Please Please Me' reached number two in the UK charts in January 1963, and The Beatles had their last number one album when Let It Be was released in May 1970, a figure of seven years and five months. Bob Dylan has been a major figure in pop music and pop culture in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. So I believe it is correct to say: "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music for five decades." Mick gold (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "In the decade of the 1960s,the Beatles dominated pop music" needs no pedantry, because nowhere does it imply that the Beatles were dominant for the whole decade--just that they were dominant for much of that particular ten-year span.  It's like the difference between "I lived in two different centuries" (since I was born in the 1980's, and it's now 2008) and "I lived for two centuries", which would imply that I was actually alive for 200 years.  See the difference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can both agree that Dylan was a major figure in popular music in the 1960s. For many, Dylan's recordings, from 'Blowin' In The Wind' to 'Like A Rolling Stone', epitomised what is meant by 'The Sixties'. Dylan today is still a major figure, whose recordings, movies, paintings, and radio shows attract much media discussion. Isn't today, then, the fifth decade in which Dylan has been a  major figure? Mick gold (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting that.  What I'm doubting is whether it's correct to say he's been popular/influential/whatever for five decades, when in fact he's merely been that in five different calendar decades.  The former, which is how the article currently reads, implies fifty years (which at this point is incorrect), while the latter simply means what you're talking about.  See the difference?  Like I said above--no one would say I've been alive for two centuries, but it's quite correct to say I've been alive in two centuries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been interesting talking/writing to you, but we are failing to persuade each other about our respective ponts of view. I still think that to say "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music for five decades." means he has been influential in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Would you find "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music during five decades." more acceptable? It sounds awkward to me, but you can change it if you prefer it. If a majority of Wikipedia editors think I'm wrong, and your version is preferable, I would of course abide by the will of the majority. Mick gold (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; I'm new here and I don't want to cause any trouble, and if there's a custom on Wikipedia towards your way I'm more than happy to abide by that; just from my point of view it seems like non-standard usage.  Is there a way we could ask for a third opinion here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballad of a Thin Man (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mick Gold. "Bob Dylan has been a major figure in popular music during five decades," is indeed clumsy and awkward - the version as it stands, in my opinion, is preferable. Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Decades 

message: This article is so full of peacock words, how could it possibly be a featured article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of peacock language 

message: I have notified all relevant parties of this, except the original nominator for FA status, only because I can't figure out how to reach the user.  Tealwisp (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: As we have an article listing every known Beatles cover, shouldn't there be one for Dylan? He is probably the most covered artist of the modern era, in a wide range of genres.--MartinUK (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: Tealwisp has initiated a WP:FAR on the grounds that the Bob Dylan article has become too long. I'll try to do some editing to shorten the article. I'll start by cutting out the sections which stray from the main narrative of Dylan's life & work. Obviously if others disagree with editing, they can holler. Mick gold (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One place I wold recommend shortening without losing too much important data is the "fan base" section. surely it's redundant and not a little arbitrary to have list of people who are influenced by Dylan considering the breadth of his influence - wouldn't a list of people who are NOT influenced by him be infinitely shorter? i think the section could nearly go completely without losing too much - what do you think mick? also, if there's anything i can do to help in the shortening process let me know, as i believe it is a great article and would hate to see it lose its FA tag. Warchef (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warchef thanks for your intelligent shortening. I loved the I'm Not There quote but you're right to move it. I'm afraid I reinstated the last sentence of Chronicles, 'cause I think that tells you what's important about the book, the passage about Robert Johnson and Brecht/Weill do explain how his song-writing took such an original turn. I'm gonna pare down Fan base and Never Ending Tour without losing them. I've just inserted all these refs for the musicians and I think they're interesting 'cause they convey the extraordinary breadth of Dylan's influence, Andrew Motion, Barack Obama. I'm gonna make the references as clean as possible. Mick gold (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the latest section needs a little trimming too. It all seems relevant and true but do we really need this much about the last two years? It's not as if these last two were the most important of his career either. Conversely, I expect this article will always be very long anyway given: the length of Dylan's career/fame and the fact that there is considerably more coverage of him than virtually any musician. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening 

message: I'm not justifying Sony's $129 price for the three-disc version of Tell Tall Tales, but should it be at least mentioned that the $129 set includes a 150-page deluxe hardcover book? As it reads now, it possibly sounds like all one gets for the extra $110 is the third disc. Again, I'm not saying the book is necessarily worth $110, and for those who don't want the book, it could be argued it's a big ripoff to make them buy it for $110 if they want the third disc, but should the book at least be mentioned? Just a thought. (On the other hand, I could also see the point of view that as it reads now, it doesn't necessarily imply that other things aren't included in the three-disc set, so some might want to leave the text as it is.) Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: doneWarchef (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-CD version of Tell Tale Signs 

message: As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this 1967 Paul Williams book excerpt (from Outlaw Blues) about Dylan's year of silence between Blonde on Blonde and John Wesley Harding. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the excerpt and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! 2008Mike harkin (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link suggestion: Paul Williams book excerpt about Dylan in 1967 

message: Dylan himself has written (in his 2004 autobiography, Chronicles) that his paternal grandmother's maiden name was Kyrgyz and her family originated from Istanbul. so dear vandals, pls dont vandalise the origin part.--85.100.174.97 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism, dear anonymous editor, it's cruft: the accumulation of more & more minor details. We've been asked to shorten this article so we cannot include every detail of Dylan's genealogy. In Chronicles, Dylan spells his grandmother's family name as 'Kirghiz'. If you're going to give a reference it should be to Chronicles, not to a Turkofamerica blog about "Turkish Bob" McKay. Your edit destroyed the information about Dylan's family leaving from Odessa for America.  Mick gold (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan has Kyrgyz origins 

message: There have been a number of requests on FARC and here that the Fan Base section be modified to be more reflective of Dylan's legacy than of Fanzines and websites, and I think there's legitimacy to the idea, so I've started the process in the spirit of WP:BOLD.
However, of course the main problem is how to shift that emphasis without adding extra length to an article which already has length issues, and in doing so I decided to completely cut the fanzine section, as I feel it's much less relevant than what other musicians and scholars have to say about Dylan's influence and legacy. However, I'm sure some disagree, and more than likely a (hopefully) much shorter entry on dylan's fan base will be re-introduced. In order to help anyone who might wish to do such a thing here's the paragraph I cut, although I feel the section now without it is perfectly fine:
"Bob Dylan's large and vocal fan base generates books, essays, zines, and similar materials at a furious rate. His fans maintain a massive Internet presence with sites that publish daily Dylan news, complete set lists from all of his concerts, the availability of bootleg recordings, and an  array of other Dylan-related topics. Within minutes of the end of a concert, the set list and reviews are posted by his loyal following.Muir, Razor's Edge, 22–25 Just one of the many examples is the Neverending Pool. The Pool, originally started in 2001 as the Dylan Pool, is an online community that runs competitions to predict the songs Dylan will play in his Never Ending Tour performances. reproduced online at "
I'll keep trying to tidy up the new legacy section in consultation with FARC (also perhaps adding a little about his lyrics and cover versions). Please feel free to comment and add to, change or revert any of my edits - I really don't mean to step on any toes, but I think it's a good move for FARC and the article itself. peace Warchef (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Good Joe Strummer quote. Responds to FARC comments & brings other material together. I'll add a bit. I find I don't miss the fan paragraph you deleted at all. Mick gold (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Joni Mitchell to the list of people influenced by Dylan with a link to a radio interview from 1974. I don't know how long we want to make the list, there is also an awards speech here [] from 1986 where Gordon Lightfoot calls Dylan his major influence and says Dylan taught him how to write lyrics. Anyway, I know we're trying to make this article shorter, not longer, so I leave it up to others' discretion whether it is worthwhile to add him to list. It doesn't bother me either way. Moisejp (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for Lightfoot, IMHO. cheers Mick gold (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting "Fan Base" to "Legacy" 

message: sorry to start a new section on something so small, but does anyone know what's with this reference during the blood on the tracks paragrpah?
REF: cite news | title = But one track on Blood on the Tracks , Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts was almost made a feature film, one, was directed by a major film corporation, and another, directed by Dylan himself. | title = Bob Dylan | publisher = Salon.com | date = May 5, 2001 | url = http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2001/05/22/dylan/index3.html | accessdate = 2008-09-07
Due to the double title this first part about the lily movie does not appear - should it be in the text, is it a separate ref that got mixed up, etc?Warchef (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled but it obviously isn't worth including. No film was made of 'Lily, Rosemary, etc' so it's not worth mentioning. I suspect it was redundant fragment from old text, so I deleted it. Mick gold (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  faulty ref? 

message: For our coverage of the 1980s albums, after Shot of Love, there's the interesting summarizing mini-paragraph talking about the Infidels to Down in the Groove period, no real discussion of Infidels itself except for its outtakes, no mention of Real Live, Empire Burlesque or Biograph, then quite a bit about Knocked Out Loaded and Dylan and the Dead (though I noticed Mick gold cut a bit out of it today)—a paragraph that I think is quite interesting—then no mention of Down in the Groove, and then a couple of paragraphs on the Wilburys and Oh Mercy. Just for consistency sake I was wondering if we should say something a sentence or two about each the unmentioned albums. Or if we assume that is all summarized by the opening paragraph, should we mention Knocked and Dead at all? Unless the idea was that the Knocked to Groove period was one of his low points (in the critics' eyes), which'd be a valid reason to mention those albums, but if so we should perhaps make that point more clearly. Moisejp (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on second thought, I can see that Dylan and the Dead is more noteworthy than Real Live, because it is a teaming up with the Dead, whereas Real Live is just an ordinary live album. And I can see that, although Biograph has several rarities on it, it could be argued that it is mainly a best-of, so it may not need mentioning. But if we are going to give that many lines to Knocked, maybe we should at least give a sentence or two to Empire Burlesque and Down in the Groove as well—again, unless we want to even more clearly single out Knocked as a commercial and critical low point in Dylan's career, in which case it becomes more noteworthy than the other two. Moisejp (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980s 

message: The information on Zigman Zimmerman's immigration, based on Sounes though not necessarily what he said, is imprecise and perhaps misleading. Apparently, Zigman did leave Odessa after the pogrom of 1905, but Gray (Encyclopedia, p. 729) says he fled in 1906, landed at Ellis Island in 1907, and sent for his family, who arrived by 1910. Here's the article's sentence without the opening: "(Dylan's) paternal grandparents, Zigman and Anna Zimmerman, emigrated from Odessa in the Russian Empire (now Ukraine) to the United States after the antisemitic pogroms of 1905." While that may be technically correct, it gives the impression the Zimmermans immigrated together and in 1905. At the moment, I only have Gray to go on, and another source would be needed to do a re-write with the more precise dates. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely 1905/1906 difference not v significant if we agree anti-Semitic pogrom of 1905 was cause. For now, I've deleted wife Anna, so just Zigman emigrates, which I think conveys  reason for post 1905 emigration to USA. Pls revert if not liked. Mick gold (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the dif is marginal, but I'm a precise freak on facts and language (albeit, a master of neither), so I worry people will either take 1905 as the immigration date or go without. For the long-term, I believe such issues should be resolved as best as possible to make the article a benchmark for accuracy and clarity. Completeness is also important, in terms of addressing notable facts/issues. The exact years and certainly Anna's name fit these criteria, so for now I'll add her name back in.  At some point after I recover my box of Dylan books (misplaced in a reconstruction project on the home front), I might attempt a revision. On a related front, I noticed the Guardian's cursory rating of the article was 8/10, not bad from a general observer who could have been more unkind. In my estimation, its actual state is much better: 95%+ on writing, 99%+ on accuracy, and 95%+ on completeness.  Allreet (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your precision but... Sounes (pp.12-13) says Bob's paternal grandfather was Zigman Zimmerman from Odessa. His wife Anna brought 3 children to USA, 3 more sons (inc Bob's father Abe) were born after her arrival in USA. Whereas the grandparents of Bob's mother Beatty arrived from Lithuania in 1902. It appears to me that Bob's paternal grandparents came from Odessa; whereas his maternal great grandparents (his mother's grandparents) came from Lithuania. But I've never been a genius at genealogy.... discuss Mick gold (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Sounes again, he tells us that Bob's paternal grandparents came from Odessa; Bob's father Abe was born in USA in 1911. Grandparents of Bob's mother, Beatrice Stone, came from Lithuania. Beatty's mother, Florence Edelestein, was born in Lithuania & married Ben Stone, also born in Lithuania. So it's the grandparents of Bob's mother who immigrated, and the parents of his father. Gray's Dylan Encyclopedia has a more detailed family tree for the Stone/Edelstein family (pp.641-642) telling the same story. Mick gold (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: its time we got some sound bites for this  article --Feeling free (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound bites 

message: Tealwisp has suggested the Bob Dylan article should be ‘split into multiple articles’. I’m not sure what ‘multiple articles’ he/she has in mind. I would argue for retaining Dylan as a unified article in its present form for following reasons:
* Dylan is uniquely important artist: Only musician from world of folk and rock music to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Only 20th century song-writer to be nominated for Nobel Prize in Literature. 
* Dylan has had a long career, at the forefront of popular culture during five decades. The article does justice to his extraordinary longevity and sustained creativity. 
* Already there are detailed articles on each of Dylan’s albums, on the films he has appeared in and directed, and on most of Dylan’s major songs. So I cannot understand how this article could be ‘split into multiple articles’.  
* Since Bob Dylan is a Featured Article and has been vetted and assessed several times, presumably it would only be ‘split into multiple articles’ if a clear majority of editors agreed with this proposal.  What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Dylan as much as anyone, which is why I think  accuracy in an article like this is important since it's likely to be the enduring public record of his life and the place of first resort for plenty of (younger) people looking for basic information. First, anyone can be "nominated" by anyone else for a Nobel peace prize - there is no formal process, and the deliberations of the Nobel committee for it are highly secretive. Plenty of people who neither ever could or should win have had their names bandied about in public as "nominees." We have no way of knowing nor ever will have if anyone on the Nobel committee ever took this suggestion seriously. More to the point - Dylan never won a Pulitzer Prize. There is no category for songwriters, and FWIW few in the American professoriat take him as a poet in the sense of, say, Ezra Pound or Wallace Stevens or ee cummings or Robert Frost. Dylan received what the Pulitzer committee termed a "special citation" for contributions to American music and popular culture - a high honor due to its absolute uniqueness - but in no wise a Pulitzer Prize.Sensei48 (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with every point made. To split this article into multiple articles would be totally ludicrous. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree that there's no need to split the article, but out of curiosity has Tealwisp given any reasons for splitting it? Adam McMaster (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, No, Tealwisp does not give any reasons. I left message on his/her Talk page, asking Tealwisp to provide reasons. And exactly what 'multiple articles'? But no reply. There's clearly no support for this. It doesn't make any sense, so I'll remove the splitting tag. Mick gold (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  I wholly disagree about splitting into multiple articles, but I do think a better structure is needed to this one- I came to this article looking for information on his religious beliefs and found it very hard to find. That's a notable thing about him and instead of being buried ina  section about an album it should have its own section. Also there's material that belongs in 'personal life' scattered all through the article. Also his work as an author should have its own section. 86.2.38.112 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps, but I think information about his religious beliefs is hard to come by anywhere :p Joshua Gross (talk • contribs • signature) 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: What? It is currently listed as FA. Maybe it's not FA quality, but it is still FA. Joshua Gross (talk • contribs • signature) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Tealwisp You appear to be confused. Bob Dylan was last assessed as a Featured Article in September 2006. You can read the Featured Article Review here []. Please read this discussion before you comment again. The article we are discussing today is substantially similar to the one that was assessed two years ago. Bob Dylan is a Featured Article today. It will remain one until such time as it is formally demoted by a Featured Article Review. Mick gold (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the discussion, and the problem still stands that the article is too long, and too detailed, despite what it was two years ago.  I am placing the FAR tag on the page.  Tealwisp (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into multiple articles?