Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 5

message: This article contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. There are also several statements, such as "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, that are unquestionably POV. Some of these statements introduce original research issues, like "He sang his songs with an arrogance and aggression that was anathema to the music industry of the time." Many of these need citations, and many need to be removed completely. Extraordinary Machine 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree. If Wikipedia writers were to robotically adhere to these injunctions (which, by the way, are almost all subjective guidelines, *not policies*) no one would read our articles because they would have all the personality and sparkle of printouts produced by machine and proofed by hidebound comittees. Thank goodness we have writers willing to stand up to this sort of Sophist browbeating and to go on including interesting, insightful original prose. Yes, I said original. Many, like "Extraordinary Machine", conflate original prose with "original research" and are on a mission to destroy their mistaken target... Also, each and every thought in an article, particularly in a non-sci/tech article like this one, does not require a citation. To do so would be to compile towers of needless references that bloat the byte length and, when inline, seriously interfere with the movement of the eye along the line. The Wikipedia writer has room to bring in his own thoughts and observations, so long as they make no sweeping, value judgments on the subject's life and career divorced from the public's POV. In the total absence of these thoughts and observations, once again, you will end up with a lifeless document that literally may as well have been compiled by machine... Perhaps Extraodinary Machine, who is so concerned about being "encyclopedic", would do well to read and reflect upon the first sentence in Britannicaa's Dylan article, which reads: "Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing." Now-- you know Ex Mach and many others like him would jump all over that sentence if it had been written here rather than in the Enc. Brit., screaming POV! and deleting it until their index fingers went blue. Yet it is the lead in from the most recognized encyclopedia of our times. Really - think about it. Arts, Entertainment and Humanities subjects are qualitatively different from Science, Math, Tech and the other subjects Wikipedia first cut its teeth on. Let's show some subtlety and intelligence here. JDG 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedic Britannica comparison of Dylan to Shakespeare would probably be considered POV by a handful of people until a reference was cited, which could be easily done, then no one would touch it. As a matter of fact, you just cited a reference, so post it if you don't believe me. As for the rest of the excerpt, do you consider "Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing" to be objective facts or "interesting, insightful original prose"? Looking at the recent history of this article, I see that your major contributes to it lately have been deleting readers' requests for citations, and have even gone so far as to delete citations people have provided. All I can say is if you don't like Wikipedia's policy on original research, stop trolling and try Geocities; the username dylanisg0d!!! might still be available. Roballyn 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a silly response and I should let it stew and stink in isolation. But I have to point out that the portion of the Enc. Brit. quote that, more than any other portion, would bring on the withering attacks of the OR fanatics is "set the standard for lyric writing". A simple, honest and true statement like that would never survive in Wikipedia because of these people, unless it were in the form of a quote frm a recognized authority (in other words, one of these hallowed "citations"). But Wikipedia is not, and should not be, Wikiquote, so stop trolling to make it so... Your 'Tangled Up In Blue' reaction, described by you below, is even more ridiculous. I never asserted that I, JDG, declare "Tangled' one of Dylan's 3 best songs. I wrote that it is included in many lists, formal and informal, as among the top 3. I have seen so many editors like "Roballyn", who otherwise seem possessed of generally normal intelligence, suddenly lose their ability to reason when this issue comes 'round. For the hundredth time: this is not the editor describing or putting forth his own position—it is the editor describing the public's, or a particular audience's position, as documented in citable sources... Finally, on the dylanisg0d tripe: If you cared to isolate my contributions to this article (including attempted contributions) you would find some of the most critical statements of both the man and his work made during the article's construction. Some of them were summaries of professional criticism and, yes, some sprung from what I am calling "original prose". It's a shame most of these statements have been shown the off-ramp.... And finally finally, I invite you to submit this article for peer review and for reconsideration as a FA. Like many before you, you'll be roundly rebuffed. This article, due primarily to user:GWO, was one of the first non sci/tech FA, has been included in every stable WP release, and is among the top 5 or so of all WP articles in positive reviews/mentions outside of WP. Good luck. JDG 11:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I have to agree. I remember reading on here that "Tangled Up In Blue" is considered to be one of Dylan's three best songs and thinking what a silly statement that was. I really believe that this article should be peer reviewed and reconsidered for featured article status, mainly because I'd personally like to see it cleaned up a little bit. I've seen people complain that certain statements in this article don't do their subject justice. That's not really the point here. This isn't dylanisgod.geocities.com. Roballyn 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These comments were a trifle less nice than they could have been.  Reasoned discourse, everyone please. - brenneman {L} 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and weasel terms 

message: There are many songs of Dylan's that are not on Wikipedia.  Mr. Bojangles is one of them.  Someone should write an article for this an many of his other songs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhoff (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 July 2006.
:Sorry to inform you-- Mr. D. did not write "Mr. Bojangles", nor "Stuck In The Middle With You", nor "Eve of Destruction", nor "Mellow Yellow". JDG 12:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But unlike the others, he actually sung them. Unfair comparison. SECProto 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Bonjangles 

message: Minor edit to the all important opening sentence. Bob is currently a disc jockey. I added this to what he is. Someone took it off. Why? 86.139.53.220 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who took it off, it might have been me. This is because he is not best know for being a disc jockey - it's not where he got his start or what he is most famous for. Many famous people might take up celebrity golfing when they get older, but it's not what they're most known for, so it wouldn't say that in their introduction. Equally, he is not best known for his disc jockeying, so it doesn't really belong in the introduction. SECProto 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with SecProto.  Bob Dylan is, and has been, many things, but you don't need to mention them all in the opening sentence.  The opening sentence (I'm just pondering here) should really sum up why this person is being included in Wikipedia, ie what is notable about him, and everything else should get shunted to the body of the article.  Of course, I'm saying this without having consulted the official WP policies on intro text, but I imagine that this is a reasonable rule-of-thumb.  After all, if Bob had retired and was now working as a bank teller, we wouldn't describe him as "an American singer-songwriter, author, musician, poet and bank teller".  Leeborkman 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc jockey 

message: Okay, this external links collection is kind of horrendous. Not in that they are bad links, but it is just very large and has a fair proportion of redundancy. I'll go through the ones that I think are not necessary.
*"Boblinks" - Very good links and concert info. Contains links to many of the sites which are on here, so it could be used as a sort of directory so that they don't all need to be on this page.
*"Bob Dylan's American Journey" - This is a link to some dead page on the "experience music project" website, which seems to me to be a commercial site, and not a very interesting one at that. The actual museum or whatever is probably quite good, but this link doesn't belong.
*"Bobdylanroots.com" - Might be interesting, but has not been updated in 5 or 6 years. (as far as i can tell at least.) I find it difficult to see the significance.
*"It's not a house it's a home" - This site is terrific. But I don't know why it is called this? I don't see that name anywhere on the site. Great site, just needs retitling.
*"Dusty old fairgrounds" - stopped updating in 2004, and all it's info is redundant in that it is all found in the next link:
*"DVDylan" - site is no longer called that, it is called His Bobness Info. It lists setlists for i think every concert he has done, and is still updated quickly after every concert. Just needs to be retitled.
*"Searching for a Gem" - A useful site to a very select crowd. Not many people are going to be in search of them. So i don't think it really belongs in a group of links which we (me?) is trying to cut down.
*"Project '74" - doesn't exist, and if it did, how much more than the other concert recording sites could it have?
*"1978 Tour Guide" - site was started in 2003, and was last updated in 2003. Doesn't seem to contain any more information on the 78 tour than the other concert directory (his bobness info).
*"The Gospel Project" - contains setlists from about 30 concerts in 1979, along with a lot of detailed information about them. But again, it looks to have not been updated since 2002, and is only interesting to a very select crowd (not the average wikipedia biography crowd. Only the very complete collector).
*"Bob dylan discography at rwin.nl" - a very incomplete discography, apparently with the same thing as the official site :except less complete. Doesn't even include bootleg 7.
*"Olof's Files" - the first one is fine, the second one has gotta go. It is a direct link on the first "olof's files" page. It is on the same site, and has the same information? people will be able to find it for themselves.
*"tangled: a recording history of bob dylan" - a purely commercial site, dedicated to selling a book. no information whatsoever.
*"hisbobness.info" - link is already linked further up, under another name.
*the magazines section - "the bridge" and "judas!" don't appear to contain much information on the actual websites; I'm sure the magazines themselves would deserve a link if you could do such a thing, but a link to their website doesn't really fit.
*"Cambridge Unversity library site" - you could do the same at any library site by typing "bob dylan" into the keywords or subject space. Not really needed here.
*"Bibliography" and "Academic series: bob dylan all alone on a shelf" - these sites are probably notable, but need some sort of explanation, such as "this site has a list of books that have had bob dylan as a major portion of their subject" or somehting. I don't know much about the sites, so I can't write them.
*Miscellaneous section - several of these are quite good (google archive of rec.music.dylan, the dylan mailing list archives.) Several others are just too minor to be important (PBS masters site, which basically advertises no direction home; the copyright free review of no direction home; the collection of bob dylan quotes (that's what wikiquote is for!); covers of bob dylan songs by others (its on the bjourner site, which is the same site as the first two olof's files links. redundant link.) ). Other links are interesting (his youth in hibbing one, kind of gives another perspective.) and should stay.
Overall, the links section has a lot of redundancy and unneccessary/unnotable links. I'm not a big follower of WP:EL or anything like that, I just think the list is long and unmanaged and needs some work. SECProto 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Do you want to do the honors? JDG 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I've removed the fair use promotional photo :Image:Bob Dylan by Daniel Kramer.jpg again, because an image under a free license has been located. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And  has restored it again . No, we haven't already "been through this"; that the copyright holder for this photo said its presence on the article was flattering  is unrelated to the project's image copyright policies. Actually, not only does this photo not qualify as "fair use", but it has no information its copyright status. So, I've removed it again. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a freely-licensed image of Dylan. In fact, we have multiple freely-licensed images.  Per WP:FUC #1, any unfree image is subject to deletion. Jkelly 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality of the article comes before legal nit-picking. The photo you keep changing to is from a distance and uninteresting. The photo everybody else (excepting JKelly) wants is a famous close-up we are lucky to have as fair-use. Changing. JDG 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't "legal nit-picking"; we're trying to build a free-content encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 15:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This new image of Dylan is too far away, unflattering, and very uninteresting.  If I saw that picture on it's own and not on this page I wouldn't have even known it was him.  It looks more like Daniel Johnston.--Hypermagic 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a free alternative photograph? free being the key word? SECProto 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can people stop arguing and achieving nothing and instead help me find a modern, flattering photo for the top? The man's still alive, so surely people want to see what Bob IS as well as WAS? I typed some random names of artists who were more famous early in their careers, look at Johnny Cash, Paul McCartney or Jerry Lee Lewis. Even if the closer to the present, flattering photo isn't the head one, it's still there. May I point out that I've even got two dead musicians here? Levi allemany 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The modernity of the photo, while quite important, is not what anyone was arguing about. You have not asked anyone to help locate a picture in the recent past, and you were not being very civil right here. I would consider that escalating the argument on this page, I believe you should have asked politely if anyone could help and they probably would have. Needless to say, I will look around for a picture! :) SECProto 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken about subject - but I did ask recently and nobody did. Look at archive 4 right near the bottom, about three or four from the end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Dylan/archive_4 86.141.134.41 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image removed 

message: I've looked in the obvious places.  I suggest that the Dylan fans here ask around on email lists and message boards for someone willing to license concert photographs under a free, reusable license.  The copyright holder can email permissions AT wikimedia.org to verify their licensing if they don't want to get an account.  Templates for request letters can be found at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission.  Jkelly 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding freely-licensed images

message: We have an Administrator abusing his powers here, but I'm in no condition to bring action against him. My only alternative is to steer clear of this article. Good luck folks. JDG 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no administrator abusing powers here. your condition seems like a copout. SECProto 11:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with JDG - this has become a farce. Lion King 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your complaint?  Jkelly 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Harmonica Wolfowitz added those citation needed tags in this edit.  You're looking at a complex revert of mine.  I'd like to mention, however, that this article is currently undergoing a Wikipedia:Featured article review, and to encourage editors to examine recent Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to observe what the current expectation of referencing is.  Jkelly 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you are responsive. I see that your editing difference does show a large number of citation needed tags added.  Why didn't you simply point to the procedure for requesting a citation which my previous-to-this-posting points to and removed all 89 tags?  The tag, after all, has a specific purpose and article disruption is not the purpose.  The purpose is to ask for a citation or two, not to disrupt an otherwise fine article. I'm glad you took responsibility for what appeared to be your insertion of 89 'citation needed' sticker, but please leave them out and insist that an editor who requests a citation do so by approved procedures rather than by disrupting an article. Terryeo 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing inherently disruptive about asking for a citation for every expression of personal opinion during an article review.  There is no "approved procedure" other than seeing something that needs citing and asking for a cite.  I don't think that the tags should be removed, which is why I included them in that complex revert, and why I reverted your stripping of them.  Instead of worrying about whether the tags were applied correctly, it would be a lot more productive to track down references for statements like "his songwriting is generally held as his highest accomplishment".  That should be relatively easy to source.  Jkelly 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However easy they are to source, most of the requests for citations are inappropriate or unnecessary. Furthermore, statements that do need sources have been overlooked, so I'm begin to wonder if whomever added those tags had any idea what they were doing. I doubt that anybody is going to verify literally dozens (more than a hundred before Carlo plucked out the more trivial ones) of one person's demands for citations with no explaination or constructive criticism. Roballyn 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may add my two cents - don't all those books listed on the bottom for "further reading" cover a lot of it?  Carlo 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So long folks. 

message: Can I ask why "citations are needed" for statements that have been pretty much done to death in every single book ever written on the subject?  Do we REALLY need a "citation," for instance, for the young Dylan adopting a Huck Finn persona, and telling tall tales about what he'd done?  Doesn't everybody KNOW that?  Can we at least assume that regular editors of an article have read one book on the subject?  The article looks like crap with "citation needed" plopped at the end of every sentence. Carlo 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. SECProto and Roballyn are outright vandalizing under the approving gaze of JKelly and Ex. Mach.. Painful to watch. JDG 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalizing? Wow. Then please, by all means, turn me in. In the meantime, if improving this article is too painful to watch then stop watching it. We're tired of hearing you talk about what a great article it is everytime somebody complains about how bad it is, which is almost daily. If my car breaks down and the mechanic tells me a lot of work needs to be done, telling him all the compliments I get about it isn't going to matter much. Instead, we're getting the thing fixed, and that requires there to be tools and parts scattered about the garage. It will be worth it in the end. Roballyn 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, I didn't know that. You can't assume readers have read any of the bios published on him. After all, they're coming here to learn about him. However, you might want to bring up your question on WP:CITE's talk page. My grad school training on citing sources was that if it was in at least 3 reputable books I didn't need to cite it as it can be assumed to be common knowledge. I have no idea if WP follows the same rule of thumb, so you might want to ask there.  plange 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Readind WP:CITE it looks somewhat ambiguous.  But it implies that cites are needed for opinions, or for info that someone is likely to dispute.  The "citations needed" in this article often do not fall under those categories, like my example above. Carlo 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, many of the "citations needed" are unnessary. I was actually surprised that a lot of the statements that could be disputed were looked over. For instance, "Dylan and Lownds divorced in July 1977, though they reportedly remained in regular contact for many years and, by some accounts, even to the present day." Statements like this (weasel words, probably rumors, and unencyclopedic) are the reason why the POV of this article is being disputed in the first place. I think whomever put all those {fact} temps there should explain his/her criteria for including them if they want to keep them there. Roballyn 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the "citations needed" tags in if I saw a factual dispute in the history, if the statement appeared unlikely or needed clarification, or if the statement mixed fact and opinion. I hoped editors would go through them and clean the article up. Good work is going on now, in reaction to it.  I think lots more work needs to be done, especially (like I think somebody else said) in making sure the citations match up to the text (Example: the Masked&Anonymous review reference, where the page cited shows the majority of critics had mixed reactions, not overwhelming bad reviews). The problem with mixed fact and opinion isn't really being fixed yet, citing one review doesn't make one critic's opinion a fact. If I googled "Dylan best album" I could probably find a valid cite for a dozen different albums, but the article would really be silly if I put them all in. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Was just trying to help out since you were so kind as to give sources :-) That's the kind of thing needed and I was hoping that by me doing those it would show how you (or other editors of this article) how to go about adding references. I'm not really an editor for this article but an outside person watching the progress. plange 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks :-) Mick gold 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job so far! Thank you for stepping into a situation that seemed to be at a stalmate and taking ownership! Let me know if you come across an instance where you need to cite from the same pages in two separate places and I can show you a handy shortcut for attributing. Keep up the good work, you might save this from being an FARC! plange 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, your intervention was v helpful & constructive. Can you do anything to address the point Sandy makes below (Work on references) re: Ref 1 BBC website? I'm not sure I understand his point. thanks again! Mick gold 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, in fact I already did it after seeing Sandy's note. Sorry I should have noted that :-) plange 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, you did, that was quick, you must have done it while I blinked, :-)Mick gold 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: I fixed the lead. It now gives the reader an objective sign of Dylan's "stature" as somebody wanted, but it does it with statemetns of fact not unsourced opinions. I didn't put inline cites in because in other articles no citation of individual awards is needed when the award statement is directly linked to a well-referenced WP page about the award. If that's not OK I'll fix it again. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You destroyed the lead. Dylan doesn't get his stature from the "Polar Music Award" and Time magazine. The comparison to Foster and others was perfect. JDG 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: saying he destroyed the lead is a bit extreme - i think you are the only one who was genuinely satisfied with an unsourced comparison to those people. I'm not saying that the new one is perfect either though - some musicians have won dozens of awards and are hardly notable at all. SECProto 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro lead paragraph [[WP:V]] - fixed 

message: I noticed lots of progress !  A couple of comments:
*The first reference currently used is from BBC:  that's good.  But the unfortunate use of cite web obscures the fact that a good reference is used.  It comes across in the footnotes as a generic website, rather than a reliable news source.  That footnote should give (for example) an author (if available), publication date (BBC always provides), and be refd to BBC news.  Using cite news in place of cite web will make the reliability of your sources more apparent to reviewers.  I don't like to have to click on a reference to find out if it's a personal website or a reliable source, so please expand citations to full bibliographic style, and use cite news or better templates where appropriate.  The strength of your sources will be more apparent if you use a complete bibliographic style.  It'stroubling to see BLPs referenced to personal and non-reliable sources, and full entries will remove that doubt.
::Done! plange 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the crucial ones are Bobdylan.com (Official website with lyrics), Expecting Rain (Dylan related news stories & events updated daily), and Bob Links (Comprehensive log of concerts & set lists) These 2 sites contain myriad links & portals to other sites. I would be happy to delete the others.Mick gold 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pared it down some, no doubt quite a few of the links are still unnecessary - I think the ones I would add to your list are the two links under the heading "chords and lyrics" as they contain very useful information not found on the other sites. SECProto 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I agree, I've deleted the others, best wishes Mick gold 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work on references

message: I recently read a book "Redwing, A Year And A Day" written by a former inmate of a juvenile reformatory in Minnesota. It contained a chapter that details Bob Dylan's arrival there in 1958. This is the first time I had read anything of this nature with regard to his formative years in Minnesota. Could this be Dylan's deep, dark secret of his past and troubled teenage years?  My research concerning his life story indicates that this may be something of a revelation.  My question would be: Why was this brief period of Dylan's young life not revealed in any previous publication?  Perhaps the author (Larry Haugen) could shed some light on this (apparently unauthorized) version of a young Bob Dylan.  It would seem to me, that without the inclusion of that portion of his life, any biographical (or autobiographical) account of his life is incomplete.
Macredenbacher 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw "Redwing, A Year and a Day" is self-published by Lulu Publishing, they describe the book as "a novel based on a true story" whatever that might mean.   Mick gold 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan in Reform School? 

message: Someone has posted a list of the episodes Dylan has aired on his radio show. Since Dylan's discography (which is central to understanding his work) has been removed to a separate Wikipedia entry, would that not also be appropriate for Theme Time Radio Hour? Dylan may go on doing his radio show for years, so the list may become very long. It's making a long article even longer & that info is easily available on Expecting Rain web-site & many others. Mick gold 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve deleted Theme Time Radio listings. Many have complained this article is too long; Dylan’s radio show is a footnote to his career, not central.  There are a plethora of web-sites giving detailed track listings and song lyrics e.g. http://www.notdarkyet.org/themetime.html Mick gold 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme Time Radio Hour? 

message: I've sworn off editing this article (at least until the sourcing dispute dies down), so would somebody PLEASE do something about the horrible 1st paragraph? Mick Gold, maybe? It's beyond embarrassing to have this article define Dylan's accomplishments in terms of prizes and magazine covers. The lead paragraph is (rightly) taken as the basic formulation on the article topic. I shudder when I think of mirrors and other sites slurping up this intro. JDG 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the list of awards to the end of the section, leaving the first sentence of the old lead para as the first sentence of the new lead para, which is the second para of the old version plus the first sentence of the old first para. yay! Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody, please... 

message: I’ve been trying to add as many citation/references to this article as I can. However, I can only give citation/references for paragraphs I believe are true, or critical opinions I think deserve to be substantiated. In the 1980s section there was a long rambling discussion of Dylan’s religious values in this decade. Administrators have added  next to practically every sentence. I can’t supply these references because I basically don’t agree with this paragraph. It treats Dylan’s religious values as though religious commitment arrived in Dylan’s work with Slow Train Coming, and may have departed some time in the 1980s. I think this is a misunderstanding of Dylan. I think his work is drenched in religious imagery and the language of the King James Bible from his earliest recordings to his most recent. Certainly Blowin’ In the Wind and When the Ship Comes In are written in the language of Biblical parables. Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve deleted this paragraph, but if an editor wishes to re-instate it and provide the citation/references necessary to substantiate it, they are very welcome. Mick gold 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion & References 

message: This section is empty. All it says is to go look someplace else. I think that it would be good practice to write a small summary of his discography or just a small explanation of this paragraph. E.g. "Having been active in the creation of music for very long, Dylan has managed to create 32 albums as of September 2006, Modern Times (2006) being the most recent. For a full discography, please see Bob Dylan discography". —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't agree. The paragraph you suggest is just repeating info from the main article. It is not very difficult for anyone seeking Bob Dylan's Discography to click on the link. Mick gold 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography, film, books 

message: Since Dylan toured with and recorded an album with the Grateful Dead, I think they should be listed in the "Associated Acts" section in the box on the top-right of the page (I don't know what else to call it. I'm a new user!).  I can't seem to be able to edit that section, so I'm hoping that whomever can will do so.  Is this even the right place to be suggesting/discussing this?  Thanks! Tented 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Lion King 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Grateful Dead added in "Associated Acts" section 

message: Please note that the two articles are inconsistent.  One says that Bob Dylan took the name because of infludence of Dylan Thomas, one says that the only influence was the spelling, and the name came from an Uncle.
:Quote from Chronicles in Bob Dylan article is accurate. The Dylan Thomas article is also accurate: Dylan told one story about his name in 1965. And he told a different story about his name in Chronicles. Mick gold 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan Thomas and Bob Dylan 

message: What ever happened to David Zimmerman?  Sca 01:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that he went on to produce ads and tv jingles in the twin cities. He rerecorded some tracks (can't remember on which album) that his "big" brother wasn't happy with and the last I heard, (read) he and his family built a house on the same land in Minnesota, where his Bobness has his farm. Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Z.

message: Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan: I've created a new userbox, , as well as a new category, Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan. If you're interested, check it out. Enjoy. Editor19841 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fans 

message: Each year Nobel Prize for Literature receives about 350 nominations for about 200 candidates. The Swedish Academy whittles this down to 5 finalists, then the winner is announced in October. The names of the 5 finalists are not released until 50 years later, so we have no idea if Dylan has ever been on the short list. Dylan has been nominated every year since 1996 by Professor Gordon Ball, of Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va. Christopher Ricks commented: "I don't think there's anybody that uses words better than he does.  But I think his is an art of a mixed medium. I think the question would not be whether he deserves (the Nobel Prize) as an honor to his art. The question would be whether his art can be described as literature."  Mick gold 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize 

message: This article, on the contrary, praises with faint damns. Dammit!
Alfista inglese 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damning with faint praise? 

message: What about this?
Have we any news about it? (sorry for my English) :) --「Twice28.0 · contributions · talk」 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadway 

message: This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon.com as a source for this article

message: Considering that Dylan's perceived split/feud with the folk music scene is a significant event in the history of music, something that Martin Scorcese's documentary reinforced and transmitted to a new generation raised on cultural pablum, I thought the article needed a bit more background on what all the fuss was about. This is my first time editing any wikipedia article so thanks for your forebearance.  The addition consists of the last paragraph in the Protest and Another Side section (the former last sentence of the section is intact except for an added 'But as' at the beginning). Thank you. AndoDoug 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi AndoDoug. The point you make is an interesting one. Hope you don't mind if I edit it a bit. It is a bit dogmatic in tone: "The folk revival had predicated itself on the belief that life equalled art..." That's one component, emphasised by Georgina Boyes and Greil Marcus. I'm sure there were other factors at work, eg enthusiasm for a good tune. I think Dylan's "historical-traditional music" line is from Marcus rather than Alan Jacobs essay. But your Dylan quote about "roses growing out of people's brains" from Hentoff is great. best wishes Mick gold 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You may be right. I've tried it after MacColl as a response. Mick gold 07:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added paragraph 

message: History, Compare Selected Versions seems to erroneously show content ("His couisin is very famous polish scientist and lawyer John Zimmermann") that I removed.
Technical problem? DVdm 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Compare selected versions? 

message: "Some of his songs, such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'",[1] became anthems of the anti-war and civil rights movements. Forty years later, his 2001 album "Love and Theft", reached the top five on the charts in the U.S. and the UK. His latest studio album, Modern Times, released on August 29, 2006, became his first US #1 album in thirty years, making him the oldest living person to top the charts at the age of 65."
I assume that this paragrpah was initially written before Modern Times, and then info about that album tagged on the end following it's release?  If so, do we need Love & Theft in there at all?  It seems the point being made is of Dylan's longevity, so we only need to reference his latest album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Infinitum (talk • contribs).
I was thinking the same thing, thanks Mick gold 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Paragraph 

message: I've restored links to 2 websites. Expecting Rain is updated daily & constitutes the best resource for monitoring both Dylan's own activity, and critical commentary on it. It provides links to every major Dylan event in the press, in book publishing, on radio, and TV. This updating is done by a vast & linked array of Dylan fans & scholars. Bob Links provides Dylan set lists & tour itineraries, as well as links to other specialist Dylan websites dealing with Dylan in movies, Dylan interviews, chord transcriptions of Dylan songs, the major archived Dylan features in the serious press. There are over 100 websites dealing with Dylan's lyrics, Dylan's paintings, Dylan's religious beliefs, etc. I believe these 2 sites are the best index & archive of all that Dylan scholarship, some of which is very good. Both these web sites are regarded by serious Dylan scholars as indispensable in terms of Dylan research. In my opinion, and that of every major Dylan scholar I know, they are neither spam nor commercial websites primarily geared to marketing. Mick gold 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam? 

message: I have merged in material from the List of people likened to Bob Dylan article so that it can be deleted as per the AFD. I haven't finished doing up the footnotes properly; I'll get to it soon, if no one else wants the thankless task. --Brianyoumans 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Bob Dylans

message: It might be more accurate to say that Carly Simon was promoted as the "New Female Dylan."  The source for Joan Baez is a newspaper article reproduced in the Bob Dylan Scrapbook, which I no longer have possession of and therefore can't pinpoint exactly.Philolexica
The main Bob Dylan article has been contentious enough without dragging in the editing dispute over how much of this article should be preserved. Keep this one or delete it, but since only one vote of 15 in the Afd thought merger was appropriate, it clearly wasn't the consensus result. Monicasdude 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the (now merged) [[Talk:List of people likened to Bob Dylan]] page 

message: I have reinserted the link to the article titled "Come In," She Said, "Ill Give You Shelter From The Storm" which had been wrongly removed at various times in the past. The reasons give for its removal were unfounded under the true Wiki principles, and I will address some of them as follows:
1. Some have said that it is self-serving. It actually falls under the catagory of "obscure" which is acceptable under Wiki policy.
2. Some have said that it is self promoting spam. The site it links to is not at all commercial, nor even solicates donations, as does Wiki, itself.
3. Some have said that it is original research. Yet the facts therein are not only facts of the very basics of the Hebrew language, but the premise of the femininity of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost has been long established in the Jewish Kabbalah and other Jewish writings.
Please be considerate of the true principles of a free exchange of ideas by not removing the link without a prior discussion. If it is maliciously removed, this matter will go to arbitration. Anyone7 03:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelter Further Reading Link