Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 4

message: May I suggest that, considering Bob Dylan is still alive, we place an up to date photo of him as the main portrait. It seems silly not to have the picture as what he looks like now. Opinions? Levi_allemany 08:41 GMT 23 September 2005
I would say there is a lack of photos in general in this article. Akamad 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd want at least two photos of Dylan near the top.  One when he was still in his 20s (like we have), and one when he was over 50.  I don't think every change of clothing and hairstyle is necessary, even decade by decade, but "bookends" of his adult life (so far) would be useful.  There is the 1997 concert photo a ways down, but if something that was more of a portrait, from the last decade, could be found it would be good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: An anonymous editor, User:69.174.186.78 made a very large number of changes to the article at once.  I think (but I'm not sure), this was an exact restoration of some pre-Monicasdude version.  The anon's edit history is wholly on the Dylan article, and indicates unhappiness with Monicasdude.
However, regardless of the RfC process, the rollback misses many worthwhile additions that are more recent.  Please make changes paragraph (or at most section) at a time, and note the general reasons for each change so editors can evaluate them.
Some problems in the mass change that are better in the current version (to my mind, and not necessarily complete):
* Loss of perfectly good image caption change
* Too much rambling material in the lead
* Minor Weatherman reference restored to lead rather than better, less prominent context
* Loss of improved section titles
* Throughout, much too much "purple prose" and subjective tone
* Introduction of previously corrected spelling fixes
* Restoration of unneeded Seeger apocryphon
* Reintroduction of wholly fictional "Friendship Years" stuff
* Loss of painfully ironed-out xtian-period language
* Subjective "doldrums" phrase
* Loss of recent note on Scorcese film
* Subjective "most famous songs" reintroduced
* Destruction of wikification of links
* False categories
There are some wordings that are better in the mass change... but let's find them individually, and insert them thoughtfully, and where relevant. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just the "Friendship Years" vandal at work, and his unhappiness with me is simply because I've repeatedly removed his vandalism, under this and other anon IDs. Monicasdude 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in mass change 

message: There is some issue right now with the fair use of lyrics. I always figure it's better to discuss these issues rather than reverting. I myself am not familiar with fair use rules. I also wrote this on the WP:FU (he he, what an inconvenient acronym) talk page. Akamad 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you trying to make a statement of some sort here, Akamad? Or just directing our attention to that write-up? For instance, where do you come down on the fair-use dispute between Mdude and basically all other contributors to this article? JDG 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was basically just directing everyone's attention to that write-up. And I started this discussion in the hope of getting people to discuss rather than just revert (this goes for all parties involved). As to where I stand on this dispute, like I said I'm not familiar with the fair use rules, and thus, don't know if the disputed edit is legit or not. Akamad 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On that page, there is yet to be a single person who thinks it is not fair-use. SECProto 02:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just had a look, it seems consensus is with it being fair use. Akamad 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I try not to touch the JDG/monicasdude dispute with a 10 foot pole.. but in this instance, the use of lyrics is unquestionably fair use. It is clearly OK to quote six lines of a historically significant Dylan song in an article about Dylan. The quote is a small portion of one song's lyrics. It's done for educational purposes and it does not threaten Dylan's album sales. Publishing a 30-60 second clip of a song in a larger work is generally accepted to fall within fair use. So quoting the lyrics from that clip counts as fair use too, doesn't it? There might be an editorial reason to keep the lyrics out of the article, but there isn't a copyright problem here. Rhobite 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use lyrics 

message: Under the 70s section, it says "Dylan's 1978 album Street-Legal was generally well reviewed." Is this true? I thought the opposite was true, but I may be mistaken. Just checking. Tix 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are right, and I just changed it.  I am fond of the album, myself, but I remember wondering what was wrong with the critics that they gave it such a chilly reception. Carlo 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street-Legal's Original Reception 

message: Do any respectable critics compare Love and Theft to Self-Portrait and New Morning, except perhaps to compare the favorable aspects of the most former to the most latter? I understand if you don't like the album, but every critic I've read has loved it. There are people out there who don't care for Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde and Blonde, but this is not mentioned in the article. Unless the dislike for this album is very widespread among people who care (it isn't), I think vague accounts of public dislike should be omitted. Instead, quote or paraphrase a respectable critic's negative review of Love and Theft. That's all. Tix 21:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the POV improvements. My opinion is irrelevant, but also - how the hell is New Morning a "weaker work"? Who wrote that? New Morning is a fine album! Rhobite 22:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The "Categories" at the bottom of this page say that Dylan is an American poet and singer. No doubt about this. But the Categories also claim that Dylan is an Ukrainian-, Lithuanian-, and a Russian-American. How can this logic work ? Maybe he is also a German-American ? I doubt that. So this is a task for you Dylan specialists: Please remove nonsense from the "Categories" at the bottom of this Wiki entry. Thank you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13122005)
:While I tend to think most of these compound ethnic categories are rather inane and pointless, that's a general quarrel with the categories.  Given that they do exist, their criteria is... well, too fuzzy... but roughly people who have at least 1/4 of their ancestry from a given place, prior to American immigration.  That seems to be satisfied for Dylan.  Likewise for the Jewish one, which sort overlaps with those others as a pseudo-ethnic/national category.  But if Dianne Feinstein and Sandra Dee are Russian-American, Dylan might as well be too (actually, Dee is basically entirely wrong, being Rusyns not Russian ancestry... but like I say, the ethnic categories are sort of garbabe). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's any help, Dylan's paternal Grandfather was, Zigman Zimmerman, born 1875 in Odessa- that's in Russia innit? Lion King 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the "Categories" entries correct ? 

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

message: User:Lulu has once again removed an indisputably accurate, well-sourced statement of fact from the article, making a personal attack on me in the edit summary. What's particularly notable about this one is that it's a statement he acknowledged as accurate on September 23 on this talk page: "But I guess if the briefness of the exclusively evangelical touring is highlighted, that's OK to include." No sources for his change, of course. If removing statements that you acknowledge are accurate and appropriate from an article simply because of your well-established personal dislike of another editor doesn't qualify as bad faith editing, what does? Monicasdude 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that Monicasdude is also back to his "wikistalking" behavior.  Just before launching this latest POV crusade, he went to my talk page, and put in some silly insults against me.  I have not communicated with Monicasdude in any way for many months (not even on this talk page), nor hardly edited this page even.  So I presume that he launched the invective on my page as some sort of "opening shots" for his new revision attempts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a funny way of noting I responded to an entirely unprovoked, factually inaccurate personal attack regarding me you posted on your talk page.  Monicasdude 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: monic weren't you originally opposed to the idea that he was briefly very religious? or that might've been someone else. Anyway, i went on olof's file, and the couple concerts i clicked on seemed to be all christian related. edit seems fine to me if the word "briefly" is inserted in there somewhere, like "briefly, in 1979-1980, dylan's tour were entirely christian msuic" or soemthing... although christian music isn't really right, seems to imply it was only intended for a christian audience. whatever. SECProto 22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Dylan's intensely evangelical period can't be denied, and I pretty much go along with the argument put forth by Dylan biographers like Clinton Heylin and Howard Sounes, poet Christopher Ricks, and critic Paul (Crawdaddy) Williams that much of Dylan's songwriting since that period ended incorporates less conventional expression of religious themes.  I originally wrote (and user:Lulu agreed with) "When touring from the fall of 1979 through the spring of 1980, Dylan refused to play secular music," which is undisputed anywhere but here. But factual accuracy doesn't seem to be much of a concern in this argument anymore, note that user:Lulu reinstated the (utterly ridiculous, completely unsourced) paragraph I deleted regarding Lowell George.  Since that poor guy died in June 1979, it's hard to imagine he wrote a song about what Dylan did in the fall of 1979. Monicasdude 22:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did restore a paragraph written by someone else that was removed by Monicasdude in what appears to be part of his same old pattern.  If editors other than Monicasdude feels the paragraph is flawed, I will be happy with their improvments; I just don't put a lot of faith in Monicasdude's edits, given his history.  I don't know the Lowell George song in question, so really cannot comment on the fact. SECProto's suggestion about "briefly" seems good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't give any credence to your claims here about your motives. Do you have any reason to to dispute that Lowell George died in June 1979, months before the events he supposedly wrote about in the song mentioned? This isn't exactly an obscure point; all you had to do to check was click the wikilink in the article. You reverted edits, out of malice demonstrated by your personal attacks, simply because I made them, even though the factual assertions are unchallenged outside of this talk page.  Claiming that Lowell George, or anyone else, wrote about events occurring after his death so plainly fails the verifiability standard as to require no debate about removal. Monicasdude 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, unless someone can dispute Monicasdude's claim, then that comment should be removed from the article. - Akamad 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I guess it had to happen.  Anyway, I made the one word improvement of removing the spurious word "violent" from the description of Weatherman (organization).  I don't think it's untrue as a description, it just has no connection to the Dylan article (there is some POV issue there, since they only bombed property, never people, and opinions differ on whether that constitutes "violence").  We don't need to try to push readers to think the "right" thing about any given thing we mention with irrelevant adjectives.  What's notable in this article is that they're named after a Dylan lyric, not anything else about the organization (well, "radical" probably gives minimal descriptive context).  Likewise, we don't string a bunch of adjectives in front of Duluth when we mention it, not even true ones.  Readers are welcome to read about the town on their own.
Obviously, one word is, well, one word.  But Monicasdude's old pattern of rolling back changes by other editors is the annoying same-old same-old that we needed to RfC before.  Anyway, please keep a watch on this change for me... I can't fix it again without 3RR. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with monicasdude here, they were violent. gives an understanding of what they were without reading their article. SECProto 16:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'll live with it.  But what would you think of adding the adjective "Cold" to Duluth, and "1851-founded" to University of Minnesota, and "Quaker" to Joan Baez (etc) when we first mention them... all true facts (and less contentious than the one at issue), and all probably more germane to Dylan than the Weatherman adjective. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i see your point, it is a very good one. and to let you know, i would support "cold" but not the other two :P just my opinion, i have no reasons to back it up. SECProto 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monicasdude back at obstructionism 

message: There is no dispute that the Weather Underground was a violent organization.  Every editor who has worked on this paragraph, until User:Lulu's edit today, has included a characterization of the group.  The existing text, which simply and accurately described the groups as "violent" without characterizing their motives, represented a working compromise that was acceptable to all involved until today. User: Lulu's personalization of the dispute is inappropriate and constitutes yet another display of personal spite on his part, which he regularly displays against editors, here and elsewhere, who do not treat his opinions with the respect he believes they deserve.  I have no doubt that the edit warring and inappropriate personalization of disputes that user:Lulu promotes and provokes will continue here, but there remains no justification for removing accurate references from this article. Monicasdude 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with monicasdude here, they were violent. gives an understanding of what they were without reading their article. SECProto 16:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'll live with it.  But what would you think of adding the adjective "Cold" to Duluth, and "1851-founded" to University of Minnesota, and "Quaker" to Joan Baez (etc) when we first mention them... all true facts (and less contentious than the one at issue), and all probably more germane to Dylan than the Weatherman adjective. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i see your point, it is a very good one. and to let you know, i would support "cold" but not the other two :P just my opinion, i have no reasons to back it up. SECProto 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Lulu personalizes another editing dispute 

message: The "oeuvre" link to wiktionary seems unsightly and unnecessary to me, especially in the intro paragraph. Perhaps it should be "de-linkified," or if it's a word that needs to be defined for most readers, it probably shouldn't be in the opening paragraph at all and should be replaced with a synonym. Minor, I know, but can't hurt to ask. Tix 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold (WP:BOLD). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oeuvre 

message: Hey. I was just listening to bob dylan earlier, and Percy's Song came on. I looked it up, and apparently in one version, he says he took the basic guitar or something from Paul Clayton. So I looked up paul clayton and made a short page on him. I was just wondering how he could be linked to from this page or any other so that it isn't orphaned? SECProto 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write up a short page on "Don't Think Twice"; it's generally acknowledged that Dylan based "DTT" on Clayton's adaptation of a traditional song called "Who's Gonna Buy Your Chickens When I'm Gone." Clayton really improved the source material . . . . Monicasdude 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Clayton

message: I was just wondering where that image was taken from. It says on the page that it is a "Private photo". Does that mean it was taken by one of the audience members, possibly JDG himself (since he uploaded it)? If this is the case, then JDG owns the copyrights to it and can release it under the GDFL, which means the image can be kept. - Akamad 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the "private photo" description was entirely inaccurate, and the authorship (and therefore copyright status and our ability to claim fair use) are indeterminate.  Jkelly 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was sent to me by an acquaintance in 1998. I took it to be a photo, hence the phrase "private photo" in the image information. It turns out that it's a still from a private video. This difference has no bearing on its usage status for Wikipedia. It is plainly Fair Use. Unfortunately, Jkelly is allowing himself to be used by Monicasdude in the latter's neverending quest to discomfit those who stand in the way of his sole control of this article. JDG 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, just being sent the photo by an acquaintance doesn't quite constitute proper release.  This acquaintance might have intended it only for JDG's private use, nor for republication.  If JDG can get permission from his acquaintance to release it as GFDL or PD, that should clear it up. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright issue 

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

message: I don't think these stats are necessary for the page. They are interesting, and should be linked to, but they only clutter up the main Bob Dylan page. Either make a page dealing with Dylan's live performances over the years, or only give an external link to the page you got these stats from. What do other people think? Tix 02:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the lists of statistics should be removed from the article; aside from the clutter, they're fundamentally inaccurate, because the database they come from is seriously incomplete.  As with many popular bands/artists, much of Dylan's performing career is well-documented, but the early years (roughly the first 20% of his career) are reported rather poorly.  For 1961, as an example, the database shows only 39 appearances (although Dylan, by all accounts, performed many more dates than that), and includes songlists for only a half dozen of the 39 listed appearances. I don't believe -- I don't think anybody believes -- that Dylan played "Blowin' In The Wind" less than a dozen times in the 1960s; presenting statistics based on data so incomplete is not encyclopedic. Monicasdude 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Bob Landy is listed as a pen-name of Dylan, but Landy is a professional photographer who produced many pictures in the 60s, some of Dylan (most notably the covers of Nashville Skyline and Tarantula--w/ Dylan sitting at the piano in the seersucker coat). I have a book of Landy's work, and in it he jokes that people regularly assume that he is an alias of Dylan. Unless this Landy reference is to something else, it should be corrected.
:Pseudonym used by Dylan on the album "Blues Project" (Elektra EKL 264, 1964) Monicasdude 16:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonyms 

message: It looks like another edit war is approaching, since James Nicol has repeatedly tried to make major edits to the page, often with overtly POV statements, though not always so. I've reverted a few times already, but it doesn't seem anyone else agrees with me, since they simply keep on making minor edits right after Nicol has drastically changed the page. If I'm being shortsighted, let me know. Tix 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I disagree with a good deal of the new material inserted in Nicol's edit, which often has the NPOV/NOR problems you mention. On the other hand, much of the material Nicol deleted had the same sort of NPOV/NOR problems. I think it's better to deal with the problems individually rather than simply reverting a legitimately "Be Bold" edit; the article has certainly been bloated by excessively subjective material.  I'll "restore" a few of Nicol's deletions of such material; see what you think. Monicasdude 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: IMO the article should start thus:
Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman on May 24, 1941) is an etc.
This is borne out by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), not in the pseudonym portion though, rather because Bob Dylan is his legal name.  
To wit: "… the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph … In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:
*(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …"  MOS is a guideline, yes, but a good one.
The subjects full name in this case is Bob Dylan, right? (or is it in fact "Robert Dylan" oops, probably should have looked that one up)  But anyway, doesn't matter, Robert or Bob, my point remains. 
My favorite line on the page though is this: "Writers are not expected or required to follow all or any of these rules."  With that in mind, it's still the right choice and I'll still stick to my guns.  --Easter Monkey 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction

message: I've read that Bobby boy was, on more than one occasion, nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature.  Does anyone know much about this?  I didnt find anything searching the talk page, but it'd be great to see some facts discussed / posted on the article about Dylan's potential Laureate status. —This unsigned comment was added by Soorej (talk • contribs) .
:There was a discussion on the matter here: Talk:Bob Dylan/archive 2#Nobel Prize in Literature Nomination. It was a short discussion, but it seems that nomination for a Nobel Prize isn't too special and not really worth mentioning on the page. - Akamad 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Nomination?

message: They frighten me.  Can a knowledgable contributor evaluate which of these are serving an encyclopedic function?  Jkelly 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're intent on cutting back, I've suggested revisions at Talk:Bob_Dylan/Sandbox_Links, for lack of anywhere better.  Monicasdude 06:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a very good start.  Any reason it hasn't been implemented?  Jkelly 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Dylan used marijuana and may continue to do so, but there is a lot of controversy as to what other drugs he had taken.  Perhaps a section on this?--24.20.181.127 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do George W. Bush first. Monicasdude 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug use?

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

message: Unfortunately, it looks the the relatively amicable period here is coming to an end, since User:JDG is back inserting the same unsourced and inaccurate texts that he has been pushing before.  The first issue is Dylan's well-documented signing with Columbia. In spite of the fact that every major, first-hand source gives the same account -- that Hammond signed Dylan immediately after his first Columbia recording sessions as a sideman (for Carolyn Hester), on September 29, 1961, a date verified by  Columbia's session records and by other sources. Dylan's account is in Chronicles (p278-80); Hammond's in his own autobiography; Robert Shelton, who wrote the Times review, heard the story firsthand from Dylan, and gives the same account in No Direction Home (p.110-113); other reliable Dylan biographies give the same date (e.g., Heylin, Behind The Shades (p60-62). User:JDG's source is non-existent -- he links to a dead webpage of no particular authority. I can't conceive of a reason to reject the account that Dylan and Hammond both give of the signing, especially since it's confirmed by other sources, and the alternate version fails the standards of the recently toughened WP:V, which calls for reliance on reliable published sources whenever possible.
As several editors have commented, the article is painfully short on reliable references, and, if past experience is a guide, the dispute that's being unnecessarily restarted today will involve proposed insertions of material that has no sources whatsoever. Before things get out of hand again, can we get a working consensus that changes which can't be reliably sourced will be removed, no matter who makes them, and  that whatever material remains in the article which can't be sourced under the WP:V standards will be removed until satisfactory sources can be provided? Monicasdude 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prince of Amicable speaks! Of course it was amicable. None of the people who usually keep you honest have been around... Finally, you have given page numbers for your sources. We're getting somewhere. Would you now kindly give us the text that shows the signing happened in September, contrary to the undead link in the article? If you can supply this text I will then exert myself to check the other sources mentioned months ago (this entails a trip to the library). Thank you. JDG 10:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I check page 277-280 in chronicles and it gives no hard dates - it does discuss his signing to hammond. It might have a date earlier or later which could put those pages into context, im not sure. i doubt this is terribly important :) although getting it right is, of course, what i would recommend. SECProto 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. This has happened more than once with Mdude's "strictly sourced" references. I'll be looking into the others early next week. JDG 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan's Signing with Columbia 

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

message: I don't want to go back and forth reverting.  So what do folks say?  In my opinion, while TTAAC does not mention civil rights specifically, it was taken as referring to that when it came out in 1963 , since Bob wrote lots of Civil Rights stuff, like Hattie Carroll and Emmett Till.  Also because of lines referring to things like a "battle outside ragin'" that would shake the windows and rattle the walls of the Congress and Senate (what ELSE could that refer to?)
In my recollection, "Times" was taken to heart by the Civil Rights crowd when it came out, and by the anti-war crowd some years after it came out.  That is certainly how I have always taken it.
:I’ll admit that there are probably references to civil right in the song (in my opinion, “the slow one now will later be fast”), but a couple amateur interpretations of a song by you or I is not enough to say that it was in fact an anthem for the civil rights and anti-war activists. Did such activists cite it as an anthem? Did they sing it during demonstrations? Even so, Dylan sang "When the Ship Comes In" at the March on Washington, does that make it an anthem? Think critically, and please, cite some sources. Elvrum 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't stand in the doorway" -- like George Wallace did to stop desegregation of an Alabama college - I thought everyone understood that oblique reference. People took the song as an anthem - though it was harder to sing together. It was used in documentaries - especially those depicting people marching. Also see: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=407 --JimWae 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Elvrum, but it was most certainly anthemic and a rallying cry song for millions at the time (I remember it well-- how old are you?). Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call - that doesn't sound political to you? Most of all was the line: Come mothers and fathers/Throughout the land/And don't criticize/What you can't understand/Your sons and your daughters/Are beyond your command. The older generations were the ones, by and large, with the repressive racial views, and they were the ones sending us to Vietnam to die for their geopolitical paranoias. That single line could accurately be called the rallying cry of the decade... So, it would be nice if you would do the honors... JDG 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 20, which is besides the point. :) Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources, particularly the part that reads "even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite.  If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions.  The main point is to help the reader and other editors." And please note that the use of bold there is not my own. :) Elvrum 23:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-07,GGLG:en&q=anthem+times+they+are+a+changin --JimWae 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jim. Almost 2 million hits under song title + the word "anthem". Elvrum.... please. JDG 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-07%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=anthem+like+a+rolling+stone&btnG=Search Elvrum 00:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan 'reveals origin of anthem'-Alias Flood 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad. I'll stop reverting now. Elvrum 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have reverted and included the source. - Alias Flood 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Times They Are a-Changin an anthem?

message: The "T" on the Band is repeatedly uncapitalized.
:Done and done. - Akamad 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs minor editing. 

message: Hello!  I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers.  Our most recent issue brings Bob Dylan into a study of music and poetry.  An online version is available for free download at this address:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/resource_library/publications_siyc_spring2006.html
If you think that your audience would find this issue valuable, I wish to invite you to include a link to our site.  We would be most grateful.
The lessons in this issue introduce students to the rhythms of poetry. The focus in on two poetic forms that originated as forms of song: the ballad stanza, found throughout British and American literature, and the blues stanzas of Langston Hughes.
It is not, then, an issue devoted to Dylan's work.  But as far as I know there are no other lesson plans on the Web that include Dylan.  Smithsonian Folkways Recordings built a special audio page to accompany the issue.  The tracks include one of Dylan's earliest recordings, "The Ballad of Donald White."  This audio page is directly accessible from our site. 
Thank you so much for your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) .
I'd say this is a worthy link, especially as Dylan is known to have made substantial contributions to Smithsonian projects. I'll be adding it in a few days without objections here. JDG 10:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian Education link? 

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

message: Hey friends,
I am webmaster of http://HisBobness.info (formerly http://db.dvdylan.com/) and would like to change the link which is posted at the bottom of the page under "Reference works". It is "Yet Another Bob Dylan Database Tour dates and statistics, updated almost daily". Currently it points to db.dvdylan.com and schould be HisBobness.info. How could I change it? Or can someone else change it for me please? thanks!
:Fixed. Elvrum 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I change an URL in this article? 

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

message: Hi, all. I am writing a research paper for school on Ol' Bob. Any tips? I need lots of help. Hit me up on my talk page. What would be worth mentioning? Other sources? Professors you know that may be able to help? Thanks. Breathe in the air, everyone. TommyBoy76 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what? TommyBoy76 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Paint my teeth"? I don't know what that means. All I'm asking for is some help. Read question above. TommyBoy76 13:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I guess I get no help. See you all in the next life. --TommyBoy76 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Paper 

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

message: The Martin Scorsese film was a killer. So BD is just a poser (of genius - at least in the 60s/70s) and a phoney....It is all emptiness. What a shame.
And it only took you 44 years to work that one out!!  Bring back  The Cat!. Denise.
:I don't want to seem harsh, but BD has been saying that wasn't a "spokesman for a generation" since about 1966.  That's nothing new.  The socially conscious civil rights anthems he wrote covered about a year-and-a-half of his very long career, and he was about 22 years old.
: Dylan has always been more a product of 1920s and 30s than the 1960s.  IMO. Carlo 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oh Dear]] 

message: If Bob Dylan's real legal name is Robert Dylan, then shouldn't the opening of the article read something like, "Robert Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman) commonly known as Bob Dylan."?
:No. Lion King 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Lion King said. Sunray 06:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Title]] 

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

message: I have reinserted the link to the study, Come In, She Said, I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm. Someone had removed it because they said it had nothing to with Dylan, except the title. That person is wrong, as anyone who reads it can simply see. It is a commentary on a certain aspect of his work, just as other links in that section are. Just because it is religious in nature, and the others are more secular, is no reason to rob people of the abilty to search out other aspects of what motivates Bob Dylan.12:00am CST, June 21, 2006, Anyone7
:I would appreciate if you could explain it somewhat then, I have looked at it, and what I see is a bunch of quotes from the bible with absolutely no explanation how they pertain to dylan. SECProto 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can see how it pertains to Dylan now. But it is still explained somewhat poorly on the linked page. I'm not going to continue to remove it. However, as you stated, some of the links and even paragraphs in this article are poorly written. This is definately true, the links section as a whole pretty much sucks. Having some bad links doesn't really excuse someone to add other poor links, but rather, to remove the bad ones which are already there. SECProto 18:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelter From The Storm 

message: She's missing from the article. What gives? David 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she does have her own article.   Where would you fit her in this one? Carlo 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suze Rotolo 

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

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

message: On 23rd September I suggested adding a recent portrait, seeing as Bob Dylan is still alive. I've found one that I think is appropriate, but needs confirmation of copyright etc. Firstly, could one of you more experienced people sort it out? Considering the lack of a modern portrait I have suggested it constitues fair use of a copyrighted image. Secondly, could somebody please upload it, if and as appropirate?
It has been suggested that it should be near the top somewhere due to its significance, although it's obviously up to the main editors of this page. The image is:
Thanks. Levi allemany 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Portrait 

message: *Links removed
What happened to all the links?? Was this done as some sort of consesnsus? JDG 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, unilateral as heck.  There were a lot of links, it took me simply ages to look at them all.  While I did my best, I of course might have made a mistake.  I'm a very strict reader of the links guideline, but am always ready to debate, too.  Any link in particular that adds a "unique resource" that should go back in?  Oh, and it was very kind to be pinged on my talk page about this, I do appreciate the courtesy. - brenneman {L}  14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has needed doing for a long, long time.  I'm very pleased that it has finally been done.  Jkelly 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, you might want to think again JKelly. Dylan is a pretty unique entity in this. It's fair to say no other artist has as large and active an Internet presence. Sure, you'll find far more Britney or 50 Cent "fan sites" out there, but typically all but one or two have no depth and go stale within weeks. Dylan-related sites, in contrast, are around for years, have copius materials and databases, active forums, news of future shows and releases, etc.,. As I mentioned to Brenneman on his Talk page, many of these links have been here since 2002. You have to give some credit there... they are venerable in that way. Well-- I'm too ill right now to get into it more tonight. I think many of them *must* be brought back, but not all. JDG 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links?? 

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