Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 2

message: Minor point, but: The sentence begins "His performances, like his album . . ." There were more than 2 original songs in his live sets then, but only about half a dozen appeared regularly (and not all in the same set, of course).  Heylin's "Day By Day" gives some setlists from the period, some have 3, 4, maybe 5 originals mixed in.  That's why I think "couple" is a shade too specific, since the main (grammatical) subject is the live sets. Monicasdude 19:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Couple" v. "Few"

message: I made an edit earlier about Dylan's pre-Slow Train Coming hints of Christianity, but it was taken out. I think it might be of interest to the reader that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and Christian tradition had greatly influenced much of Dylan's work, especially since his motorcycle crash, after which he started to extensively read the Bible. John Wesley Harding in 1967 is stock full of religious stuff, even extrabiblical Christian material (St. Augustine). Blood on the Tracks in 1975 references crucifixion in "Idiot Wind" and "Shelter From The Storm." Desire in 1976, although only cowritten by Dylan (except for "Sara"), contains explicit Christian language in "Oh, Sister": "We died and were reborn, and then mysteriously saved." Also in "Sara," a song about his wife since 1965 (I believe), he mentions those Methodist bells, suggesting that they married in a Christian church, which could explain who personally introduced him to Christianity (as early as 65). And of course on Street Legal in 1978, there is extensive (though subtle) Christian and apocalyptic imagery. Obviously all this information should not go in our favorite featured article, but maybe a brief mention of his pre-1979 Christian leanings. Tix 21:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tixity, I encourage you to stay on top of this page to make sure your work survives the current troubles. As you can see above, Monicasdude has embarked on a very unfortunate, undiscussed major overhaul to a very popular, recognized article and his intransigence has resulted in messy reversions that can't help but endanger the work of more responsible editors. Judging from his past behavior, the current version will soon be knocked back to his private concoction and you will have to make sure your edits survive the jump. As noted above, when I have the time and energy I will be bringing fullblown arbitration to bear on this article. Hopefully after that you'll be able to contribute without worries. JDG 22:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tixity, please note that JDG was the one who removed the edit you're talking about, and that I have restored it each time I reverted the page after his (to my mind) vandalism.  Monicasdude 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you "restored" it. His edit was made while your version was live, so reverting to yourself brings it back. Tix, it's going to be a rough slog, judging from this chap's out-of-all-proportion self-confidence. Keep it on Watch. JDG 00:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Conversion 

message: What happened to this article? It is now full of gross grammatical and spelling errors and embarrassingly clunky phrasing. Somebody help.
----
: I noticed the producer of Blonde On Blonde was erroneously named Bruce Johnston. I changed this to Bob Johnston, the producer's correct name
: Mick gold 00:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article? 

message: The introduction to this article is rather odd in that it positions Dylan exclusively as a songwriter.  It is true that songwriting is probably his greatest contributions, but to entirely ignore the fact that Dylan was a recording artist and (an extremely enduring
) performer, is to miss a core distinction between him and some of his predecessors in the American songwriting pantheon; Bob Dylan has spent much of his life recording and performing.  In addition to being a first-rank songwriter, Bob Dylan is a Rock Star.  And it's not like performing was occasional adunct to his writing; he wrote with his own performance in mind. The fact of his performance role must surely have influenced the writing greatly. His reputation - including the highpointss and the lows - has been formed in reaction to his recordings as much as the songs themselves.  One can get all the through the introduction without even learning that he performed his own music.   I think that anyone who sees Bob Dylan as the Stephen Foster or Irving Berlin of his generation is seeing only part of the picture; he is also reasonably thought of the Frank Sinatra of his generation - in fact, the uniting of those two roles - songwriter and performer - with all the synergies *and* all the comprimises that implies is a central part of his story. Alexkass
::A very well-taken point.  As you may note, I've made some significant revisions in the body of the article recently -- not without contention -- and I believe there's a good deal more to be done. I haven't seen it as worthwhile to redo the intro section until the reshaping of the body is more finished --and the intro will need to be aligned with the main text.  Monicasdude 00:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dismayed by the deletion of the references to Woody Guthrie & Hank Williams at the head of this article. I think these names are an excellent pointer to why Dylan's stature is higher than his contemporaries - such as Joni Mitchell and Neil Young - excellent though these artists are. Like Guthrie and Williams, Dylan created a mythic account of America in his work. I don't want to get into an endless revert/delete battle but does anyone agree with me? Mick gold 07:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I think it's important to mention Guthrie, at least.  I think it's notable that Ramblin' Jack Elliott is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  -- Dave C. 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree also. Another example of MDude's turning this into just-another-music-article about just-another-singer/songwriter. When will MDude and probably the majority of casual editors here understand that Dylan is unique in his generation and that this statement is not POV but is an accurate portrayal of majority public POV? The answer is: Never, I'm afraid. They have no sense of Dylan's stature and place in cultural history, so relevant comparisons to other artists of great historical stature will strike them as out of place. Woeful. I would encourage both of you to jump in on this point and others and to edit freely. So long as this article is MDude's private reserve, that's how long it will be tedious and unrepresentative of Dylan's place in modern Folk and Rock and Roll. I tried it myself but he just wore me out. It will take at least a two-on-one. JDG 18:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I didn't make the disputed edit (and don't particularly agree with it), the references to me in these comments are particularly inappropriate. Monicasdude 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To "AlexKass" you said "A very well-taken point". Now you say you "don't particularly agree with it". More Mdudeified gravity-defying illogic... Mick gold, where are ya? I see you doing things like reverting vandalisms but when are you going to step up and help take this article out of Mdude's underwear drawer? For starters, how about getting the Stephen Foster, Woody Guthrie, Irving Berlin and Hank Williams mentions back in there where they belong? JDG 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:AlexKass did not make the edit you find objectionable, and my agreement with his comments on an unrelated point has nothing to do with whatever point you are attempting to make. Monicasdude 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not unrelated. In fact it's self-same. Quit your bobbing and weaving and own up to your own opinions. JDG 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi JDG I’m right here. As far as Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie & Hank Williams go, I found myself thinking ‘Maybe I don’t miss them.’ It’s called having second thoughts. This article already seems very long. To be honest, I have a problem with Stephen Foster and Irving Berlin in Dylan’s context. Hank Williams and Woody Guthrie, yes of course. And I would add Robert Johnson to those two. But perhaps it works without them. I have some sympathy with you, JDG, because I think you’re suffering. But your attacks on Monicasdude seem to me apocalyptic and over-personal. He has made constructive edits. I’ll go on thinking about this article & improving it when I can see a way. But right now I’m a bit busy with work. Take care. Mick gold 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Mick-- I do get a bit dramatic. Sometimes it seems to leak from a character flaw or two, but more often it's done semi-consciously as a rebellion against the staid, disinterested tones affected by people who are really as motivated by ego as I am, or even moreso... I'd hope you'd reconsider about Foster and Berlin. The key thing is to highlight D's stature as a pure songwriter. Yes, the recordings, the performances, the `tude, all that is extremely important. But what will remain as the decades, then centuries, wear on will be the lyrics and expertly matched tunes... Take it from Mr. D himself: "Me, I go back to Stephen Foster."... About Mdude's constructive edits-- yes, he has made a few. I've never denied he has some good knowledge in certain areas of the topic and that his prose is up to snuff in factual matters. But his added facts and corrections to existing sloppily stated facts pale next to his disruption of the article as a whole. For instance, he's apparently the one who has excised almost all the quoted lyrics from the article. This is extremely damaging to the article as, again, D's chief importance lies in his lyrical contributions. The reader should be given generous helpings. Here we have an artist whose primary talent is transmitted in a form perfectly reproducible in an encyclopedia, and MDude strolls up and goes slash/slash from a very misplaced idea that the lyrics represent "article bloat" or something or other. It's a travesty, plain n' simple. JDG 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the wikipedia fair use guidelines -- which don't apply exclusively to images -- as well as other resources concerning "fair use" of song lyrics.  The best you can usually do, in very specific educational contexts which wikipedia doesn't qualify for, is 10% of the text, without getting permission/payment.  Aside from the fact that lyric analysis pretty much qualifies as "original research" unless carefully sourced. Monicasdude 15:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As is strangely typical of you, you put forward absurdities wrapped in very level-headed language. It's pretty interesting, really, how you manage to convincingly sound like you know what you're talking about while the actual truth value of your statements hovers close to zero. None of the lyrics formerly quoted in this article even approached violation of fair use of song lyrics. They were all snippets of much longer pieces and were given as brief examples to illustrate why D's primary claim to fame is as a lyricist. That is, the lyrics and associated text were in no way "original research". Alongside at least a dozen other ways in which the recent overhaul degraded this article, said article will remain fundamentally deficient until the lyric quotations are restored. JDG 04:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction to this article is badly skewed 

message: I seem to recall that Dylan was born not in Duluth but rather in nearby Two Harbors, Minnesota.  While I have no reference at hand to verify this, I thought I would bring it to the attention of those who are more expert on this subject.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heylin's "Day By Day" entry for 5/24/41 says: "At 9:05 pm a son, Robert Allen, is born to Beatty and Abraham Zimmerman, at Saint Mary's Hospital, Duluth." There is a Saint Mary's Hospital in Duluth (although it modified its name in 1997); I can't find any reference to one in Two Harbors via Google.  Heylin's comment sounds to me like he was transcribing information from a birth certificate; at the time he wrote the first version of "Day By Day," he could have just walked into the Vital Statistics office for Duluth and bought a copy, so I'd bet that's the source and his info is correct. Monicasdude 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: There are two blaring ommissions in that list. "Rainy Day Women" (everybody must get stoned) and "Shelter from the Storm". There is absolutely no excuse to exclude these songs!!! dinobrya
:Which perfectly illustrates the problem with having such a section. Even if it's attributed to the "perceived consensus of rec.music.dylan", it's still an arbitrary and subjective list. Rhobite 01:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
And the section is deleted.  I'd thought that the "perceived consensus referred to an EDLIS poll run through rmd, but I just tracked down the rmd post describing the "best" list and it's either the personal opinion of one "Steve H." or unverifiable original research. Can't find any sources at all for the "most famous" list, and since it also leaves out the Oscar-winning "Things Have Changed" I doubt it has a sound empirical basis. Monicasdude 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Famous Songs 

message: In August 1993, the Wall Street Journal had a front page article detailing allegations of plagiarism of lyrics by Bob Dylan. These were lyrics from "Love and Theft" taken from Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a Yakuza." One example, a line from Dylan's song "Floater," "I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound," sounds like Saga's line, "I'm not as cool or forgiving as I might have sounded." I would think this allegation would be mentioned.
:I believe what you a referring to is a 2003 article. A google search of bob dylan plagiarism came up with an interesting New York Times article entitled "Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage." Which refers to the 2003 Wall Street Journal article.Akamad 21:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Certainly worth adding to the "Love And Theft" article, not a major point in Dylan's career overall. The whole "plagiarism" label was mostly internet hype; Dylan took a few lines from a book and built up entirely unrelated songs around them.  Whether it was "fair use" or copyright infringement is one very appropriate question, but nobody responsibly charged plagiarism. Since the book he took the lines from claims to be an unauthorized memoir of a yakuza's life, drawn from the yakuza's own words without permission, there are certainly several levels of ironies to be explored. Monicasdude 00:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I kinda think a recent edit by Monicasdude (on the xtian period thing) showed a slightly lowered degree of arrogance.  But this one included sentence is a pretty wild example of POV and original research:
:"[The] dozen or so covers added to his repertoire in 1999 testify to both a world-weary yearning for release and an abiding faith in Christ's promise of redemption."
It is a quote, not written by Monicasdude, but its inclusion is pretty telling nonetheless.
Anyway, I corrected that, we'll see what he does next.  Please keep an eye on efforts to insert such wild speculation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:50, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
Read the Wikiguidelines: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly." If you think there's a significant-minority view that's not represented, then add it. You were asked to document your argument on the 3RR board, and all you came up with were superficial quotes that didn't match what you'd written. Monicasdude 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outrageous POV mongering by Monicasdude 

message: Thank you, Ryan Delaney, for protecting the Bob Dylan page.  I also read your comments on the Vandalism in Progress page.  I would like to understand better what qualifies as vandalism, and how to approach users such as the currently troublesome User:Monicasdude.
In characterizing Monicasdude's edits as vandalism, I realized the case was atypical of simple vandals.  He certainly did not insert, e.g. "John Smith is a fag" or the sort of irrelevant graffiti that you see on some pages.  But it's also not a matter of any particular factual or POV issue in the article.
Judging by the changelog and the discussion page, since before I ever read or edited that particular Bob Dylan page, Monicasdude has shown a particular and consistent pattern of "bad faith editing."  His edit history is mostly on either the Dylan page, or on related pages (albums by Bob Dylan, similar artists), with a clear concentration on the Dylan page itself.  It seems that Monicasdude has a particularly monomaniacal enthusiasm for Dylan; moreover, I think he honestly believes that his edits are correct and of high quality.  But at the same time, his immersion in trivia around the particular subject has bred an exaggerated sense of his own writing skills and knowledgeability.  Enough that he believes this WP page to be "his page."
The concrete result is that Monicasdude finds it loathsome for the page to contain any wording written by anyone else.  Most recently I've tried to make some (pretty minor) changes, and encountered that.  But in the talk page you can see several past editors who banged their head against the same thing (and eventually left in frustration).  When I make an edit (or before I tried to edit, when other editors did), Monicasdude inevitably rolls back my wording to whatever he had himself earlier written about the same topic (it must only be verbatim his own words).  If I try variations that seem to satisfy his stated concerns (with some additional concern for clear expression and factuality), he equally inevitably makes rude comments in the edit history, and again restores his "golden" version.  Sometimes he writes long, rambling digressions on the talk page to justify his version, but while rich in trivial footnotes, they never actually relate to the edit in question (not seeing the forest for the trees).  His rollbacks are not always literally restoration of an exact prior version, which makes it harder to see if you haven't worked on the page—he might restore the paragraphs he himself wrote a while back, not necessarily in the same order as other people have modified those paragraphs.
The net effect is that no single edit by Monicasdude is unreasonable if taken in isolation.  They're not necessarily particularly good in either factuality or writing quality, but no worse than a lot of edits by good faith editors (on whatever pages, not speaking just of other Dylan editors).  But taken together, Monicasdude editing stategy is "this is my page, and no one else is worthy to edit it." 
So what to do? Is there an appropriate administrative mechanism to try to get the page to be a cooperative project rather than just Monicasdude's personal user page? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
:You are simply not telling the truth here. This is just obsessive personal abuse.  Anyone who reviews the article's history can review the claim and see that it is utterly false.  Monicasdude 18:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Ryan Delaney now willing to act as some sort of arbitrator on this page? We very much need it. Ryan, while I'm not in complete sync with Lulu, his characterization of the situation with Monicasdude is entirely true and pins down very well the problems we've been having with this formerly excellent article. Don't be thrown off by Monicasdude's level-headed-sounding way of discussing issues, nor by the benignity of most of his edits when seen in isolation. Overall, he has seized control of this article and for months now has shot down all good-faith efforts at collaboration. His primary anti-social act was his all-at-once, undiscussed major overhaul of an article already recognized for excellence. He refused to go step-by-step and doggedly wielded the revert capability. Since then he has stood guard over this now much-diminished article, gunning down a series of people who have tried to make even minor adjustments. An arbitrator in your position would have a tough job because very little of what Mdude has done, seen in isolation, is against any policy or guidelines (although I still maintain that his original overhaul, carried out with no Talk activity until I forced him onto the carpet with reverts of my own, should be actionable in some way). In short, Ryan, if there is some way you can loosen Mdude's grip on this article, you will be doing WP a great service. His claims of "personal abuse" are just ridiculously thin-skinned and untrue. He obsessively controls this article and he registers any attempt by others to exercise their normal function as editors as a personal affront to him. Please let us know what you can do. JDG 17:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, as usual, not telling the truth, except when you point out that I have not violated any applicable policies or guidelines.  Anyone who reviews this talk page can easily find examples where I have urged others to contribute, and anyone can refer to the FARC page where I said that steps should be taken to encourage greater participation.  In this context, the bad faith of your comments should be apparent. Monicasdude 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth as you see it is an odd thing, and seems to be confined to you alone. It's true you've lip-served the idea of contributions by others, but in practice you just gun them down. And what happens in practice is what matters and is what will be judged if you continue to chase all the other kids out of the sandbox... And please get off this "bad faith" and "personal abuse" kick. No one here is trying to tear anyone down for tearing-down's sake. We're trying to find a way to retain your involvement with this article in a way that doesn't erase everybody else's input. If the two can't co-exist the former will be jettisoned. Believe it. JDG 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who reviews your long history of revising and erasing so many contributions to this page will understand why your comments are bad faith. Monicasdude 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Revising and erasing"-- isn't that called editing? It's flat-out amazing how you cast a sinister light on normal Wiki actions when they are done by someone other than yourself. When you do them, of course, they are sparkling and pure. Well, we seem ineluctably headed for arbitration. Good luck, Mdude. JDG 19:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You were simply removing anything from the page that did not conform to your narrow and often factually ungrounded perceptions.  That is not editing, that is censoring. Monicasdude 23:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate, but asked you to clarify various comments you made before accepting you as mediator. You made no substantive responses to my requests.  I again ask you to explain what the subject of mediation should be, since your comments to user:SECProto on this articles talk page apparently disposed of the issue in the content dispute. Monicasdude 22:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know full well that the problems other editors have with you include your notions of what is and is not NPOV, and that Ryan was here to help us sort that and all the other disagreements out. You tried to put him and us off with your usual obfuscation tactics, but time has run out on that kind of manuevering (Mdude at 00:58 Aug. 27: "I see nothing to mediate at this time", Mdude at 22:51 Aug. 27: "Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate"-- give us a break). It is now early morninig of Sunday, August 28. If I see no unconditional acceptance by you of Ryan's mediation on this Talk page by 9am Eastern U.S. Monday, including your preferred communication mode and times of availability, I will join the formal RfC against you with all the energy I can muster. JDG 07:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, you could simply agree to conform to the applicable NOR and NPOV policies which Ryan Delaney stated, above.  Monicasdude 01:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding vandalism 

message: I'm all moved in, and I am ready to mediate this dispute when the involved parties indicate willingness to accept mediation. Please sign your name below this line and indicate your preferred times and mode of communication (IRC/email/AOL IM etc). ⟳ausa کui × 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate, but asked you to clarify various comments you made before accepting you as mediator. You made no substantive responses to my requests.  I again ask you to explain what the subject of mediation should be, since your comments to user:SECProto on this articles talk page apparently disposed of the issue in the content dispute. Monicasdude 22:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know full well that the problems other editors have with you include your notions of what is and is not NPOV, and that Ryan was here to help us sort that and all the other disagreements out. You tried to put him and us off with your usual obfuscation tactics, but time has run out on that kind of manuevering (Mdude at 00:58 Aug. 27: "I see nothing to mediate at this time", Mdude at 22:51 Aug. 27: "Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate"-- give us a break). It is now early morninig of Sunday, August 28. If I see no unconditional acceptance by you of Ryan's mediation on this Talk page by 9am Eastern U.S. Monday, including your preferred communication mode and times of availability, I will join the formal RfC against you with all the energy I can muster. JDG 07:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal mediation 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude.  Please help certify it and flesh it out.
Note: Subsequent to initially creating the RfC page, I toned down the inflammatory language in my description (taken from this talk page), and provided a list of WP policies and edit diffs. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:22, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
:Alternatively, you could simply agree to conform to the applicable NOR and NPOV policies which Ryan Delaney stated, above.  Monicasdude 01:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal mediation started

message: Friends of truth,
Last year I posted a link under the "Commentary" section of the article on Bob Dylan. It contained relevant commentary on a certain religious aspect of some of Bob's songs. At that same time I sent the same link to many people who had websites on Mr. Dylan. I received some "thank you"s and we will pass this on comments. Yet the one identifying himself as Monicasdude remove said link from the article on June 11, 2005 generally calling it "inexplicable."
I must seriously protest this action, and request that the community replace that link (or allow me to), for it is in perfect harmony with the other two links that were under that section at that time. That is, there was one explaining the Judaic roots in Bob's songs, while the other was touching on the Christian roots. My linked article addresses both of those roots, so there is no fair reason why it should be excluded from that Commentary section.
I realize that the content in the link  is very controversial, but it is quite factual. If anyone thinks that it is in error as to the meaning of some of the most thought provoking lyrics in Bob's songs, then somebody should ask Bob, himself, about whether I am right or wrong on the matter. That, or produce something better and more accurate to the biblical meaning of the images he is using to portray the feminine aspect of the salvation he so often proclaims he loves.
So how can the "wiki community" be truly representative of those who have practical knowledge on matters which some would like to consider so "ambiguous" as to allow anyone to form their own opinion on what Bob is saying, while at the same time totally ignoring the fact that he is truly singing about what he has first hand knowledge of and is trying to "turn us on" to the joy he finds in such realities.
Therefore, I think that it would not only be wholly appropriate to reinsert the link to my article, but also that in leaving it excluded from the Commentary section would be cheating the wiki community by depriving them of an insight that Bob Dylan, himself, would applaud. How can I be so bold in saying this? I, like him, have been trying to come in when She called, and am also seeking Shelter from the Storm. Here is the link in question.
 *Come in, She said, I'll give you shelter from the storm
Anyone 7 9:22 CST 31 August, 2005
:To the above user: Deciding on which links to include in an article is a very subjective thing. I visted your page and feel it would benefit by a short, plainspoken introduction on what the page is about, why you feel the biblical material you quote is of particular relevance to Dylan's lyrics, etc.,. As you can tell if you've read much of this Talk page, many editors are unhappy with Monicasdude's heavy hand. If you would like to comment on the matter, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude and record your opinions. We need the issues in that RfC resolved before the article can be unlocked, and the more opinions we get the easier it will be to arrive at some satisfactory resolutions. JDG 17:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest removal of Shelter link 

message: Dear friends, I am writing this in regards to having my link put back in the Bob Dylan article. But as the article is involved in a controversy at this time, and as my link is somewhat relative to a certain aspect of the controversy, I must address that matter also.
There is a controversy as to whether or not Bob had a "Christian" period in regard to his music (which may or may not be over), and also a secular one that is totally separate from the "Christian" one. While it is true that he did do some openly "Christian" albums, I cannot think of any of his published songs that do not contain a "Christian" evangelistic theme. I say this because of what he has, seemingly, always been doing in reference to what is written here:
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Colossians 3:16.
"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Eph 5:19. (See the preceding verses for the context).
Where is the evidence to support the idea that Bob's music did not contain these principles to some degree or another? Not all of the "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" that Christians (or Jews for that matter) are to do are required to have overtly religious language to fall within the counsel give above. For centuries many involved in the Protestant reformation have used metaphors and parable like songs to preach the truth of the moral aspects contained in the pure Judeo-Christian tradition. Christ, Himself, did that. To wit,
"And He spake many things unto them in parables...
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?...
He said:
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand....
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:...
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Matthew 13:3, 10, 13, 34, 35.
One of Bob's earliest songs, Long Ago, and Far Away, expressed the principle that was to underlie all of his work. In there he said,
"To preach of peace and brotherhood, Oh, what might be the cost! A man he did it long ago, and they hung him on a cross. Long ago, far away; These things don't happen no more, nowadays."
Of course he was being somewhat sarcastic therein, for those things do happen today (in one form or another), and were happening to him.
His song, Rainy Day Women 12 & 35, is but another expression of the same biblical principle that is stated in the Sermon on the Mount -
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Matthew5:11, 12.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophet." Luke 6:22, 23.
In that song Bob was just expressing that principle as it related to his own experience of preaching truth and being persecuted for it - he was being "stoned" everywhere he turned, but was so filled with the Spirit for doing what was right (regardless of whatever wrong he may also have been doing), that he was encouraging everyone to do the same right doing by saying, "Everybody must get stoned." Though he may have been somewhat drunk or stoned as he wrote that, or during the time he wrote it, it is the biblical principle that is at the heart of the song. It is not a "secular" (non-religious) song, as some would want to portray it.
In his recent TV interview, he spoke quite plainly about the agreement he had with "destiny" from the early days of his career. When asked of who he had that agreement with he said, "the Commander and Chief." Ed Bradley asked if that was the Commander and Chief of "this world." Dylan replied, "this world, and the unseen world." So believe his own testimony on this matter. He knew who he has been trying to serve. Allow him to have his due in this regard, and refrain from trying to look at him through variously colored glasses.
The folk singers got upset when they couldn't put him in their box. The same is true with many others, including the so-called evangelical Christians. When Bob seemingly separated himself from those type of Christian fellowship many said that he left Christianity. Why? Because they defined Christianity as their particular version of such. But Bob rejected their notions without rejecting his own faith and experience. Years after he left those type of fellowships he came out with the song, "Trying to get to heaven before they close the door." The last line of the last verse from his newest album says,
"Look up, look up - seek your Maker - 'fore Gabriel blows his horn."
If that is secular, then a monkey is my uncle (no comments please).
So, back to my link. There are things in many of his songs which plainly speak of a feminine aspect he was, and is, relating to in a salvation relationship. That is what my link comments on. For those who are not aware, Jewish Kabbalists go through all kinds of religious exercises in order to just get a glimpse of Her (see The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai, Wayne State University Press). But Bob says to some, "I've forgotten more about Her than you'll ever know."
Therefore, while the controversy among Monicasdude and others goes on, there is no good reason why Wiki should allow my link to remain an innocent victim of Monicasdude's stated "inexplicable" removal. Unless someone has a specific valid issue as to why my link should not be there, please do not let the spirit of blind bigotry prevail in this matter. If someone has a valid reason for keeping it out of the article, let's talk about it. I do intend to add a short explanation of it, as suggested by JDG. Thank you for your ears. Anyone 7 10:15 CST 12 September, 2005
:Hasn't this country been punished enough by the Branch Davidians, their megalomaniacal leader and their supporters (e.g. Timothy McVeigh)?  Apparently we have to be treated to more of their rants even through Wikipedia.  216.119.139.33 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Shelter and Monicasdude, and Christian Controversy