Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bar Mitzvah

I wrote: “Dylan became a Bar Mitzvah” in May 1954. Another editor has changed it to: “Dylan had a Bar Mitzvah”. Which is right? As I understand it, Bar Mitzvah is not an event but a person. Bar Mitzvah means “one (male) to whom the commandments apply” and Bat Mitzvah means “one (female) to whom the commandments apply” so you become a Bar Mitzvah, rather than have one. Opinions of learned and/or observant editors? Mick gold (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, to be a Bar Mitzvah (check the capitals with a quick web search) is correct. More widely accepted usage (certainly among but not limited to Gentiles) is that one receives or has a Bar Mitzvah, as in having a birthday. Dictionaries confirm the two uses. Try to work in that sense, because as it stands it doesn't sound right. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit religious/spiritual beliefs. Bob believes in God. Ed Bradley interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.133.34 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Forever Young" still one of his most performed songs?

Just wanted to confirm about the statement that "'Forever Young' remains one of his most frequently performed songs." The page used as a citation simply lists a bunch of performances (up to the year 2000) of the song. It looks like a lot of performances, but would be a stronger citation if it showed how many performances he's done of this song in relation to other songs. Here: [[2]] the song is listed as being the #23 most performed song as of April 2000. I guess among his hundreds of songs #23 could maybe still be said to be "one of his most frequently performed songs," but where do we draw the line? Also, that data is 8.5 years old. The song may well still be around #23 now, but it may not. Does anyone know of more recent data? I'd feel more confident about the statement if our data was more recent. My other question about this is that "remains one of his most frequently songs" could be ambiguous. That could mean it is one of the songs that he has performed the most in his career, but it could also be taken to mean it is one of the songs he is performing the most these days. But I don't think the latter is true. According to this: [[3]], he hasn't played it since March. Anyhow, we possibly need to reword this statement, or take it out, or find a better citation for it. Any thoughts about this? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Moisejp I think you're right to query this. The statistical evidence on this song is not impressive, and my sense of Dylan's set lists over last 5 years does not make it 'one of his most performed songs'. So I've removed the phrase. I think it's still worth including critical comments on this song, since I think it has achieved the status of one of Dylan's classics. Agree? thanks Mick gold (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. It's surely one of his most popular songs of the 70s, as evidenced by the fact it was included on Greatest Hits Vol. 3, The Best of Bob Dylan and on the one-disc version of Dylan (2007). I wonder if there would be another way to hint at its "classic" status without saying it was one of Dylan's most performed songs. Moisejp (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added critical comment and Sounes's point that Jakob Dylan believed the song was about him. Mick gold (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edie Sedgwick

An editor has copied & pasted the following text from the Edie Sedgwick article into the Bob Dylan article:

Following her departure from Warhol's circle, Edie Sedgwick began living at the Chelsea Hotel, where she became close to Bob Dylan. She is rumoured to have been one of the inspirations behind Dylan's seminal 1966 opus Blonde on Blonde, his song "Just Like a Woman", and the song "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat". It was also claimed that the phrase "your debutante" on the track "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" referred to her. Sedgwick and Dylan's relationship ended when Sedgwick found out that Dylan had married Sara Lownds in a secret ceremony – something that she apparently found out from Warhol during an argument at the Gingerman Restaurant in February 1966.

According to Paul Morrissey, Sedgwick had said: "'They're [Dylan's people] going to make a film and I'm supposed to star in it with Bobby [Dylan].' Suddenly it was Bobby this and Bobby that, and they realized that she had a crush on him. They thought he'd been leading her on, because just that day Andy had heard in his lawyer's office that Dylan had been secretly married for a few months - he married Sara Lowndes in November 1965... Andy couldn't resist asking, 'Did you know, Edie, that Bob Dylan has gotten married?' She was trembling. They realized that she really thought of herself as entering a relationship with Dylan, that maybe he hadn't been truthful."

The following statements are WP:OR:

She is rumoured to have been one of the inspirations behind Dylan's seminal 1966 opus Blonde on Blonde, his song "Just Like a Woman", and the song "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat". It was also claimed that the phrase "your debutante" on the track "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" referred to her.

‘Rumoured to have been’ and ‘it was also claimed that’ are weasel words and we should avoid weasel words. The claims about Sedgwick’s relationship to Dylan come down to claims made by Paul Morrissey and by Sedgwick’s brother at the time of the release of the film Factory Girl. But serious doubts have been cast on the claims of Sedgwick’s brother, see [[4]].

The Biography of Living Persons policy WP:BLP states:

Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.

And also:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research

I believe the Sedgwick material added to the Dylan article violates these policies, so I’ve removed it. Mick gold (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How Did a College Dropout Like Dylan Dodge the Draft?

This Article Ignores the Fact That Three Million Men Served in Vietnam, America's Longest War. The article essentially ignores some of extremely obvious and important sociopolitical events of Dylan's youth. How did a college dropout such as Dylan avoid the draft?

This has not been the subject of much study and so does not appear here: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This is a page to discuss improving the article, not to discuss Dylan. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dylan names 'A Red, Red Rose' as "the lyric or verse that had the greatest impact on his life"

Surely this is notable enough for a brief mention in the article?

"As part of an advertising campaign this year, Dylan was asked to name the lyric or verse that had the greatest impact on his life. Rather than quoting his idol Woody Guthrie or poet Dylan Thomas, from whom it is thought that Robert Zimmerman took his name, Dylan selected A Red, Red Rose, written by Robert Burns in 1794."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/06/bob.dylan.robert.burns.inspiration

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3141308/Bob-Dylan-inspired-by-Scottish-poet-Robert-Burns.html

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2457326.0.Poetry_power_Bob_Dylan_names_Burns_as_inspiration.php

--Mais oui! (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dylan has been busy with marketing of late. Victoria's Secrets, Cadillac cars, Hohner harmonicas [[5]], signed prints of his paintings, tie-ins with Starbucks. And now he higlights Robbie Burns as part of an HMV marketing campaign [[6]] where "Bob Dylan will be celebrated as HMV's 'Artist Of The Month', which will see his extensive catalogue promoted along with his new album, Tell Tale Signs: Rare And Unreleased 1989 ~ 2006." IMHO he's still a great artist, but this article has omitted mention of several of his marketing adventures for reasons of space. And, for me, only one Dylan lyric really resonates with the spirit of Burns—'Highlands'. (Christopher Ricks has suggested that his use of the word 'birdies' in 'Day of The Locusts' is "calling up the songs of Robert Burns".) This tribute to Burns is intriguing but I don't think anyone has argued that Dylan's work is steeped in the spirit of Burns, in the way that he has clearly absorbed Woody Guthrie and Robert Johnson deep into his creative unconscious. Mick gold (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

odd text

at the end of the 'family' section there is this strange line: Patrick enterd and became human No idea why it's there but when i try to edit the page to remove it i can't see the offending text - can anyone explain why this is? I'm happy to fix it but can't at present. thanks

It was obviously vandalism which has thankfully been reverted.--JayJasper (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1959-2008?

Shouldn't it be 1959-present if he isn't retiring? Get back to me on that. Meanwhile I'm going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigUns (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. He's still going strong, after all.--JayJasper (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dylan: His Greatest Hits

this section appears to just be an advertisement for the new greatest hits album rather than contribute to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.32.83 (talk • contribs) 00:20, August 2, 2007

There is no section in the article with that title. What part are you specifically referring you, and what specifically sounds like an advertisement. Specific feedback is much more helpful than general comments. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a really old comment – I guess the archiver bot doesn't touch unsigned comments so it never got archived. Adam McMaster (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkish/Kyrgyz section should be removed

It says both his paternal grandparents are from Turkey??? His paternal grandma's last name originates from freaking Kyrgyzstan.... IS THIS TRUE???? I heard some other people say this is bull sh*t, and that he lies about a lot of stuff (he even said he was born in Gallup, New MExico). Damn, I can't listen to a guy who's grandma came from freakin Kyrgystan.... Please tell me he is lying???? That would make him half-Turkish, but he doesn't look it. I mean even if you mixed a German and a Turk, he would look brownish, but Bob Dylan is supposedly Turkish and Lithuanian, and looks whiter than me, and I'm 100% Irish. How the hell would a Turk get the name Zimmerman anyway? Please give me some info on this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk • contribs) 06:31, October 30, 2008

I don't know where you saw on the article that Bob Dylan is Turkish. I went through the reverts from the last couple of days and couldn't find anything. - Akamad (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Article states:

In his autobiography Chronicles: Volume One, Dylan writes that his paternal grandmother's maiden name was Kirghiz and her family originated from Istanbul.(ref: Dylan, Chronicles, Volume One, pp. 92–93)

It's there because Dylan tells us this info about his family history in his autobiography. Some Dylan biographers have queried this info. In The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray writes:

(Abraham Zimmerman's) mother, Anna, who had also moved to Hibbing, and lived for some years with Bob’s Uncle Maurice, moved into a nursing home way down in St. Paul and died there of arteriosclerosis on April 20, 1955. She had outlived her husband by almost 20 years. Her death certificate, with the information supplied by Uncle Maurice, confirmed that she’d been born in Odessa. Dylan contradicts this, writing in Chronicles Volume One of visiting her when she still lived in Duluth: she ‘had only one leg and had been a seamstress. She was a dark lady, smoked a pipe... [Her] voice possessed a haunting accent—face always set in a half-despairing expression. . . .She’d come to America from Odessa... [but] Originally she’d come from Turkey, sailed from Trabzon, a port town, across the Black Sea.. Her family was from Kagizman, a town in Turkey near the Armenian border, and the family name had been Kirghiz. My grandfather’s parents had also come from that area... My grandmother’s ancestors had been from Constantinople.’

So the info is there because Dylan tells us about it in his autobiography. Mick gold (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't you listen to someone who was Turkish or Kyrgyzstani? "Please tell me he is lying????" ? that is pathetic.Warchef (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan is not Turkish or Kyrgyz. He is like a 60 year old drug addict who has done more shit in his life that you can even dream of, and you honestly believe him when he says he's from Turkey? If what he said is true, then he is half Turkish. How is it possible for a Turk (his grampa) to get the name "Zimmerman?" There are hardly any Turkish Jews, let alone Turkish Jews named "zimmerman." This information should be deleted; I'm certain it's false.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk • contribs) 06:31, October 30, 2008

One grandparent would make a quarter, not a half, and I don't know anyone who takes his name from his grandmother. Read the article before fulminating, then let's have some sources, not POV off the top of your head, please? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the Turkish/Kyrgyz section. It is unnecessary first of all. There is no reason why anybody needs to know that. If you want to ge tthat in-depth you can start a Bob Dylan origins page. Besides, I believe it is a load of BS. If everything that came out of Dylan's mouth was true, half this article would be wrong. He said he was born in Gallup, New Mexico in one interview.... Shall we put that as his birth place?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk • contribs) 06:31, October 30, 2008

Dude, chill. To be blunt, your opinion on Dylan has absolutely no effect on what goes into this article. It is sourced by the autobiography says that the autobiography says that his grandmother is from Turkey. Read up on Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources first. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, should I change his birthplace to Gallup, New Mexico? He has stated this before as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk • contribs) 06:31, October 30, 2008

No, because his place of birth as listed is verifiable. If you want to dispute where his grandmother was born, then find a reliable source which says otherwise. It's not enough to demand that the article be changed just because you have a problem (for whatever reason) accepting the facts written in it. Adam McMaster (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, The Biography of Bob Dylan written by Michael Gray says she was born in Odessa. He says his grampa was from Turkey to in the AUTObiography, so that would make him half Turkish, not a quarter. If you honestly believe that a Turkish Jew named Zimmerman went across the Black Sea to Odessa, where he met another Tukish JEw, and then they went to Minnesota, then you are pretty stupid, no offense. Is there even such thing as a Turkish Jew? How would a Turk get the name Zimmerman? ANd then the idea that they both met in Odessa just seems to far-fetched for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha!: "then you are pretty stupid, no offense". As for your question regarding Turkish Jews: History of the Jews in Turkey. So it's definitely feasible that his grandpa was a Jew named Zimmerman from Turkey. - Akamad (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer part of the comment a little more politely, a Turkish Jew who went to Odessa would naturally gravitate to the Jewish community there, and especially to any other Turkish Jews who happened to be there. The idea of them meeting and marrying in Odessa doesn't seem very unlikely. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to know something funny? I knew you were going to say that exactly lol. But still, how would he have gotten the name Zimmerman??? And does Bob Dylan really look half Turkish to you, I mean come on, especially considering his grandparents came from eastern Turkey. He even said his grandma was very dark. He's whiter than me and I'm 100% Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.201.227 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, and is just filling up the discussion page with extra stuff for serious editors to have to sift through when looking for meaningful discussions. I propose we let this one drop. 75.65.201.227, nobody here agrees with you. Nobody else wants to change the information about Dylan's grandparents. You are free to believe what you want, but please accept that you haven't been, and are unlikely to be, successful in changing anyone's mind about this issue with the kind of arguments you have been giving so far. Let's give it a rest. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To people who think he doesnt look Turkish: How would you know? Turks are a mixed race and looks may vary. What exactly do yo think Turks look like? Also Thats just stereotypical to say he isnt dark enough. There are Turks who are as white as scandinavians or as dark as arabs. And from what he looks like, he could easily be Turkish. And maybe got the Zimmerman name from his non-turkish family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emreka (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but, Dylan write this on his book. And Turks will not be dark, they will be white. Very very white. Specially who comes from Trabzon, i mean Kyrgz ones. They has got very white skin and they has got colorful eyes (most of them has got green eyes). My father has got green eyes and he is blonde. You can search this in the internet dude. Dont talk anything about something you dont fuckin' know. You can search Kivanc Tatlitug and Farah Zeynep Abdullah. And if you listen a Turk, what a proud, but u dont wanna listen a Turk (just because he/she is from Turkey) we dont care either. Because we are not terrorist, we r not fuckin arab, and we are not FASCIST! —Preceding unsigned comment added by bobdylanfans (talk • 19:41 01.04.2014 (UTC)

Turkish Origin

Someone should add the Turkish section again, he said that that's where his grandparents came from. What better source is there about his life then himself? Also for the people who keep asking how he can be Jewish and Turkish you should probably read about the history of Jews in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.25.21 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish Origin

He is not from Turkish origin. The place his grandparents came from is Kurdistan. The current borders of Turkey are artificial borders. Entire South and North-Eastern Turkey is part of 'Greater Kurdistan'. There are actually many Kurdish Jews, much more than Turkish Jews. And the name is also common among Kurdish Jews, so I am certain he does not have Turkish genes whatsoever. Sure, the place is in Turkey when looking at a map, but again: those borders are artificial, Kurdistan was divided over 4 countries (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) almost 100 years ago. Kurds are a different people than Turks and are of Indo-European descent, an Iranian people which belong to the Caucasian / Aryan race. That is another explanation for Bob Dylan's skin color.

Minnesota?

The beginning of the biography doesn't name the state he was born and raised in. Maybe it would bear including this in addition to just saying what his parents' names were, an unlinked "Duluth," later "Hibbing" and "Minneapolis" but I think saying at the beginning of the sentence where he was born (maybe repeating the date too) is pretty standard for a biography. It seems like it was errantly deleted, the way it reads now. I would do it myself, but it's such a prominent article and I have little experience editing. Thoughts? A48205864 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add an External Link for the Eternal Circle Dylan Tribute Monument Petition

It keeps being taken off. May ask why? Please inform, thank you.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCBobDylanTribute (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.... Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for your petition... as worthy as it is. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for the other sites listed under External Links?

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCBobDylanTribute (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The other external links direct us to more information about Bob Dylan and his life and work...yours points to a petition. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Teapot. Wikipedia exists to provide well-written, well-sourced neutral biographies of distinguished figures, such as Dylan, not to advocate building monuments to them. The point of external links is to access essential information, not to garner signatures for petitions. See [[7]] Mick gold (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't realize external links was that content specific. Thanks for the clarification.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCBobDylanTribute (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• If the petition drive acquires some notability - media coverage, celebrity endorsements, etc. - then it might be worth mentioning in the Dylan article, and then a link might be appropriate. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunset-Take

I just prodded Sunset-Take and also removed a paragraph about it from this article. I haven't seen or found any real references on this, other than the existence of some YouTube videos. Perhaps some real Dylan fans could figure out whether this is real and/or notable? It seems like a bunch of speculation, original research, and possibly self-promotion. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Your assessment of this 'Sunset-Take' seems to be correct. Mick gold (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

2000s: Things Have Changed

A large portion of this section reads like a timeline at the moment. It should be condensed into more relevant and to the point pieces of prose. It's almost as long at "Highway/Blonde on Blonde" and "Motorcycle accident" combined! While many important things have happened in the last eight years, I'm sure they can be more adequately summarised. I see last September's idea of "splitting into multiple articles" was clearly shouted down, and rightly so. Maybe I've said this before, but I can't help thinking that some sections could be summarised and further information placed in a sub-article (John McCain is perhaps the best example that we have of this). Bob Dylan is a massive scope for topic but the article seems a little overly long in the 80s and 2000s section especially. Perhaps a sub-article system would solve this. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree. The last 10 years have seen an extraordinary amount of Dylan activity: three new studio albums, a volume of the Bootleg Series which amounts to a new album (Vol. 8), the inception of the radio show, the first art exhibition, the beginning of his autobiographical trilogy, the Scorsese biographical film, the Haynes pseudo-biographical film, the Dylan-authored film Masked & Anonymous. This article went through an intense WP:FAR last September/October [[8]]. At that stage, several minor events were eliminated: the ‘Cross The Green Mountain collaboration, the Apple iPod release, the “Love and Theft” plagiarism controversy, The Other Side of the Mirror DVD, the Twyla Tharp musical adaptation. Dylan’s cultural status continues to grow each year (hence the Pulitzer), while folks remain divided about the quality of his current live performances—which is properly acknowledged in this article. I think the major events should be mentioned, with a brief clue as to why they are notable in Dylan’s career. And all these events, I’m Not There, Theme Time Radio Hour, “Love & Theft”, etc. do have big sub-articles. (I hope I'm not missing the point, but the John McCain article is substantially longer that the Dylan article: 147 kilobytes vs 127 kb.) Mick gold (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the album articles are already acting in this way then that makes sense. I think the Electric Dylan controversy is a good idea and could easily be improved to GA level. Reading through the 2000s section again, I see that it would be hard to cut out any particular part so it's probably just fine how it is. The minor events removed at FAR were good choices and the article now focuses on Dylan's more important aspects (Albums/Awards/Radio show/Film).

However, I'm still concerned about the way the section is presented at the moment. Perhaps when Dylan's career is brought to a conclusion then we'll be able to organise this material in a less chronological manner. At the moment "the date, event, response" style, while making things easy to find, could probably be better presented so the section reads as a whole. I must admit, I'm unsure how this could be done as the breadth of topics dealt with in these sections do not lend themselves easily to any kind of organisation other than a chronological one. Does anyone have another solution? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've always thought chronology was the guiding principle behind all great biographies: Ernest Jones's Life of Sigmund Freud, Richard Ellmann's James Joyce, Richard Holmes's Shelley, Peter Guralnick's Elvis Presley. It's how they lived their lives, a day at a time. And it's how encyclopaedia entries chronicle the achievements of their subject, inc El Lissitzky & John McCain. Mick gold (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Turkish" ancestors

Should the Chronicles quote be believed as a primary source or was Dylan telling stretchy truths again? I've reduced the info to say his grandparents came from the Anatolian region as the quote could arguably provide support Turkish, Greek or even Armenian heritage and more! Should it remain? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ertag just added a blog as a reference and i reverted it. Blogs aren't a good enough reference, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhodh (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth stating that Dylan's father's family came from Odessa, and his mother's family came from Lithuania. Dylan has often referred to his Ukrainian/Russian ancestry, and his is a true US immigrant melting-pot story. I'd also favour retaining reference to Chronicles, as this is the only notable evidence that his (paternal) grandmother's family were from Trabzon or Kagizman or Anatolia. Gray's Dylan Encyclopedia (p.730) states that when Anna Zimmerman died in 1955, her death certificate recorded her place of birth as Odessa. Dylan contadicts this with his account in Chronicles. I think what Dylan writes in Chronicles about his ancestry is fascinating, but it is not necessarily true, as his grandmother's death certificate suggests. Without Dylan's account in Chronicles, the documentary evidence would give Odessa as the roots of his father's family, and Lithuania as the roots of his mother's family. (Looking at edit history, I've noticed this info was there until 20.24, 14 Jan 2009, when someone deleted that paragraph.) Mick gold (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-instated para on Dylan's ancestry that was (inexplicably) deleted at 20.24, 14 Jan 2009. Mick gold (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes more sense now, without any sources trying to force some strange Turkish=Dylan POV. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Aliases

I think it is a little silly to have the list of aliases in the info box. None of these were aliases that Dylan used for long periods of time, or that might actually cause any confusion. No one is going to be astounded that "Boo Wilbury" is actually Bob Dylan. I think the list should be moved to the article somewhere, or dropped altogether. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't contribute this list, but I thought it was amusing, it's like an alternative history of Bob Dylan: Sergei Petrov co-wrote a film with Larry Charles, Boo Wilbury made albums with George Harrison & Roy Orbison, Blind Boy Grunt recorded songs for Broadside, and Elston Gunn(n) played piano with Bobby Vee. Dylan likes to operate through masks, personas. Maybe if names were wiki-linked it would be more useful. Just a thought. If majority want to delete them, so be it. Mick gold (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be nice to include it in the article after a brief section on Dylan's personality. I was thinking it could go in at the end of the Personal Life section. We could talk about his secretiveness, his use of aliases, and other parts of his personality. I agree the list is cute, and perhaps even says something about Dylan, but I think it needs context. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on a psychological profile of Dylan detailing his 'personality', his secretiveness, his reluctance to talk to press. I'm not sure this is valid & does not sound very encyclopedic. Lot of work gone into shortening this article & this may not be a good area to expand IMHO. Mick gold (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Blind Boy Grunt

While under contract with Columbia Records, Bob Dylan recorded some songs with Folkways Records under the name of Blind Boy Grunt. Folkways FR5315 was a reissue of some of them.

Folkways Records, 1972, FR5315 (BR315) BROADSIDE REUNION, VOL. 6 1. Eric Anderson - Long Time Troubled Road. 2. Blind Boy Grunt – Bob Dylan – Train A-Travelin’. 3. Bobby Donahue – Only Time Will Tell. 4. Blind Boy Grunt – Bob Dylan – Dreadful Day. 5. Len Chandler - I’m Goin’ To Get My Baby Outa Jail. 6. Will McLean - “Tate’s Hell”. 7. Richard Black – A very Close Friend of Mine. 8. Mike Millius – Moon Song. 9. Tom Paxton – The Train for Auschwitz. 10. Phil Ochs – Changing Hands. 11. Peter LaFarge – Drums. 12. Blind Boy Grunt – Bob Dylan - The Ballad of Emmett Till. 13. Blind Boy Grunt – Bob Dylan – The Ballad of Donald White. 14. Sis Cunningham, Mike Millius, Wesley Houston & Friends – The Ballad of Jesse James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 361ek (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The main current picture looks like it could be an unfree addition from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, unless the uploader happened to take the picture him/herself in the '60s, which is not impossible but seems unlikely nonetheless. Moisejp (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I assume the decision is to leave it as is unless it is proven to be unfree? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sillfolkboy (what his point of view seems to be) that when we have several images that are indisputably free, it'd be better to use one of these rather than the current image, which some of us suspect may not be truly free. So I would vote for putting back the old photo. The only "advantage" the new photo has over the old one is that the current one is from the mid-60s, often believed to be his "most important" period. But for me, that's not a particularly big advantage. Moisejp (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Mad Hatter deleted all External Links from Dylan article, except official website. I've restored links which IMHO give important & useful info on Dylan: news, touring schedule, lists of all known recording sessions. What do other editors think? Mick gold (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Retain. All of the links here are generally within WP:EXTERNAL. The only issue I'm unsure of is the one Mad Hatter appears to raise in the in-column comment "please use these to reference facts in the article and then move them to references section", which may address a guideline that suggests converting links to citations/references. However, in all other respects, particularly in regards to What to link and Links normally to be avoided, the existing links are appropriate (notable, useful, essential). The one exception may be the Tangled up in Jews link, which seems somewhat out of character in contrast with the others, perhaps because of its narrow focus. Allreet (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the Tangled Up In Jews link, so I've deleted it. Also the instruction "please use these to reference facts in the article and then move them to references section" looks like a relic from an earlier version of this article so I removed it. Mick gold (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I'll confess, this would be difficult to incorporate into the article at present but this Reuters story about... well, read the story, is too good to pass up entirely. (I am not making this up.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dobuzinskis, Alex (March 17, 2009). "Bob Dylan's toilet smell blows in the wind". Reuters.

Picture

Shouldn't someone upload a more recent picture of Dylan? Besides: this picture(or one with a creepy resemblance) is already in the article, almost directely underneath the title picture. Almost every artist that is still alive and kicking has a more recent picture. And dylan looks really diferentely at the moment

I agree, a more recent photo would be appropriate.--JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the iconic 1960s Dylan is the most important and recognizable photo to have heading the article. This is a matter that has been discussed here before, and I think the last discussion settled on the 1960s Dylan to head the article. (Which is not to say that, given the right photo(s), the discussion might not go the other way this time.) There are more recent photos further down in the article; perhaps they could be given more prominence. And yes, you are correct, it looks like the lead photo is just a cropped version of the photo with Joan Baez. This isn't ideal, perhaps it could be fixed by changing one photo or the other. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a picture of him in his protest-singer times, while he made his most memorable music when he started playing electric. Shouldn't we put a picture from hin in his Highway 61/Blonde on Blonde era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a more appropriate photo. A color pic would be nice, too.--JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This picture is awesome. You have my blessing to keep it.

Is that you Bob Dylan? IS THAT YOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A vote to keep as the topmost photo. Additional pictures can age him just as the article covers his development, if that's possible. Jusdafax (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, every Dylan photo from 1961-66 was taken by somebody, and every closeup by someone with access to him, usually a professional. So there may not be any license-free images available from this period, other than a random concert shot that has yet to surface. I only know three "early" shots that are usuable, all from the St. Lawrence college yearbook series, one of which appears second in the article. I have a better one of these in that it shows his face plus he's looking left, into the page. I'll upload that and replace the current one tonight to see what others think. Of course, if this one's acceptable, the second shot would have to be replaced. Regarding the March on Washington photo, I favor retaining it if there's no other choice because, as others have said, it's representative of his most important period. I also favor the suggestion of a chronological approach, in keeping with his and the story's development. BTW, the current photo has been used in numerous publications, usually with Baez in the shot and always without credit, though I don't know how that affects licensing. Allreet (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with the top photo, but what's with the top version and the un-cropped version below it being attributed to completely different events in two different months? Anyone have a better working knowledge of this image who can correct this? 7jlong (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The two events are one in the same. The first caption uses the formal name, and the second, the informal one by which the march is more commonly known. To eliminate the confusion, I'll lower case "Civil Rights March" in the second caption (and we'll see if that "flies"). BTW, the general objection to the photo pertains to the fact that Dylan cleaned up his act a bit for his first national appearance. Got his hair cut and combed, bought some clean clothes. Since the image didn't last long, few people relate to it, pretty much rightfully so. Allreet (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Again

Hey, this article makes it appear as though he is still a born again Christian. I know he now considers himself Jewish again (well, at least he's know to attend services now and then and occasionally read from the Torah) but I don't know when this return took place and this article makes no reference of it. Stuart68.161.121.165 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article only covers what we know. We don't know if Dylan still claims to be a Born-again CHhristian or back to some form of non-Christian Judaism. There is no proof either way if he is non-Christian Jew or a Christian Jew. He has never said.

A person can be a born-again Christian and Jewish (Messianic or Jewish Christian). Christian's read the Torah (the first five books of Old Testaament or Old Covenant or the Bible). Some Messiaanic (Jewish) Christians even read the Jewish Tulmad and attend non-Christian Jewish services, so even if he did these things it gives no clues as to his current religeous affiliation. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great White Wonder

I may assume, incorrectly, that the Dylan bootleg, Great White Wonder, which has a Wikipedia page, is intentionally excluded from this article (I would like to learn why, since it's highly relevant -- if you know why, please let me know). That seems highly absurd, since GWW is a unique and spectacular album. If it is NOT intentionally excluded, it should be immediately added, in the spirit of "if you can improve this page, by all means do so."

Dstlascaux (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability, the primary criteria for inclusion, does not always rule. Happenstance, for example, sometimes prevails. One editor adds this, another that. If everything is up to snuff in terms of verifiability, general notability and other guidelines, that's what appears, often in lieu of things that may be more significant but nobody ever bothered to enter and document properly. At any rate, GWW was deemed important enough to warrant an article of its own, and perhaps this was thought to be sufficient. Who knows? But I do know the only assumption that should be made around here is the best of others' intentions. See WP:AGF for more. Allreet (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Headings

I hate to bring this up, but are the article headings that use song titles ("Shelter From The Storm"; "Not Dark Yet") NPOV? They strike me more like blurbs in something like People Magazine than encyclopedic titles. Carlo (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think they are a nice little quirk. Not over the top and infinitely more preferable to a plain and boring ==1990s== heading. The breadth of Dylan's work does not lend itself well to over-arching themes for the headings. The song titles in my opinion are a good compromise and not overly promotional. I think Wikipedia writers force themselves too far into plain, bare-fact reporting sometimes. What do other people think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sillyfolkboy. The alternative of bare date headings seems unnecessarily dull:===1970s===

The song titles convey a sense of Dylan's themes during key periods. Mick gold (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like consensus. Carlo (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Military/draft status relevance

No discussion of Bob Dylan is complete without mentioning what was going on in his youth. Dylan, as a sort of poet-singer, was all about social relevance, about the individual quest for meaning. So it seems quite natural for the reader to wonder how Dylan, a college dropout, managed to avoid military service. The Vietnam War was not just a social issue. For those of us Dylan's age, it was THE issue of the era. But the Wiki article just skates right over the issue and its social backdrop. Were his motorcycle injuries too severe? Did he get deferments, as Biden and Cheney did? Something happened, and it would be an interesting and salient part of Dylan's bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk • contribs) 1:19 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Every male of age in America during that era had to confront the draft in some fashion. Perhaps Dylan had some physical impairment which resulted in a perfectly correct deferment. Perhaps Dylan was a conscientious objector. But, if you know anything at all about the era, you know that something happened in this regard. Ignoring Vietnam and the draft in an article about a socially conscious singer is certainly ignoring an enormous amount of social context. For example, Elvis was drafted, so everybody confronted this issue. I was drafted out of law school, so draft boards were taking even good students working hard in school. Knowing how Dylan dealt with this as a college dropout would shed more light on Dylan's fascinating life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk • contribs) 17:05 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Something happened" and this article should mention - what, exactly? Your personal suspicions?

When you finish your private investigation, and publish the results, you'll actually have something to discuss. Carlo (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It would not be original research to say something like "Dylan did not serve in Vietnam despite the draft usually applying to all young American men; the reasons for this are unknown".--MartinUK (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No it would just be irrelevant. The idea that every single person of age went to Vietnam is also just not true. If I recall correctly, the Vietnam Draft applied to people born after 1944. It also doesn't seem to be an issue - it is not mentioned in any way, shape or form - in anything I have ever read, and it makes no sense for Wikipedia to CREATE issues where they don't exist. This is somebody's personal conspiracy. Carlo (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlo is completely correct here, because it is OR and irrelevant (but also on the substance which is that Dylan was too old for the Vietnam draft and was married which in the early days was a disqualifier). This does not belong in his bio unless reliable sources have written about it and it had some real significance in his life. Tvoz/talk 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although Dylan's draft status would be relevant if we knew it, it is certainly not relevant to say that we don't know it. A list of all the potentially important things that are unknown about a biographee is not suitable for Wikipedia. 141.155.28.218 (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Would somebody like to convert this to its own section rather than have it be a subsection (erroneously entered) of the previous discussion? Also, the title is neither appropriate nor within standards, and therefore should be shortened. Otherwise, the original point, which is at least worth raising if not acting on, comes off as simply "bitching" or "blogging". I'd take both actions myself, but thought others should be notified first. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I'm fixing. Tvoz/talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian

Why is there no mention of him being a vegetarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.124.31 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Bob Dylan a vegetarian? On his Theme Time Radio Hour show, he gave out the following recipe for 'The Perfect Meatball':

3 minced cloves garlic

½ cup vegetable oil (for frying)

1 pound ground meat (equal parts beef, pork, veal)

½ cup grated Parmesan cheese

9 Saltine crackers, finely crushed

½ teaspoon salt

black pepper, oregano, dried basil

1 tablespoon chopped fresh parsley

½ cup water

1 egg

1 teaspoon tomato paste

“Heat the oil over a low heat in a large Dutch oven. In a big bowl, add the meat, garlic, cheese, crackers, and spices. Mix lightly with your fingers. Don’t be shy—get into it. In a small bowl, whisk the water, the egg, and the tomato paste. Add the egg mixture to the meat mixture. Mix it lightly with your fingers. Form it into drum shapes, or balls. Cook in batches, over medium high heat, until its browned on both sides. That will be about five minutes total. Serve ‘em up with some potatoes, or some spaghetti, or just make a sandwich out of them. You're gonna love 'em."

An unusual vegetarian! Mick gold (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Dylan being a veggie. Maybe he had a phase of only eating Kosher meat, and said he was vegetarian in order to make it simpler for a chef or hotel manager? To be honest, those meatballs sound better than any tofu equivalent--MartinUK (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously he isn't one now. I've read on millions of sites that he atleast was one. Perhaps he was in the 60s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.124.31 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Painter?

Was there a discussion at some point of whether "painter" should be mentioned at the top as one of Dylan's notable professions? The discussion of his painting career takes about 3 lines in the article, and that seems to be about right - it is just not a very notable part of his career or public image. I think maybe it should be taken out of the first sentence. Brianyoumans (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely against it being there but you are right. No matter how good a painter he is, it is simply not a core reason for his notability as the other three descriptions are. Perhaps this can be reworked somehow. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Plane lost?

I heard from somewhere that his plane went down, but I haven't been able to find anything on it on the internet. Anyone heard this? 71.228.191.243 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Apparently, it's just a baseless rumor.--JayJasper (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. 71.228.191.243 (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Can anyone explain why U2 appears listed as an associated act? The rest of the bands have played with Dylan but I didn't know of U2. Suso de la Vega (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Why is Eric Clapton an Associated act? Or Neil Young? Obviously Dylan knows these musicians, has played with them, and has respect for them. But in the last 47 years, Dylan has known and played with a huge number of key musicians. In recent years alone he has toured with Paul Simon, Patti Smith, Willie Nelson and Carlos Santana. This summer Dylan tours with John Mellencamp. Are they all Associated acts? Associated acts is a vague term. I would suggest it includes those bands Dylan performed and recorded with regularly. Obviously The Band in the 1960s and 1970s were a key part of Dylan’s work in those decades. In Chronicles, he relates how he almost joined The Grateful Dead. He also toured regularly with Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers. And the Travelling Wilburys were Dylan’s informal supergroup. Of course Pete Seeger was an important figure in Dylan’s youth, and Baez famously helped to bring his songs to a mass audience. But in Chronicles, Dave Van Ronk occupies far more space than Pete Seeger in his account of New York in the early 1960s. Does that make Van Ronk an Associated act? Mick gold (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This also seems like OR. I would say that we should set a reasonable set of criteria and stick to them. How about only bands/singers that Dylan has appeared with on stage or recorded with, more than just a single appearance or recording? Brianyoumans (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. In current version of article, I've reduced Associated acts to: The Band, The Grateful Dead, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, and Travelling Wilburys because Dylan shared a recording and performing career with these acts. If we add artists he has recorded with or performed with more than once, we must include Baez, Clapton, Johnny Cash, Santana, Neil Young, Willie Nelson, Patti Smith and a very long list of other artists. Mick gold (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren has a long list of associated acts, surely its ok to give Dylan's a bit of an expansion.--Feeling free (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Warren Zevon list of Associated Acts is far too long. And Dylan has been performing and recording for nearly 50 years. You could easily compile a list of 100 major musicians whom Dylan has performed and/or recorded with. Where do you draw the line? What purpose would that serve? Mick gold (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "associated acts" refers to an artist's biographical development, the primary bands and personnel the artist has recorded with and not the collection of loose associations all professional musicians encounter. For example, John Lennon is associated with the Beatles, Quarrymen and Yoko Ono, but not the assundry artists he shared the stage with or sat in with in the recording studio at one point or another over the course of his career. Based on that, even George Harrison does not belong here, and frankly, I'm not so sure about the Dead, since theirs (Dylan's and the Dead's) was a collaboration of individual acts and not an "official" artistic partnership, such as Simon & Garfunkel or Mama Cass and The Big Three. BTW, Dylan's first performing partner Mark Spoelstra would belong here under this definition, but not Carolyn Hester, Fred Neil or Victoria Spivey, all of whom Dylan backed up early in his career. Allreet (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Besides the Dead and Harrison, I would also suggest removing Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, since Dylan was never a member of the group. Call me a "strict constructionist", if you will, but to me precision isn't just part of the game - it's the point.Allreet (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree about Harrison. But Dylan did make a record with The Dead after performing with them numerous times. I think that in Chronicles he writes that he seriously considered joining The Grateful Dead! And Dylan toured with Petty in the 1980s, using that band as his back-up before he initiated NET, similar to his relationship with The Band. Mick gold (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Wenner quote

Should the below quoted statement,

"But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again." At the urging of various personal friends, he went to Bible-study classes led by a fundamentalist preacher. And boy, without a doubt, this record is chapter and verse."[9][10]

by Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and/or the interpretation of it by author Bielen,[11] be included?

Kenneth G. Bielen wrote "The Lyrics Of Civility: Biblical Images & Popular Music Lyrics In American Culture." In it, Bielen writes as follows:

"Though recognizing the religious, and specifically Christian, content of the work, Wenner, near the end of his essay, is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity."

Should Bielin's quote be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• If the above quotes are used to assert the claim that there is a viewpoint that Dylan did not convert to Christianity (as has been attempted in the past), then no, do not include the quotes. The reasons: (1) Wenner never states that Dylan did not convert to Christianity. All we can conclude from Wenner's statement is that, based on the evidence he had seen at that time (1979, the same year of Dylan's conversion), Wenner is unconvinced of the conversion. Seeing no evidence for an event is not the same as asserting it did not happen. (2) Bielen makes a clear logical error in asserting that Wenner is convinced in his Rolling Stone article that Dylan did not convert. This renders unreliable that portion of what might otherwise be a reliable source, making Bielen's quote unsuitable for inclusion. The logic is simple: Being unconvinced that X happened != being convinced that X did not happen. Bielen clearly erred.

Incorporating a reference to Wenner's true viewpoint (that is, not Bielen's botched interpretation) would be appropriate. Something like the following (inserted into a paragraph in the born again section) would be ok:

Dylan's embrace of Christianity was unpopular with some of his fans and fellow musicians.[150] Shortly before his murder, John Lennon recorded "Serve Yourself" in response to Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody".[151] In a review of Slow Train Coming, Rolling Stone magazine editor and publisher Jann S. Wenner expressed skepticism about reports of Dylan's conversion, stating "...neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been 'born again.'" By 1981, while Dylan's Christian faith was obvious, Stephen Holden wrote in the New York Times that "neither age (he's now 40) nor his much-publicized conversion to born-again Christianity has altered his essentially iconoclastic temperament."[152]

(New text in green.) Nick Graves (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is evoked to call in outside views, when there is a stalemate in the discussion between existing editors on an article. It's not a place for existing editors to rehash the arguments which already exist on the talk page.

It is better not to interpret quotes, e.g. "Jann S. Wenner expressed skepticism", but simply quote them, so the reader can make their own judgement, i.e. In a review of Slow Train Coming, Rolling Stone magazine editor and publisher Jann S. Wenner said, "But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again." At the urging of various personal friends, he went to Bible-study classes led by a fundamentalist preacher. And boy, without a doubt, this record is chapter and verse."

Regarding Bielen, it is accepted above that he is what qualifies for wikipedia purposes as a reliable source. The argument is that he made a statement, which is wrong, so therefore it is not something to include. This argument is original research. Per NPOV we represent what sources say. The fundamental, non-negotable, editing principle is verifiability, not truth. Again, the thing to do here is to quote the author, so the reader can make up his or her own mind on the matter, and decide whether it is or is not a misinterpretation of Wenner. This is Bielen's interpretation of Wenner and should be represented as such, neither more nor less. Readers are entitled to see these views, and we would be doing them a disservice by omitting them.

These are not, it would seem, majority views, so per UNDUE, this should also be made clear, if necessary by expanding the examination of Dylan's involvement with Christianity, which, if it has the importance apparently claimed for it, demands more space in the article than currently given to it.

Ty 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should the Wenner and Bielen material be quoted at such length? Such long quotes are quite disproportionate to their significance. This discussion is taking place because one editor, Bus stop, is making a great song & dance about these two quotations. This does not automatically mean that these quotes are important comments on Dylan's born-again period. I would argue that the Wenner quote is simply not very well-written and is confusing as an account of Dylan's religious views. The Wenner quote will inveitably imply that Jann Wenner, editor and publisher of Rolling Stone, is sceptical that Dylan became a born-again Christian. I don't believe that this is true. The biography of Dylan on the Rolling Stone website [[12]], publisher & editor Jann Wenner, simply states:

In 1979 Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian. The platinum Slow Train Coming (Number 24, 1979) netted Dylan his first Grammy (for Best Rock Vocal Performance, Male). His West Coast tour late in 1979 featured only his born-again material; Saved (Number 24, 1980) and Shot of Love (Number 33, 1981) continued that message.

I agree with Nick Graves that Bielen purports to be quoting Wenner's view, but is misrepresenting Wenner's review of Slow Train Coming. IMHO, this does not make him a convincing authority. This discussion is taking place because one editor has a very strong attachment to these 2 quotes. That does not necessarily mean that these quotes are significant and worth including. Their significance should be agreed by a consensus of editors of this Dylan page, and I have grave doubts.Mick gold (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a request for comment by uninvolved editors. I suggest you respect this process, and see what others have to say. You have already made your viewpoint clear in the earlier discussion on this page. Your ad hominem argument, verging on personal attack, against a named editor, Bus Stop, is unacceptable. I suggest you strike such comment, and concentrate on the edit, not the editor. It is clearly not the view of just one editor, as I agree with it.

It does not matter what you think of Wenner's statement or what it might or might not imply. What matters is that it is relevant to the subject and made by a source of suitable standing. The other material you quote from Wenner can also be considered for inclusion. Regarding Bielen, as John Carter says above, "the material is from a source which would ordinarily qualify as reliable, a well-known printed biography from a major publisher". It is not up to editors to decide whether such sources are correct in their interpretations or opinions, only to represent them per NPOV. If that is how Bielen interprets the true meaning and intent of Wenner's remarks, that is up to him. And up to us to say that's how he sees them. Editorial evaluation on his correctness or otherwise is original research. If you have a source to say Bielen is wrong, then that can be included. We are here to inform the reader, and the article merits more than a cursory examination of Dylan's involvement with Christianity. Ty 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is incumbent on us to make some judgements on sources. If statements in sources, even in fairly reputable sources, are clearly incorrect, I don't think we are required to accept them. Evaluating whether Bielen is fairly representing Wenner does not require expert knowledge; it merely requires reading Wenner's review and then what Bielen says about it. Anyone can do that; the text is available online. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ty, editors already involved in the dispute are not forbidden from restating their position in the RfC section, but rather "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment." (emphasis added). And it is certainly appropriate for previously involved editors to respond to the views offered by previously uninvolved commentators. How can commentators be expected to assist the disputants reach agreement if the latter remain silent? My own initial comments in this section were intended to summarize the arguments I expressed in the lengthy discussion preceding, for the sake of new arrivals to the discussion, and to tweak these arguments as well, since Bus stop subtly reframed the problem in his RfC (he is now merely asking if the quotes should be included, not whether they should be included for the sake of presenting a conversion denialist viewpoint).

There is no interpretation required to conclude that Bielen erred in stating that Wenner denies Dylan's conversion. It is simply a matter of understanding what Wenner originally said, and then identifying the clear misrepresentation Bielen made in his claims about what Wenner said. To call Wenner skeptical of whether Dylan converted is merely a descriptive claim involving no original research. To quote WP:OR: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I think it is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge who reads Wenner's original statement that he was skeptical of the reports about Dylan's conversion, but that he did not go so far as to state that he did not convert. When a primary source says "X", and a secondary source says that the primary source says "Y", we go with what the primary source says, even if the secondary source is otherwise reliable.

It would certainly be giving undue weight to the skeptic/denialist viewpoint to include both quotes, as advocated by Ty and Bus stop. That would be giving undue weight to that viewpoint, given the great bulk of reliable material (yes, even from Dylan) confirming that Dylan was, for a time at least, a convert to born again Christianity. Wenner's article is the only bit of reputably published material that I've yet seen that expresses skepticism about the conversion, yet the proposed quote additions would nearly double the section on Dylan's "born again" period.

Can we even be certain that Wenner maintained his skepticism about the conversion? His review came out shortly after Dylan's conversion, and it would not be at all surprising that he would be incredulous at that time of Dylan's dramatic conversion from Judaism to born again Christianity. However, at this late date, and with as much information as we now have, it would be difficult to maintain such incredulity. In fact, Wenner remains the editor and publisher of Rolling Stone magazine, whose website biography of Dylan states: "In 1979 Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian." If Wenner's own publication website unequivocally confirms Dylan's conversion, it's hard to imagine that the editor himself remains a conversion doubter. As Wenner is an influential journalistic and critical voice in the music world, it seems reasonable to briefly mention his initial skepticism. But given the tiny minority of doubters (so far as we know, there is only one notable person who so doubted), and given the apparent eventual acceptance of Dylan's conversion by RS editor Wenner (as evidenced by RS's own website), it would give undue weight to that viewpoint to include lengthy quotes on the matter. Nick Graves (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Nick Graves, it would give undue weight for you to leave the section on Dylan's Christian phase so skimpy. Fill out that phase and the correct weight-ratio is restored. Apparently there is a lot of interest in the Christian/Jewish aspect of Dylan's identity, therefore it falls upon you and other editors to flesh out the part of that identity that you feel is so important in 1979. Please work on the article to show the Christian aspects of Dylan's identity at this time. Show the "born again" phase that you apparently feels needs to assume a prominent place in the article. The viewer doesn't want a simplified view. The viewer wants to walk away from the article feeling he or she has a thorough grasp of a period in a person's life when religious identity was in flux. It is up to you to provide that. It is not up to other responsible editors to leave out material that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It is incumbent on you and other editors to bring this Christian phase into full view for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologise unreservedly to Bus stop for any ad hominem element in my last posting. I shall try to proceed guided solely by the principle of good faith. In the interests of moving this discussion forward, I have drafted a text for possible inclusion in the “Born-again” section of the Bob Dylan article:

Dylan's embrace of Christianity was unpopular with some of his fans and fellow musicians.[ref/cit Sounes] In his review of Slow Train Coming, Rolling Stone magazine editor Jann S. Wenner wrote that "neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been 'born again.'"[ref/cit] Dylan criticPaul Williams wrote a book whose title asked the question: Dylan—What Happened? [ref/cit]; Williams wrote, “it is very hard for me to come to terms with and identify with Bob Dylan singing, “I’ve been washed in the blood of the lamb”.” [ref/cit Williams] Shortly before his murder, John Lennon recorded "Serve Yourself" in response to Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody".[ref/cit] By 1981, while Dylan's Christian faith was obvious, Stephen Holden wrote in the New York Times that "neither age (he's now 40) nor his much-publicized conversion to born-again Christianity has altered his essentially iconoclastic temperament."[ref/cit NYT]

I believe Williams is a more authoritative reference than Bielen, since he has published five books on Dylan, and has devoted an entire book to examining the evidence behind Dylan’s born-again Christian stance. Williams’s book Dylan—What Happened? was republished (after being out of print for many years) in his book: Bob Dylan: Watching the River Flow, Omnibus Press, 1996.

Bus stop makes the point above: “it would give undue weight for you to leave the section on Dylan's Christian phase so skimpy. Fill out that phase and the correct weight-ratio is restored. Apparently there is a lot of interest in the Christian/Jewish aspect of Dylan's identity, therefore it falls upon you and other editors to flesh out the part of that identity that you feel is so important in 1979.”

The Born-again section of the Dylan article does contain the pointer:

Further information: Slow Train Coming

During the last Dylan WP:FAR, a lot of the material in the “Born-again period” of the Dylan article was transferred to the Slow Train Coming article. This was because several editors and administrators made the point that the Dylan article had become far too long, and contained too much detail. The length of the Bob Dylan article was reduced by 20% during this WP:FAR. Mick gold (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Mick Gold. Not a problem. But even the Slow Train Coming article should present a full picture, should it not? Even the Dylan entry on the List of people who converted to Christianity should present a full picture, should it not? These quotes (or derivations of them, in the case of the List) have a place wherever this aspect of Dylan's life is concerned, do they not? Space constraints should not be the issue here. If a source says, "Dylan did not convert to Christianity," should we leave that out because of space constraints? I brought this issue up because Wikipedia owes it to its readers to give them the material with which to think about a subject, not to be spoon fed a restricted diet. The reader is perfectly capable of digesting contradictory material. And the reader can and should look elsewhere for more information on a subject, not just at Wikipedia. We owe it to our readers to give them the jumping off points for further exploration of a subject. It is not an open and closed issue that Dylan converted to Christianity. The sources for conversion are not as solid as some would have you believe. The Wenner and Bielen quotes alert the reader to the complexity of the issue, and stimulate the reader to do some research outside of Wikipedia. We are not constructing the world here. Let's not get carried away with our powers. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I've read here it doesn't seem like there is a strong case for mentioning Wenner's and Bielen's quotes or for mentioning at all the viewpoint that Dylan may not have converted to Christianity, for the reasons people have given above. Mick Gold, it was generous of you to propose adding the Wenner sentence to the paragraph about Dylan's conversion being unpopular, but I don't think it fits there. The quotation expresses Wenner's possible skepticism but does not clearly convey any disapproval, unlike the rest of the paragraph. Well, then again, the Stephen Holden quotation doesn't clearly indicate any unpopularity of the conversion either. Maybe a different quote would be better to replace Holden's. In any case, I don't think the Wenner citation works in this paragraph or in this Born Again section at all. Moisejp (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wenner quote would be a more appropriate addition to the Aftermath section of the Slow Train Coming article. Can we agree on this and move forward? I think the Holden quote might still be ok in this article, though perhaps in a different paragraph. Nick Graves (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's not agreement at the moment. In fact, looking a bit further into this makes me more concerned about the wider issue that neither this article nor Slow Train Coming (STC) explores the nuances of Dylan's involvement with Christ/Christianity. They both lack NPOV and omit any of the contradictions that exist—not only Wenner's statement and Bielen's interpretation, for which there is ample space in STC, but even Dylan's own pronouncements. It is incorrect to state baldly, "In the late 1970s, Dylan became a born-again Christian", without any qualifier, when Dylan himself said he never used the term. Any proper survey needs to address the following (from User:C.Logan/Bob Dylan):

"Whether you want to believe Jesus Christ is the messiah is irrelevant, but whether you're aware of the messianic complex"

"Christ is no religion. We're not talking about religion."

"religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage, which man invents to get himself to God. But that's why Christ came. Christ didn't preach religion."

By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it. Yet he was clearly quoted in a 1980 interview with trusted Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Hilburn saying: "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to."

As the last quote shows, "born-again Christian" was applied to him in common parlance (no dispute there), but he did not use that particular combination of words. He specifically refutes the media interpretation of his position in words that echo Wenner (or vice versa):

I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing. Jesus told Nicodemus, "A man must be born again." And Nicodemus said, "How can I go through my mother's womb?" and Jesus said, "You must be born of the spirit." And that's where that comes from, that born-again thing. People have put a heavy trip on it. People can call you what they want. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that."[13][14]

There is no indication in this article or SLT that Dylan is anything other than a straight-down-the-line staunch convert to the born-again Christian religion. The above indicates a far more complex involvement with reservations, qualifications and personal interpretations that need to be included. It is not up to us to resolve, interpret or evaluate these matters, only to represent them.

It also needs to be included that Kurt Loder, in a 1984 Rolling Stone interview,[15] says Dylan considers "his religious odyssey has been misrepresented in the press." Dylan is asked by Loder, "But weren't three of your albums — Slow Train Coming, Saved and Shot of Love — inspired by some sort of born-again religious experience?" Dylan's reply is: "I would never call it that. I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term. I don't think I've been an agnostic. I've always thought there's a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there's a world to come. That no soul has died, every soul is alive, either in holiness or in flames. And there's probably a lot of middle ground."

Ty 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You have expanded beyond the parameters of the original RfC. That's fine, but it would be good to resolve this before going on to bigger things. Wenner's quote is fine to include, though its importance is pretty limited, as it reflects a first impression shortly after Dylan's conversion, and Wenner's own publication latterly confirms Dylan's conversion. Bielen's interpretation is clearly in error. Contrary to Bielen's assertion, no statement in Wenner's article denies that Dylan converted. At most, we can say Wenner was unconvinced of Dylan's conversion at the time.

I've personally no doubt that Dylan was never a conventional born-again Christian. Introducing nuance is fine, though it would be better if we could primarily rely on secondary sources to support encyclopedic prose describing that nuance, as opposed to introducing a big collection of Dylan quotes. Nick Graves (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In general it seems appropriate to acknowledge Dylan's attitude towards the media's view in contrast to his own belief system. He clearly was never a born-again Christian and the 1984 Kurt Loder quote should be included...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I acknowledge that I had never actually checked to see if apparently false claims made by a reliable source qualified for includion, but it is fairly clear that they do not disqualify on that basis. And I can see why they would in some cases merit inclusion even if they are apparently false, particularly if they had an influence on others. Having said that, there does seem to me to be a real question as to whether inclusion of the quote alone, let alone any additional details, would qualify under WP:UNDUE. The whole matter seems to be, at least initially, to be about a single interpretation of a single quote which not even the people involved seem to have repeated in their later comments on the subject. There also, at least so far as I can see, are no other particular sources which seem to have even discussed the article or its comments, even at the time it came out. If there are such sources, of course, that would change things. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Loder interview undoubtedly represent Dylan's religious views in 1984. But surely the point of the "Born-again period" of the Bob Dylan article is to describe Dylan's religious outlook in 1979 & 1980 when he released Slow Train Coming and Saved. In 1980, the Karen Hughes interview [[16]] includes the following:

"You ask me about myself" Dylan said at the end of an intensive session of questioning, "but I'm becoming less and less defined as Christ becomes more and more defined".

"Christianity", he explained, "is not Christ and Christ is not Christianity. Christianity is making Christ the Lord of your life. You're talking about your life now, you're not talking about just part of it, you're not talking about a certain hour every day. You're talking about making Christ the Lord and the Master of your life, the King of your life. And you're also talking about Christ, the resurrected Christ, you're not talking about some dead man who had a bunch of good ideas and was nailed to a tree. Who died with those ideas. You're talking about a resurrected Christ who is Lord of your life. We're talking about that type of Christianity".

"It's HIM through YOU. 'He's alive', Paul said, 'I've been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I but Christ who liveth in me'. See Christ is not some kind of figure down the road. We serve the living God, not dead monuments, dead ideas, dead philosophies. If he had been a dead God, you'd be carrying around a corpse inside you". Dylan speaks of having constant dialogue with Christ, of surrendering his life to God's will much in the same way as Joan of Arc or St Francis of Assisi would have done.

"Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups".

"Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know". (May 21, 1980)

The Karen Hughes interview is reprinted in Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, ed. Jonathan Cott, 2006.

I think that in the Hughes interview, Dylan does use the words "born again" and "re-born" to describe his religious outlook. By 1984, Dylan had moved away from this position in the Loder interview. By 1997, he was telling The New York Times that "he now subscribes to no organized religion". But what we're trying to agree on in this discussion is a description of Dylan's religious outlook in 1979-1980. So I would argue that the Loder interview is not relevant to his beliefs in 1979-1980. It is worth noting that in Saved: The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan, ed. Clinton Heylin, 1990, which collects most of the Christian evangelical sermons which Dylan preached on stage, the earliest is November 1978, and the latest is May 19, 1980. These dates seem to indicate the period of Dylan's strongest evangelical Christian convictions.

Dylan's changing religious views are covered briefly in a section at the end of the Dylan article, "Religious beliefs"[[17]]. I've taken the liberty of adding the Loder quote to that section because I agree with Ty & Modernist that it adds nuance to an account of Dylan's religious views. Mick gold (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, who can remember this stuff - my recollection was that he became a born again Christian, but by Infidels, recorded with Sly and Robbie (as I recall) he was back on track again, and certainly by the time he toured with Grateful Dead in '87 he had left this behind him. OK, not WP:RS - but if it is significant enough to put a section in about his being born-again, and cite WP:RS that he was 'born-again' (or as opinions about this) then it is equally important to include details of his denial about this (or opinions that he wasn't). None of it should represent WP:UNDUE. So, rather than discussing what he may or may not have been, maybe edit in a way that reflects that sources at the time suggested that he had become a born-again Christian, but other sources, including Dylan himself, deny this - but affirm that he had some form of Messianic spiritual awakening. This piece suggests that was Jewish, not Christian, in 1991 [18], unless he became a Messianic Jew - but there seems to be little evidence for that from what I can see. Messianic Judaism would make some sense of his statements about not wanting to identify as a 'born-again Christianity', but without WP:RS it's not going to wash. Mish (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What you're suggesting wouldn't be covered in the born-again section, but elsewhere, as the structure of the article is primarily chronological, and the born-again section deals with a particular period in Dylan's career. Actually, what you suggest has already been accomplished in the section on Dylan's religion, which covers Dylan's denial of calling himself born again, his later lack of identification with organized religion, and his activities with Judaism over the last 20 years.

From the sources I've seen, the only one to deny Dylan was born again was Dylan himself (actually, a self-contradiction, as he did so identify himself in the Hughes interview mentioned above), some time after the "born again" period. That fact is already documented in the religion section. The only other person who comes close to expressing this position is Wenner in the RS article soon after Dylan's conversion (Wenner never actually denies that he was born again, but states he doesn't see any evidence for it). Right now, I think most people who have weighed in on the Wenner quote think it ought to be included, so we have a developing consensus to include that in the born again section. Nick Graves (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK then. Mish (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If as Nick Graves says the consensus is to include the Wenner quote I will go along with it, but that wasn't my impression that consensus has been weighed towards that decision. Again, I will go along with whatever is decided by consensus, and I will let this matter drop if this is indeed what the group decision has become, but I'd just like to take this last opportunity to state that I cannot understand at all how Wenner becomes an authority on Dylan's religious status, especially in this particular quote. In this quote the supposition Wenner gives is clearly tentative at best: he does not say that Dylan was not born again, only that there was no evidence for it, and Wenner's magazine's website now states that he was born again. I just don't think we can get any useful, meaningful information out of the Wenner quote to illuminate Dylan's religious status in the late 1970s. There may well exist some meaningful sources, and if so by all means let's use them, but I don't think this Wenner quote is one of them. Moisejp (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, I believe, would suggest that he does not become the authority on this, the material should be managed in a way that it is clear that this is his view on the matter in the context of any other views on the matter. Mish (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect - why in the hell would Jann Wenner be an authority on who is and who is not born again? Carlo (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Mish, he is not being represented as an authority on religion, but as someone of significance who has a view, which can be stated along with views of other people. Ty 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2)(unindent) Wenner doesn't say "there is no evidence". He says, "But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again."" Exactly what this means is open to interpretation. Bielen's interpretation is that "Wenner ... is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity." It has been argued that Wenner's text shows Bielen's interpretion is clearly erroneous. I disagree that it does. It seems to me a perfectly legitimate and reasonable interpretation of Wenner. However, what I or other editors think is irrelevant. Per NPOV it's not our job to resolve contradictions or inconsistencies, only to represent what sources say. The article does not do this satisfactorily at the moment.

The heading "Born-again period" would be better replaced by something less definitive, such as the album title Slow Train Coming, as with some other sections, especially bearing in mind Dylan's own view on the use of the term. The section starts, "In the late 1970s, Dylan became a born-again Christian", and there is nothing in the section that represents anyone (including Dylan) who modifies or questions that definition in any way. The Hughes interview is given as a source for the statement, but even there Dylan does not say, "I have been re-born". He talks about the process without specifically saying he has had it our been through it himself: "Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world ant that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know."

One might well conjecture that he is talking about his experience, but wikipedia does not use sources conjecturally, only what they say in themselves. In fact Dylan later said, "I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term." thus reinforcing the imperative not to read more into the Hughes' interview than is literally there. However, this quote from him does not appear until eight sections later. Either his religious beliefs should be dealt with in one place and all the aspects brought out, or they should be given chronologically throughout the text, but they should not be split up in this misleading way.

Ty 01:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jann Wenner - People who publish rock-music magazines over a period of time presumably get to know a lot about people in the rock-music business, and even get to know some of them - would this not be true for someone who co-founded and published the most prestigious and well known rock-music magazine in the world? Similarly, biographers interviewers usually know something about the people they write Biographies about, interview. and quite often they know the people they write Biographies about So, while not being the authority, his point-of-view would be notable in a biographical entry, as would any notable biographer's interviewer's. Mish (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know who Jann Wenner is. And I fail to see how publishing a rock music magazine makes one an authority on religion, simply because "they get to know some of them." And Jann Wenner has never written a biography of Bob Dylan. His statement appears to be a guess, and I fail to see why it should be lent any creedence. Carlo (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. Rolling Stone is a reliable source for wikipedia purposes, particularly in the field of musicians, and, additionally, Wenner is a person of repute in that field. That validates inclusion per NPOV. Ty 03:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I didn't look closely enough. I assumed these were books he had written about people, not interviews. So, he interviewed Dylan - I have amended text accordingly. And I tend to agree with the above that Rolling Stone is a WP:RS. Somebody established in the field who has met and interviewed the subject would be relevant for inclusion. but not as significant as (say) a biographer who will have a greater depth of knowledge about the subject. Mish (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Karen Hughes interview [[19]], Dylan says:

"Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up".

"Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups". (reprinted: p. 276, Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, ed. Jonathan Cott, 2006, Rolling Stone Press, )

So his statement “being born again is a hard thing” refers back to his previous sentence “the glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up.” Ty, are you arguing that there is no connection between the 2 sentences?

I agree with Moisejp when he says he does not see the necessity to include the Wenner quote. I did submit a draft which included the Wenner quote. When Moisejp commented that the draft did not work, and that the Wenner quote didn’t fit in, I re-read it and thought that he was right.

The authoritative biographies of Bob Dylan are Clinton Heylin’s Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades, Take Two, 2001, and Howard Sounes’s Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, 2001. In addition Michael Gray has published his 750 page The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, 2007, which contains a vast amount of carefully sourced biographical information. In addition, 2 well-received books have looked specifically at Dylan’s religious beliefs: Scott Marshall's Restless Pilgrim: The Spiritual Journey of Bob Dylan, 2002, and Dylan—What Happened? by Paul Williams. Williams published his 100 page book in December 1979 immediately after hearing Slow Train Coming and attending 7 concerts at the Warfield Theatre, San Francisco, when Dylan preached an evangelical sermon each night. Williams’s book was reprinted in 1996 as part of Williams's Bob Dylan: Watching the River Flow. Approximately 30 of Dylan’s evangelical sermons were collected and published by Heylin in his book Saved! The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan, Hanuman Books, 1990. All these books are listed, with their ISBN numbers in the Dylan article. [[20]]

All these works describe Dylan during 1979-1980 as “born-again”. Heylin, pp. 489-527; Sounes, pp. 323-351, Gray’s Encyclopedia has an entry, “The ‘Born-again’ Period”, pp. 76-80 and another section, “‘Born-again’ period, a slow train coming to”, pp. 80-86 which examines the events leading up to Dylan’s attending the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, January to April, 1979. Williams and Marshall also examine the events leading up to the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and the recording of Slow Train Coming in April-May 1979. They both describe Dylan during the period December 1978 to May 1980 as ‘born-again’.

The evangelical speeches collected and published by Heylin in Saved! were also delivered during this period. One of these evangelical sermons is quoted in the article. Here are 3 more:

”I told you ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ and they did. I said the answer was Blowin In the Wind and it was. I’m telling you now Jesus is coming back and He is! – And there is no other way to salvation.” (Albuquerque, December 5, 1979; Heylin, Saved!, p.12) [21] [22]

"I'd like to say we’re under ... we’re doing the show tonight on the authority of Jesus Christ!" (before ‘Blessed Be The Name’) (San Francisco, November 11, 1979; Heylin, Saved! p.22) [23] [24]

"There are saved people and there's lost people. [applause] Yeah. Now remember that I told you that. You may never see me again. I may not be through here again, you may not see me, sometime down the line you'll remember you heard it here. That Jesus is Lord. And every knee shall bow to him." (before ‘When You Gonna Wake Up?’) (Tempe, Az., November 26 1979; Heylin, Saved!, p.41) [25] [26]

The Karen Hughes interview, the five books quoted above, and the evangelical sermons which Dylan delivered are, to me, a substantial set of references which support describing the period covering Slow Train Coming and Saved as the “Born-again period”.

Against this, we have Jann Wenner’s review of Slow Train Coming, published in Rolling Stone, September 20, 1979:

"But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again." At the urging of various personal friends, he went to Bible-study classes led by a fundamentalist preacher. And boy, without a doubt, this record is chapter and verse."[27][28]

My opinion of this quote is that it is not sufficiently clear or well-sourced to challenge the material quoted above. I also find it significant that this review was published in September 1979, before Dylan commenced what has been describes as the "First Gospel Tour" [[29]], from November 1, 1979 to December 6, 1979, when Dylan delivered an evangelical sermon from the stage on almost every night. (Three are quoted above.) Obviously, Rolling Stone magazine is a WP:RS in this cultural area. But it is arguable that Wenner's Slow train Coming review misrepresents how Rolling Stone reported Dylan's 'born-again' period. A year after Wenner's review, Kurt Loder reviewed Dylan's album Saved in September 1980.[30] His review began:

"Of all Bob Dylan's public personae over the past nineteen years, none has more confounded his long-time admirers than his latest incarnation as a born-again Christian. Unveiling his new and obviously heartfelt beliefs on last year's Slow Train Coming, Dylan was a perfect caricature of a Bible-thumping convert, zealously proclaiming that "You either got faith or you got unbelief/And there ain't no neutral ground".

And his review ended:

"As born-again gospel LPs go, Saved is a work of some distinction. Now that Bob Dylan's had his shots at that old-time religion, perhaps his secular fans may be forgiven for hoping that this, too, shall pass."

Today, the Dylan biography on the Rolling Stone website [31] announces unambiguously:

"In 1979 Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian. The platinum Slow Train Coming (Number 24, 1979) netted Dylan his first Grammy (for Best Rock Vocal Performance, Male). His West Coast tour late in 1979 featured only his born-again material;Saved (Number 24, 1980) and Shot of Love (Number 33, 1981) continued that message".

We also have the Kenneth Bielen quote:

"Though recognizing the religious, and specifically Christian, content of the work, Wenner, near the end of his essay, is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity."

I agree with Nick Graves that Kenneth Bielen is misrepresenting Wenner’s review, and therefore IMHO is not a convincing or authoritative reference. Mick gold (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who oppose including either Jann Wenner's or Kenneth Bielen's material on this subject, because the latter's represents shoddy scholarship and the former's very little. Wenner wrote his review in 1979, only a year after Dylan's conversion. He provides no hard evidence for his assertions - in his defense, very little existed at the time - but considering Wenner's authority, we would ordinarily have to take his POV very seriously. Except for what Dylan revealed a year later in his interview with Robert Hillburn of the Los Angeles Times.

Since some editors seem to be leaning toward including the Wenner and Bieslin quotations, Dylan's remarks from the Hillburn interview (quoted earlier by another editor) bear repeating:

"I truly had a born again experience. If you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to. It happened in 1978. I always knew there was a God or a creator of the universe, and the creator of the mountains and the seas and all that kind of thing, but I wasn't conscious of Jesus and what that had to do with the supreme creator."

If Wenner's review had come out after that interview, he surely would not have said what he did. As for Bielen, he draws his interpretations solely from a magazine review that appeared before there was a reliable record on the subject. Granted, he may have missed the admissions Dylan made in 1980, but his failure to acknowledge any of the research in the two decades between the review and his book is astounding.

While Dylan characteristically backed off from labeling himself "born again" in the years following the Hillburn interview, he remained open about his conversion and never retracted his original statements. From the standpoint of scholarship, then, it doesn't really matter what Wenner speculated about in his album review, and it means even less what Bielen wrote using that review as his only source. To include either one's quotes at this point would only lend support to conclusions lacking in evidence. Allreet (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think Wenner's quote might be appropriate in the paragraph regarding fans' and others' reactions to his conversion. Clearly, he was incredulous, and this statement in his review is one notable early take on this time in Dylan's career. Nick Graves (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It would make this issue a lot easier to resolve, if editors would follow wikipedia policy of NPOV, namely representing what sources have to say, rather than deciding whether the sources are right or not, which is original research. It's up to the reader to make that assessment. We operate by verification, not "truth", which a lot of this conversation is predicated on.

The commonly accepted view needs to be stated ("in common parlance" would be a good phrase to include here), along with statements by observers, including Wenner (not necessarily the whole quote verbatim) and Bielen, and particularly Dylan himself. This is a BLP which means a certain caution, especially when the subject is claiming mass misrepresentation, something we should be careful not to perpetuate as definitive.

Accuracy to sources would be helpful. The quote "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that" has been restated just above as "I truly has a born-again experience. If you want to call it that" with a subtle shift of meaning with the full stop.

There seems to be something of a disinclination to represent Dylan's own statements about his religious involvement. He says, "I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing." and "I would never call it that. I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term." Let him speak for himself. No one has yet found a quote where he says, "I'm born again". He says, "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that", again a subtle difference (and terminology from which he immediately distances himself). For most people it would amount to the same thing. For him it would seem there is a difference which matters.

Ty 01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is determining whether a source which has, apparently, made a mistake is one that can still be counted as "reliable" as per WP:RS. So far as I can tell, although that page seems to indicate that they do, others could, fairly, argue that they aren't. Maybe it would help if we added something to that page to indicate something one way or another on instances when otherwise reliable sources clearly make what are apparently factual errors? John Carter (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That has been long established policy per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." As it happens, I find Bielen's interpretation of Wenner valid (although not the only possible interpretation). Ty 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is appropriate to acknowledge Dylan's own view and his attitude towards the media's view - there is an apparent contrast between the media reportage and his own words. The article would do well to acknowledge what he said about his being born again...Modernist (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(e-c response to Tyrenius) Granted. Personally, though, in a few conversations elsewhere, one right now actually, I have found that sources which might, marginally, be counted as reliable as per WP:RS, and which might be among the few sources at all, do make mistakes and that some challenge their status as RS on that basis. A lot of these sources might be from sources which take a position on an issue, and which that side apparently finds "reliable", but which people on the "other side" challenge on the basis of, well, weak publisher "reliability". I was and am actually thinking primarily of those cases, and some sort of indication one way or another how to go with them would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Bielen misrepresented what Wenner said. There is no point in Wenner's article where he says he's convinced Dylan was not born again. Being unconvinced that Dylan was born again (what Wenner actually said) is not the same as being convinced that Dylan was not born again (what Bielen erroneously said that Wenner said). Including Bielen's clear misrepresentation of Wenner's view in this article would be just like reproducing a misquote from a secondary source in preference to an accurate quote from the primary source. Now, maybe it's true that Wenner was convinced Dylan was not born again, but it's verifiable that he did not state that in his article. Is it not enough to report that Wenner doubted/was skeptical of/did not believe that Dylan was born again? Nick Graves (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not verifiable unless you have a source that says it. Otherwise it's your opinion, i.e. OR. (I have said twice already on this page that I find Bielen's interpretation of Wenner valid.) It's up to us to present the views of significant sources, so that readers can make up their own minds. This is the core of WP:NPOV. It's impossible to resolve problems like this with editing, unless policies are followed, whether we like the outcome or not. Ty 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But, Tyrenius, lots of people here disagree with you about whether Bielen and Wenner are significant sources in this case. As has been pointed out above, Wenner made his review when there was not much information out there for him to base it on; from the fact that his magazine now says Dylan was born-again, we can think it very likely that he has since changed his mind. Thus, the root of that line of argument is flawed. For me, more so than whether or Bielen did or didn't misinterpret Wenner's point of view, this is the most fundamental problem with that line of argument, that it is based on what was perhaps a one-off comment Wenner made, and that we have no reason to believe it reflected any kind of long-standing belief of Wenner's.

My second major problem with mentioning Bielen/Wenner is that, as Mick Gold pointed out above, the vast majority of references, including the major authoritative biographies, apparently do take the point of view that Dylan was born-again. If 100 references say A, and one or two, which are already based on shaky logic, say B, it gives undue weight to B if we mention it. OK, so I haven't counted and don't know if we have 100 sources that say Dylan was born-again, but we do know we only have Bielen and Wenner that may argue he was not. And as Mick Gold has asserted, Bielen's 1999 argument does not seem to have been picked up by other biographers, so apparently the majority of biographers did not consider his point of view to be convincing.

I think your strongest argument is that Dylan's own statements have been ambiguous or contradictory about the matter. I personally believe that in 1978 he considered himself to be born-again and then later decided to distance himself from that, but I concede that is open to speculation. Anyway, what I'm saying is that if Bielen had based his arguments on an examination of Dylan's contradictory statements, rather than a possibly one-off comment made by Wenner, and if Bielen's views had been picked up by even a couple of others, or a couple of other biographers had independently come to similar conclusions, then I think you would have a much stronger case for wanting to include these viewpoints. But as it is it would be giving undue weight to one sole naysayer (Bielen) whose arguments are based on what were very likely short-term views of Wenner. But if you can find a couple of sources that are stronger than Bielen's, I personally would have no objections to including the point of view that Dylan may not have been born-again. Moisejp (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, about 11,000 words have been elicted on a subject that could be dealt with in a couple hundred words or so. If both Wenner's and Bielen's views were worked in, the main points, as I see them, would be 1) fans were upset by Dylan's conversion, 2) even an authority as solid as Jann Wenner at first denied it, 3) Dylan made clear he had experienced a vision and referred to it as being "born again", 4) later Dylan stopped using this term but never denied the conversion, and 5) even as late as 10 years ago, some people still found it hard to accept, a la Bielen. Nothing wrong with that per se, except would a couple hundred words be better spent on more substantial matters? One answer is that Gray, Sounes, Heylin and others thought so, otherwise they would have spent at least few words acknowledging the skepticism. BTW, I know these points have all been made before in some form or another, the point being that there really isn't much more new that could be added. I think the time has come to put this matter to rest so that we can move on. Allreet (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Just to clarify the WP:BLP dimension which Ty raised, the Encyclopedia Britannica website describes Dylan as ‘born-again’ at the time he released Slow Train Coming: “In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his “gospel” song 'Gotta Serve Somebody'. (This is btw incorrect. Dylan only performed exclusively Gospel music in concert for one year. Nevertheless, this article was written by Al Kooper who has performed with Dylan many times, and has frequently referred to Dylan as his friend.) The BBC timeline [32] on Bob Dylan writes of Slow Train Coming: “All nine tracks proclaim Dylan's born-again beliefs, the lyrics sometimes railing against non-believers and complaining about "all that foreign oil controlling American soil"." The Rolling Stone magazine website [33] says:"In 1979 Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian. The platinum Slow Train Coming (Number 24, 1979) netted Dylan his first Grammy (for Best Rock Vocal Performance, Male). His West Coast tour late in 1979 featured only his born-again material;Saved (Number 24, 1980) and Shot of Love (Number 33, 1981) continued that message". It would be strange if Wikipedia’s article on Bob Dylan was at odds with these sources, usually described as extremely reliable. I apologise if these points have been made already. Mick gold (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob Dylan & Christianity

I don’t think that anyone who read Rolling Stone noticed any refusal to believe that Dylan had become a born-again Christian. The review of Dylan’s second evangelical album, Saved, began:

Of all Bob Dylan's public personae over the past nineteen years, none has more confounded his long-time admirers than his latest incarnation as a born-again Christian. Unveiling his new and obviously heartfelt beliefs on last year's Slow Train Coming, Dylan was a perfect caricature of a Bible-thumping convert, zealously proclaiming that "You either got faith or you got unbelief/And there ain't no neutral ground".

And the review ended:

As born-again gospel LPs go, Saved is a work of some distinction. Now that Bob Dylan's had his shots at that old-time religion, perhaps his secular fans may be forgiven for hoping that this, too, shall pass.

There is no scintilla of doubt that Dylan had recorded both Slow Train Coming and Saved as a born-again Christian. I don’t think the lines quoted from Jann Wenner support the contention that “Some fans refused to believe that Dylan had converted to Christianity.” Mick gold (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"The review?" Was it the only review? And is religious identity now determined by album reviews? Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Album reviews published in reliable sources are adequate as citations for religious identity, if the author happens to cover that. Regardless, Dylan's conversion is well-attested to by many reliable sources, not just a single album review, as anyone can see by reviewing the citations for his entry in List of people who converted to Christianity. No less authoritative a source than Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "In a dramatic turnabout, he [Dylan] converted to Christianity in 1979..."

Disbelief among fans with regards to Dylan's conversion would be an appropriate thing to cover, if it were covered in reliable secondary sources as a notable phenomenon. We don't have that. Wenner never denies the conversion, but does cast doubt. Bielen then misattributes denial to Wenner. The doubts of a single author on this issue do not bear mentioning unless the expression of such doubts is notable enough to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. We don't have that either.

Bus stop, I know you do not believe Dylan's conversion was genuine, but the sources are not on your side on this issue. Nick Graves (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick Graves: I did not say that I do not believe that Dylan's conversion was genuine. But the hallmarks of conversion are absent. Much is being made of little. Dalliances and dabblings are being elevated to the status of religious commitment. Religion involves fairly serious commitment, not just stage performances, not just "sound bites." I do not know exactly where the line is drawn on this subject, but for the record, I did not at any point announce that I do not believe that Dylan's conversion was genuine. And again, it is incumbent on you or other editors to flesh out the real Dylan involvement in Christianity. I think that is a responsibility that most of you have a "blind spot" to. I didn't have the mindfulness to respond this way in the moment, so I am doing so now, in the spirit of better late than never. Bus stop (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno--saying that Dylan's involvement in Christianity amounts to dalliances and dabblings sounds a lot like you do not believe the conversion was genuine. But whatever the case is about your personal beliefs on the matter, the important point here is that Dylan's conversion is reported as genuine by multiple, quite reliable sources. Nick Graves (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick Graves: please do not immediately revert an article being worked on. This is not (to be) an edit war. Allow material to stand so that others can see it, and so that I can continue to work on it if I see any changes to my edits that I may wish to make. Again: please do not precipitate an edit war by immediately reverting. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, reversions, appropriately applied, are a legitimate part of the editing process. At present, you are in a minority of one wishing to include this material. We are not obliged to let controversial material stand, especially since this is a biography of a living person. The onus is on you to show why it must be included. Let's discuss this. What is your response to my comments above? Nick Graves (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bus Stop: Given the positions stated, it would be best not to work on this section piecemeal since others cannot tell where you're heading and are likely to revert your work at each and every turn. It's quite possible you have legitimate points to make and equally possible these perspectives could be worked in if supported by authoritative sources. So it would be a good idea to discuss this and indicate the specific changes/additions you have in mind. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that the above makes sense to me as well. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get this started again, been there, done that...Modernist (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Wenner: "But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been 'born again.'"

Wenner does not claim Dylan did not convert. All he says is that, based on the album, and on the lack of testimony from certain would-be witnesses of alleged conversion, he sees no evidence for it. To say that one sees no evidence for an event is not the same as asserting it did not happen.

Bielen makes an obvious logical leap (and error) when he claims that "Though recognizing the religious, and specifically Christian, content of the work, Wenner, near the end of his essay, is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity." When an author makes a clear error (that, is, it can be detected even by someone without specialized training) in an otherwise reliable source, we are justified in deeming that portion unreliable, and therefore unsuitable as a source.

And again, regardless of whether Wenner doubted or denied Dylan's conversion, it would be giving undue weight to report on this single author's brief appraisal of Dylan's religious identity when so many reliable sources (not least, Dylan himself) so strongly confirm the fact that Dylan did indeed convert to Christianity. If there is a notable minority of Dylan conversion doubter/deniers, it will have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We have not seen that (though I do not deny that it might exist). Nick Graves (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't take the bait - seems apropos here...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible that Wenner merely meant to dispute whether Dylan was specifically "born again", as opposed to a more generic Christian. I agree, though, that without more sources, we should probably leave out any mention of this. My edit was meant merely to clean up the text that had been added and make it conform more closely to the source. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Some of you are reading into sources to extract the unlikely, and yet refusing to read the simple import of those same sources. This is a version of a countervailing view (to the normal view) that I think finds a welcome place in the article. And it is well-sourced:

The opinion exists, minority opinion though it may be, that Dylan did not ever literally convert to Christianity. Rolling Stone magazine editor and publisher Jann S. Wenner expresses in that magazine, in 1979, the following:

"But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again." At the urging of various personal friends, he went to Bible-study classes led by a fundamentalist preacher. And boy, without a doubt, this record is chapter and verse."

And author Kenneth G. Bielen, in his book "The Lyrics of Civility," commenting on Wenner's "Rolling Stone" article, states the following:

"Though recognizing the religious, and specifically Christian, content of the work, Wenner, near the end of his essay, is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity."

Bielen restates Wenner as follows:

"He (Wenner) states, "neither the album itself . . . nor any firsthand reports . . . say that Dylan has been 'born again.'"

This is obviously a minority opinion. The prevailing view is that Dylan did in fact convert to Christianity in 1979.

It logically goes in the "Born-again period" section, probably at the end of it. Again: it is a countervailing, minority view. It lends a well-rounded quality to the article. Dylan's religious dalliances are of obvious importance and interest to the reader. If an editor feels that too much weight is being given to the "non-conversion" view, would you consider fleshing out Dylan's Christian involvement? I think you should write a good quality coverage of all that Dylan and Christianity meant to each other. I am strongly of the opinion that the article should not be one-sided. I welcome an exploration of Dylan's "Christian phase." All that I seek is balance in these areas. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE: "...generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Additionally, there is no denial of Dylan's conversion in Wenner's article. Maybe you'll find some other sources to justify inclusion of the denialist viewpoint. The Wenner and Bielen articles do not succeed. Nick Graves (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument for conversion is not as solidly established as some would have you believe. Undue weight in fact is given to conversion. Dylan never said he converted. No source establishes a conversion procedure for Dylan. There is no source designating a time, place, or witness to any conversion for Dylan. In the light of the relative flakiness for religious conversion, which is what is implied by the phrase "born again," it is not a violation of WP:UNDUE to present a well-sourced countervailing view on the subject of the actuality, or the absence thereof, of conversion. If, for instance, only figurative conversion can be established, the viewer should be apprised of that. And as is well known, all identities have components -- a cultural component, a religious component, to name just two. But I won't be drawn into an argument about most of this. Suffice to say that Dylan is an enigmatic character, which is to his credit. Dylan dabbled in religion; Dylan didn't commit to any religion. That is the one thing that is well-established. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the above statement is accurate reflection of the facts. I disagree with the assessment that being "born again" is "flaky", as the term is often used by charismatic evangelicals, of which the group to which Dylan is attested in several reliable sources as joining, the Association of Vineyard Churches, is one. Regarding the lack of documentation, that group, who is said in RS's to have baptized Dylan, keeps few if any records anyway, so having no records of his baptism is not necessarily particularly important. Regarding the matter of WP:UNDUE, having myself read the quoted material, I have to agree that it says nothing one way or another about whether Dylan did or did not convert, only that there was no evidence of a conversion, which is not the same thing. Considering there have been, to the best of my knowledge, no disputes by the subject of the matter, despite several years during which he could have done so very easily, and the fact that the material is from a source which would ordinarily qualify as reliable, a well-known printed biography from a major publisher, I would have to say that the material is probably well sourced enough to be included. The quotations above, while perhaps sufficient to be included, do not in fact clearly make the statements they are claimed to make, and such less-than-well-sourced additions could themselves be seen as being a violation of BLP on that basis. By saying this, I am not saying that the material does not merit inclusion, simply that if it is to be included it should not be used to make statements it does not clearly make. The quote from the book, based on the information presented, is not in agreement with the material it seems to be using as a source for it, the quote from the Rolling Stone. Unless the person who wrote that book can point to a much better and more direct source for that statement, then I believe most reasonable parties would simply come to the conclusion that the writer of the book assumed the RS writer went a bit further in his statement than he did. If the book indicates that there was direct contact between the two parties, and indicates that some of the material of the book might be based on those contacts, that might be useful, particularly if something is said which directly supports the conclusion. Otherwise, the source given does not seem to be sufficient to substantiate the claim based on it. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Baptism is not known to have transpired concerning Dylan. There are no reliable sources for Baptism, concerning Dylan. It is not a question of whether "Association of Vineyard Churches" kept records or not. There isn't even a person asserting that Baptism transpired. There is just the surmising by one man that Baptism might have taken place. And he doesn't even know where -- he suggests two possibilities -- a swimming pool and the ocean. He does not say when this might have taken place. And no one attests to witnessing this. Bear in mind that Dylan is a person of superstar status. I think it is only reasonable to assume any person present at Dylan's Baptism would have come forward and spoken about the event. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from the sources to the effect of what you say above would be useful. And what you assume people might do and what they would do are often different matters, particularly regarding baptism and some similar rituals. Some people, particularly in some of what might be called the more "emotional" brands of Christianity, like the charismatic/pentecostal movement (I'm a Catholic, and I'm about as emotional as a dead turnip - ask any of my former girlfriends) do not like discussing such matters, because of the strong emotions tied to them. In some cases, the rites are also performed away from witnesses for the same reason. While the assumption is not an unreasonable one, we can't really base content on such assumptions. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK -- let me boil down my above comment to just the first sentence: "Baptism is not known to have transpired concerning Dylan." Yes, you are right, it could be that a very small number of people witnessed this, and their psychological makeup is such that they don't wax loquacious about these things. But still, we don't have a source for Baptism. I stand corrected concerning my assumptions. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The most recent Rolling Stone mentions that despite putting out a christmas album this coming december that it's believed Dylan has returned to Judaism. I'll search for a source for this later if need be. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know the details of "it's believed." By who? And why? Carlo (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It also depends upon whether you consider Bob Dylan to have ever literally converted to Christianity or only figuratively converted to Christianity. The jury seems to be still out on that one. But I am not aware that any reliable source ever paired the word conversion with the word literally or the word figuratively. But what the debate above and below on this page shows is that one or two reliable sources express that Dylan's supposed conversion is anything but a sure thing. And Dylan himself portrays himself as anything but a literal convert to Christianity in many instances. Unfortunately the article at present fails to show much of that ambiguity concerning conversion. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC—six sound files too many

This is an excellent article. While the textual references to the sound of the first two sound files are among the best I've seen on WP (who wrote them? Love to know) I'm sorry to say that a few of the other files are not as well nested, a critical requirement. Six is rather too many, given NFCC 3a (minimal usage of fair-use material).

I suggest that "Gotta Serve Somebody" and "Rolling Stone" be deleted to satisfy WP's NFC policy. Is this OK with everyone? Tony (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, I wrote captions. I'd be sorry to lose LARS & GSS, but if you think it's necessary for WP:NFCC reasons, then let it be. Mick gold (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to lose them too, and for such an icon. But probably the experts will say so. Let me check finally with them over at WT:NFC. Tony (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, while we're on the topic of possible sound files to delete, when I uploaded the "Tangled Up in Blue" file in January, among the rationale I listed, one was "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken." Then soon after I noticed that the song is not actually discussed in the article. I've been meaning to get around to dealing with that, but I guess the weeks and months have slipped by. Of course the the easiest solution would be to delete that part from my rationale, but actually I believe that the song being discussed in the article is a requirement or semi-requirement. So I had been meaning to get around to proposing a line or two about "TUIB" be added to the "Blood on the Tracks" part of the article. But if we are talking about maybe deleting a sound file or two, "TUIB" could be a candidate. I'd also be sad to see it go, but we could easily move it to Tangled Up in Blue article. It seems to me "Like a Rolling Stone" is such a crucial song in Dylan's career, it'd be a less suitable one to get rid of. Moisejp (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, Moisejp. Could it be argued that the caption to the sound file constitutes a discussion of this specific song? On your wider point, I agree that LARS was key song of Dylan's career, more crucial that TUIB. Mick gold (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Caption: I believe it's of higher status for our copyright rules if wound into the running narrative than in a caption. Moisejp, great idea to write in that one, but there are two issues at stake: one is the integration with the text we've been talking about here; the other is NFCC 3a, which requires "minimal use" in an article. Let's first see what one of the experts says from NFC. Tony (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Photography

The photo of Bob Dylan in the infobox is featured elsewhere in the infobox. I don't really see a point in having the same picture twice in a wikipedia article. I just thought I'd mention that. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 05:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

good point!!!--Applegigs (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Live Album from 1966

Does anyone know anything about this please? It is mentioned in the sleeve notes to 'The Essential Bob Dylan' released in about 2000 (?) as 'recent'. Apparently The Band played on it but it's a new one to me.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this: The Bootleg Series Vol. 4: Bob Dylan Live 1966, The "Royal Albert Hall" Concert recorded in Manchester, England, May 17, 1966: Dylan backed by The Band (then known as The Hawks). Mick gold (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Bob Dylan and Joan Baez performing at the March on Washington

Just a notification that this image was successfully nominated at Featured Picture candidates and is now a Featured Picture. I left out notifying here, because it could have been seen as an exhortation to canvass votes, but I'm glad it passed and you now have a featured picture for your featured article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gunnn (sic)

An anonymous editor removed sic from Gunnn on the grounds that this is not a mis-spelling. I've reverted that because the term applies to any text that looks wrong as written but is correct, not just to mis-spellings. Though I added sic originally (in hopes of stemming the constant corrections of the three ns), I'm not necessarily in favor of keeping it. Any input? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky. I discussed this with user: 650 Norton (1951) in August last year. [34]. Norton made point

"Who's Elston Gunn?" she asked. "That's not you is it?" "Ah I said, you'll see." The Elston Gunn name thing was only temporary. What I was going to do as soon as I left home was just call myself Robert Allen." Bob Dylan. Chronicles Volume One p78. I think Dylan himself trumps Bobby Vee or anyone else for that matter, yes? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So I agreed with Norton that Dylan's own spelling could be considered definitive. I personally do not have strong conviction re: Gunn vs. Gunnn. Just adding some context/back story. Mick gold (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a hidden comment is called for, along the lines of:

<!-- Please post on the Talk Page for this article before changing the following -->

I.M.S. (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous Topic Lines / try listening to "Idiot Wind"

As a fan of Bob Dylan, I was abhorred by the narrow-minded view of this article in which it tried to define the meaning of Dylan's life. How would you know the meaning of Dylan's life? You probably don't even know the meaning of your own.

"Trust yourself," "Busy being born?" WTF?

This article is yet another example of the idiots that have tried to define Dylan's life, despite the fact that Dylan himself rejects such attempts ... which would probably explain his penchant for telling contradictory stories to people.

Listen to "Idiot Wind" -- he's talking about the people that think of him as a prophet, including his then wife. "I can't even touch the books you read," "I kissed goodbye the howling beast on the border line that separated you from me," "There's a lone soldier on the cross / Smoke pouring out of the box car door / you didn't know it / you didn't think it could be done / in the final end He won the war after losing every battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.181.62 (talk • contribs)

The word "he" doesn't begin with a capital letter in the sources I've checked, as in "...in the final end "he" won the war after losing every battle," in the song "Idiot Wind." Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're doing what you imply others have done - distorting facts and drawing conclusions on the wall. Certainly, nobody has gone as far as you've just done in interpreting Idiot Wind or worse, in telling others they don't know the meaning of their own lives. In response to WTF, you may have jumped the gun a bit by judging the article on the basis of a few hyperbolic headers, because nowhere does the article itself try to "define the meaning of Dylan's life." Furthermore, virtually everything the article does say is backed by sources, by "idiots" like Michael Gray, Robert Christgau, Clinton Heylin and others who fully agree with your view on Dylan's rejection of wearing the mantle of prophet. But if you have some constructive input on what might be changed or toned down, by all means do what you can to help us with the load. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "Idiot Wind" interpretation is all about, but I agree that the headings are totally meaningless, specious, and look sort of ridiculous. I.e., what could "Not Dark Yet" possibly have to do with the 1990s except the fact that he happened to write that song in that decade? It's unclear, and gimmicky. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC

You waste your time with such hypocrisy as trying to invert my assertions in order to attack me. I simply question fans who look to Dylan as a "prophet," because it has been clear to me that Dylan has spent his career trying to distance himself from such labels.

"People see me all the time, and they just can't remember how to act. Their minds are filled with big ideas, images, and distorted facts. Even you, yesterday, you had to ask me where it was at? I couldn't believe after all these years, that you didn't know me any better than that. Sweet lady."

Sounds to me that Dylan was reporting his reactions about fans that think Dylan has access to some greater truth, and that included his then wife.

Do I know that what I say is true? No, I don't. I merely provide another perspective, rather than adhere to the unilateral perspective that Dylan was a "prophet." I'm tired of Dylan fans who only hear what they want to hear, and seek affirmation from music.

Bottom line is, my criticism was aimed at whoever wrote those ridiculous headers but also the generic idea that Dylan was a "prophet." Dylan was and is a good musician. Anyone that looks ONLY to musicians for truth is a fool. I emphasize, 'only' because musicians can be a good source of supplemental ideas, but nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.181.62 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, your views about prophets are pretty much shared by editors who have worked on Dylan articles, and as evidence of that, your criticism of the headers in question has been taken to heart. Meanwhile , I apologize for anything I may have said in my previous comment to offend you. Besides shooting from the hip, so to speak, I also forgot that this page should only be used for substantive matters related to improving the Dylan article and not as a forum for general discussion on the subject. Allreet (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Bob Dylan

I've set up a proposal for a WikiProject Bob Dylan - you can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bob Dylan. Please show your support by giving it a vote - add your name to the "support" list. Many thanks, I.M.S. (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything that means improvement is a good thing. The scope of material on Dylan in Wikipedia is mind blowing - a total of 492 pages tied to him and his songs, albums, tours, films and books. I.M.S. gives the breakdown of the relevant categories, then outlines a WP with a series of proposals for improving and unifying the pages. Though I'm very familiar with many of the individual articles, still I had no idea there was this much available. So imagine what's being missed by others with an interest in Dylan but who spend less time here. It's my hope, then, that forming a WP will further the scholarship and writing, as well as improve awareness of and access to the "catalog" of related pages. Allreet (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that completely. Thank you for your vote - now that there is significant support for the project, I'll get the main page finished up. I'll go ahead and make a user subpage for the WikiProject in a day or two - If I can get one or two more votes, the project will be launched. I'd like to thank Moisejp and Allreet for voting - I hope this WP will grow into a thriving community someday. I.M.S. (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a Main Project Page in one of my sandboxes - it can be found at User:I.M.S./WikiProject Bob Dylan. Many of the links will not work until the project is launched, and many of the templates aren't created quite yet. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or give advice - I'll appreciate any input. I.M.S. (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for launching. Idea of serious editors improving Dylan material is a good one. Your stats indicate a huge amount of material. (Formidable task! but as Chairman Mao used to say: The journey of a thousand miles begins with one foot step.) Mick gold (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The project is now up and running with its own proper page - see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan. I've blanked my subpage sandbox to avoid confusion. Mick Gold, I've moved your signature along with the move. I'd like to thank everyone for their support in making this WP possible. Now that there is a Main Page, please remember to add your name to the list of members! I.M.S. (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the initiative to start this project, I.M.S. I'm certainly looking forward to being involved and to working with others to improve the quality and consistency of the Dylan-related articles. Moisejp (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide album sales

I removed the following recent addition from the lead: "As of December in 2007 Dylan has sold 119.800.000 worldwide in only albums sales."

I checked the citations given, and it appears someone on a blog either copied or compiled a list from Charts in France. However, I couldn't confirm the source information (needs further research). RIAA reports 37 million in US sales, and WP's List of best-selling music artists gives 58 million, but its source was Britannica Online's Bob Dylan article, which was written by Al Kooper and has no citations, so it's not clear exactly what this number means. Also, one place I haven't checked is a page on Wikipedia that lists reliable sources for record sales, which at the moment I'm unable to find.

Worldwide sales are a tricky thing. See the Wall Street Journal for an interesting article on how tricky. Just the same, the thought behind the sentence I removed is on the right track. It's just that I'd hate to see a figure used or even a range that could turn out to be highly misleading. Some help in locating a good source would be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The phrase "in only album sales" means not including singles sales. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Allreet, I think you were right to delete this material. I was hesitating about removing what was clearly a good faith edit, because I couldn't think of the right way to critique it, so I'm glad you found the appropriate words. Mick gold (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Article

I stumbled onto this article today. It's one of the best articles I've seen. I really like how there's song clips off to the side in chronological order. Great work editors. OlYeller^Talktome 17:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

split article

This article is awfully long, any chance we can delete and/or delete some of the less relevant stuff.--Levineps (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if some details could be removed to an article on his recording history - where/when/with who albums or songs were recorded, when they were released, etc. Unless they are really critical to the main article, they could go. I'm not sure how much that could help.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cut some less essential material. Mick gold (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

His name

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. This is basic Wikipedia policy. For example see, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. The opening sentence of this article should be begin with "Robert "Bob" Dylan". Bob Dylan didn't change his name to Bob Dylan. He changed it to Robert Dylan. Bob Dylan is the name is only universally known as. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia policy on article names. This article is already named Bob Dylan for precisely the reasons cited in that guideline. The lead already includes his full name and the name he is universally recognized as. Including the second Robert (since Robert is already included in the Zimmerman name) would be pedantic and useless. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Including his full name, which is Robert Dylan, isn't a "pedantic and useless" thing to do. He changed his name to Robert Dylan. Not Bob Dylan. The name of article itself and what is referred to throughout obviously shouldn't be Robert. But that is according to Wikipedia policy, what he should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article itself. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Depp for example, at the start of his article is referred to as John Christopher "Johnny" Depp II. Bill Clinton as, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. This article should begin with Robert "Bob" Dylan, per Wikipedia policy. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If not even Wikipedia policy, then basic common sense. Bob Dylan's 'full legal name is Robert Dylan. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This version[35] seems to meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. Ty 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ty, now we have some guidelines. I would say that the present article meets the criteria of the second example, Boris Karloff. No do I think it should be changed again unless a concensus is reached on this talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, According to his autobiography Chronicles pp 78-79 he realized early on that Elston Gunn, Robert Allan, Robert Allyn, Robert Dillon, Robert Dylan, Bobby Dylan, Bob Allyn, didn't work or look good in writing...his friends always called him Bobby though, or Robert...he was leaning toward Robert Allyn, but Bob Allyn sounded like a used-car salesman. So he decided he would be just Bob Dylan...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If his full legal name name is Bob Dylan, then I'm mistaken and incorrect. As I've said already, is his full legal name is Robert Dylan, then the opening sentence of the article should be changed per the examples I've shown above. Sir Richardson (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the implication in Chronicles pp 78-79 (Dylan's autobiography) is he changed his name to Bob Dylan thinking it was the best of the possibilities...Modernist (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no should about it, please see the link above provided by Ty which confirms that either is correct. You have been reverted 5 times by 3 different editors already, now please leave it alone, you have no concensus for your proposed change. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear myself - I agree with Ty and Rich there should be no change, and the issue is moot because in his own words Dylan says his name was changed to Bob Dylan, end of story...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, therefore. I have changed the text in the article that says Dylan changed his name to Bob Robert, not Robert Bob. EDIT: In the "Relocation to New York and record deal" section. Resolved. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources said he changed his name to Bob Dylan, and policy says it doesn't matter anyway, his name is Bob Dylan, do you understand English?..Modernist (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And... as it is unverified I have reverted your edit. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK it looks correct, lets stop kidding around :)...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I was a little quick...<removed irrelevant babble (I should read more carefully)> --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Robert "Bob" Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman)" is best if his legal name is now Robert Dylan. On reading the current version, one might wander on whether his current legal name is Robert Allen Zimmerman or Bob Dylan, and no other possibility would likely occur to them. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

His legal name is Bob Dylan as far as the sources go...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

he's left-handed

he is left-handed, like paul mccartney, ringo starr, jimmi hendrix, and me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.221.43 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. He does everything with his right-hand from what I've seen.--GroovySandwich 04:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He's not. In evrerything you see he's right handed. And if you see him left handed the photo has been reversed for some reason. (24.127.61.186 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

he play guitar as a right-handed, but he's left-handed, he use sing autographs with his left hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.211.253 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's occupations

While Dylan has painted, written books, and written poems, I don't think anyone could say those have been major parts of his life, or that these are what he is known for. "Author" might be the most arguable, but I would say that writing an autobiography is different from being an author. The article on Ulysses S. Grant, for example, doesn't identify him as an author, despite a famous autobiography. I think listing professions that are very minor parts of Dylan's life just makes the infobox look silly. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Painter" in particular looks quite superfluous to me. I removed it along with "disc jockey" some time ago. It was inexplicably replaced. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was leaving in "disc jockey" because I thought his Sirius radio show was current, but now I see that it seems to have ended. We could take that out too, for the same reasons as above. I doubt there are very many people who think of Dylan first as a disc jockey. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's most recent album

I've restored the short para at end of lead section detailing Dylan's most recent album, Christmas In The Heart. This was deleted by SlubGlub on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a fan site". I agree with this sentiment, but I would argue that the purpose of lead para is to give overview of Dylan's career. Mention of his most recent album is important to demonstrate that Dylan is still active as a recording artist. His most recent album generated much interest in print and online media because 1) Dylan chose to record traditional Christmas songs, including well-known Christian hymns. (There has long been controversy over Dylan's religious beliefs.) 2) All Dylan's royalties are being donated to 3 charities dedicated to alleviating hunger. IMHO the lead section would be incomplete if it did not mention the artist's most notable recent artistic contribution. What do other editors think? Mick gold (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I second those emotions. Well said. Allreet (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Furthermore, a mention of Dylan's most recent album in the lede has been practice since at least Modern Times, and I recall upon first reading this article that the lede did a nice job of summarizing the totality of his career, from the 1960s to the immediate present. It should stay that way. Grunge6910 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a encyclopedia, not a news site on what Bob Dylan is currently doing or, a fansite. His Christmas album isn't notable at all, It's one thing to have a section about his tri 60s albums of Highway 61, etc or one on the popular Blood on the Tracks but not this random Christmas album..

Actually, Mick, this amounts to recentism. As an encyclopedia, we aim to give a concise overview of Dylan's 50 year life/career, particularly so in the lead. By mentioning only that Christmas album and not any other, you imply that this Xmas album is the most important of Dylan's career. Just because something happened recently, we shouldn't be giving undue importance to it.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be an overview and summary of the main article text. The paragraph on the album is completely dispropotionate. It is an extremely minor part of his whole life and career. Some albums should be mentioned (none are at the moment), but certainly not this one. The reasons given for its inclusion are also dubious. Ty 11:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions to the contrary? Shall I go ahead and remove the paragraph?—indopug (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No Direction Home

Considering this article is too long already, maybe we could remove the paragraph about the Scorcese film? Or trim it to a mention, perhaps elsewhere in the article? It has its own article, and how many awards it won, blah, blah, blah are not really relevant to Dylan himself. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding front cover of Blonde on Blonde

I am adding this cover image for three main reasons. Number one is the fact that it is obviously one of his best achievements during the era of him going electric. Number two it is the last album he released before the famous motorcycle accident. And the biggest reason is the fact that there is currently no free image available on this article that depicts Dylan's trademark hairstyle and clothes that he wore during 1965-1966. Blonde on Blonde shows how different he looked from his earlier country boy look. This was an important time for dylan and this article should have a picture of him during his most famous and successful time period. Chasesboys (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add the image yet—per WP:NFCC, you need critical commentary on the image itself—that is, there needs to be sourced material directly discussing the very photo shown. I agree with some of the points you raised, but I think that we need to reach a consensus here before we add it. Is there a mention of the photo session in a book or reliable source? - I.M.S. (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course Chasesboys (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Please clarify. I understand your reasons, vut I think we need to discuss it before proceeding... - I.M.S. (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this discussion of the cover image of Blonde on Blonde. If you're seeking commentary, Jerry Schatzberg (who took the cover photo) has an account of the pic in his book Thin Wild Mercury, Genesis Publications, 2006. On p. 46 Schatzberg writes:

I wanted to find an interesting location outside the studio. We went to the west side. At the time it was the meat packing district of New York and I liked the look of it. It was freezing and we were very cold. The frame he chose for the cover is blurred and out of focus. Of course everyone was trying to interpret the meaning, saying it must represent getting high or an LSD trip. It was none of the above; we were just cold and the two of us were shivering. There were other images that were sharp and in focus, but to his credit, Dylan liked that photograph. Mick gold (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo from the White House

Hello. This is an almost perfect photo, but unfortunately Pete Souza released it with so many conditions, I would be (happily!) surprised to find it on Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Years active. 1961-current

Dylan has had a recording contract since 1961 to present, therefore his years active are 1961-present. Merely because a recording was made pre-1961 does not alter his "active" dates. Dylan may have been dreaming of a record contract in 1959, but he certainly didn't have one, nor was the 1959 made for any commercial reward at the time, nor would you extend his "active dates" to 1947 just because his family made a recording of him singing his first nursery rhyme in 1947, whether it was officially released otherwise? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Years active" refers to his period as a professional recording artist. So let's keep the "1961-present" intact.--JayJasper (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sound clips...

Has anybody thought about adding a sound clip of a dylan interview? It would give a real perspective of the man. The song soundclips will be available on the articles anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion. Does anyone have access to a clip that can be added?--JayJasper (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Worthy or worthless?

So Howard Sounes compares the undoubtedly gifted Bob Dylan to Mozart et al. But what is that worth exactly and why should anyone care? Quoting Sounes as an authority on genius comes off as a joke, amounting to little more than weasel-worded biased opinion. --Jumbolino (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"maternal grandparents" vs. "mother's grandparents"

Someone keeps trying to change "mother's grandparents" to "maternal grandparents". These phrases mean different things; I'm assuming the text is correct as it stands, but I don't have access to the sources on this. If "maternal grandparents" is actually correct, then one of the regular contributors to this article should make the change with a reassuring sounding change description, instead of some anonymous IP user doing it. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The accurate version is that Dylan's "mother's grandparents" were Lithuanian Jews who arrived in the Unites States in 1902, which is not the same as "maternal grandparents". So you're right to keep reverting it, Brianyoumans. (On Dylan's father's side of the family, it was the paternal grandparents who were the immigrants.) Mick gold (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

there are a whole lot of dead reference links on this page

Please see link checker. Most of it comes from Rolling Stone no longer offering access to articles. A few are for other reasons. Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone dead links

Revamp of Rolling Stone website has resulted in the dead links which Xtzou points out above. I think I can reconstruct most of the Rolling Stone interviews because they have been published in book form - e.g. Dylan on Dylan, ed. Jonathan Cott, 2006. Record reviews are trickier and may require re-writes and/or alternative opinions. I'll try to re-work this over the next week. Mick gold (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All dead links replaced, I think. Mick gold (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate coverage of 1978

I came here looking for a summary of Dylan's lengthy world tour from February to December, 1978, but there was nothing. No mention of recording at Budokan, no talk of the flashy production style and big song arrangements. Howard Sounes's books hold some of this information, if anyone is willing to add it. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The man played 114 shows to make $20 million in 1978. In the Sounes book, Patrick Stansfield says "He agreed, more or less, sell his soul." Sounes also talks about Dylan's backup singer girlfriends on the tour, Helena Springs, past girlfriend Mary Alice Artes, then Carolyn Yvonne Dennis (Carol Dennis) to fight with and replace Springs. Lots of material here to be summarized.

If I were reviewing this article for FAR, I would recommend delisting it unless some more of 1978 were brought in. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. If The Last Waltz is mentioned, then the 1978 tour and Bob Dylan at Budokan should also be summarized. I'll add something tomorrow. Mick gold (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

More material added. Mick gold (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dylan’s mother’s grandparents

Dylan’s maternal grandparents, Benjamin and Lydda Ebelestein (born in Lithuania) left Russia and they arrived in Michigan on Christmas Day 1902. They brought with them their oldest daughter Florence who had been born in 1892. In 1911, Florence Edelstein married Ben Stone (whose family had arrived from Lithuania in 1888). Their daughter Beatrice Stone was born in 1915, and she was Bob Dylan’s mother.—from The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray, pp 641-2. Mick gold (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Small FAR-style issues

Please fix The present article is in overall a fine piece of work, but there are some issues with the present revision of the article:

• No alt text for images.
• Some references are not reliable: e.g. #308
• No mention of some parts of the article in the lead: e.g. Bob Dylan#Artist.

These are pretty small and do not require a FAR, but they keep the article from passing FA. I suggest that interested editors on this article take a look at it and compare it to the FA criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've endeavoured to add sentence about Dylan as artist to lead. Mick gold (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added alt text and removed the unreliable ref. I believe we've addressed all of the issues. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

His Turkish ethnicity

Although the article says that his paternal grandmother originates from Istanbul, it seems as though contributers to this article have intentially not mentioned the fact that she was Turkish. This article seems to promote his Jewishness and neglects to mention that he also has Turkish roots, as his biography indicates. He even said the following: As a teenager, I used to sing the Ritchie Valens song 'In a Turkish Town'... and it seemed to suit me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.27.155 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the source of the aforementioned quote and also the fact that Dylan's mother Beatrice Stone was Turkish. --Sayantan m (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

His "Jewishness" and his "Turkish roots" are not exclusive of one another. There is no contradiction between a person being Turkish and Jewish. But as Sayantan points out, you need sources relevant to the Turkish heritage if that is to be developed in the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This quote comes from Bob Dylan's very own book in 'Chronicles: Volume One'. He says the following: "My grandmother's ancestors had been from Constantinople. As a teenager, I used to sing the Ritchie Valens song 'In a Turkish Town' with the lines in it about the 'mystery Turks and the stars above,' and it seemed to suit me more than 'La Bamba.'" (pg. 93). You can also find this quote cited in many articles see for example [36] (page 28) and [37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.8.128 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently I found out this, "Dylan’s mother was born Beatrice R. Stone in 1915, and had an older brother, Vernon. Two younger siblings followed, Lewis and Irene. All born in the US, they were the children of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants Benjamin David Solemovitz (born 1883), who changed Solemovitz to Stone, and his wife Florence Sara nee Edelstein, herself one of ten children.
Taking Florence Sara first: the Florence who would become Bob Dylan’s grandmother—she and the other nine Edelstein children were in turn the sons and daughters of Benjamin Harold Edelstein (born 1870) and Lybba nee Jaffe, from Korno in Lithuania. (Benjamin Harold’s parents were David and Ida Edelstein; Ida’s parents were Yehada Aren and Rachel ne´e Berkovitz. Lybba Jaffe’s parents were Aaron Jaffe and Fannie.) " (from The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia by Michael Gray, pg.641-642).--Sayantan m (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's reference in Chronicles (p. 93) is not to his maternal grandmother but to his father's mother, Anna Zimmerman, née Chana Greenstein. She joined her husband Zigman Zimmerman, emigrating from Odessa (on the Black Sea, in present-day Ukraine) to the US by 1910. The sentence in the article acknowledges Dylan's version in Chronicles: "In his autobiography, Chronicles: Volume One, Dylan writes that his paternal grandmother's maiden name was Kyrgyz and her family originated from Istanbul."

One problem is that the information on Anna's death certificate contradicts Dylan's version. The death certificate was signed by her oldest son Maurice (Bob Dylan's uncle), and it states that she was born in Odessa. This is how Michael Gray summarizes it in The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, pp 729-730, under the heading "Zimmerman family":

Anna, who had also moved to Hibbing, and lived for some years with Bob’s Uncle Maurice, moved into a nursing home way down in St. Paul and died there of arteriosclerosis on April 20, 1955. Her death certificate, with the information supplied by Uncle Maurice, confirmed that she’d been born in Odessa. Dylan contradicts this, writing in Chronicles: Volume One of visiting her when she still lived in Duluth: she ‘had only one leg and had been a seamstress. … She’d come to America from Odessa.[but] Originally she’d come from Turkey, sailed from Trabzon, a port town, across the Black Sea. . . . Her family was from Kagizman, a town in Turkey near the Armenian border, and the family name had been Kirghiz. My grandfather’s parents had also come from that area. . . . My grandmother’s ancestors had been from Constantinople.’

I think we should leave the sentence in the article, as it acknowledges Dylan's account of his family history in Chronicles, even though the documents do not confirm his version. Mick gold (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

He clearly accepts the fact that he has Turkish roots, and this article must illustrate this. If we look at the categories in this article there is 'American people of Ukrainian descent' and a whole load of 'Jewish American X's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.8.128 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Change of Picture

I've changed the picture of the infobox which previously was "Paparazzo Presents Bob Dylan .jpg". Though the pic itself was great it was taken in 2006 and I thought it'd be better to have a more recent one (taken in 2010) in the infobox.--Sayantan m (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank god you did. I thought that picture was plain terrible representation of Dylan. XZYOE (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

awards

perhaps a section towards the end of the article detailing every award and maybe major nominations as well (grammy oscar etc) he has won would be a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article already exists, List of Bob Dylan awards. This is one of many Dylan articles you can access by clicking on Dylan portal at foot of article. Mick gold (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stealing of James Damiano's Songs by Bob Dylan

The Stealing of James Damiano's Songs by Bob Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.102.11 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG. If it's not good enough for any mainstream media sources, it's not good enough for Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Nelson

I've eliminated ref to Paul Nelson which gives him primacy in Dylan's move from rock'n'roll to folk music while attending the University of Minnesota. This is not to diminish Nelson, he's an excellent writer who co-founded the influential journal, Little Sandy Review, with Jon Pankake. While at Sing Out!, Nelson ably defended the changes in Dylan's musical style, when other folkies were trying to nail him. It seems wrong to attribute such a major moment to one person. Tony Glover was an influential folkie friend of Dylan in Minneapolis, who crucially recorded his early performances. In Chronicles, Dylan spends more time describing John Koerner's musical taste and influences than Nelson's. Dylan mentions Dave Whitaker as the person who lent him Guthrie's autobiography, Bound For Glory, which was an earthquake moment. And of course Dylan in Minneapolis had a complex relationship with Jon Pankake, described in Chronicles as "a classic traditional folk snob", from whom Dylan famously "borrowed" a number of folk records. It seems wrong to single out Nelson, when the person who made that decisive move was Bob Dylan, stimulated by a number of friends. Mick gold (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a sentence or so could be added about those early influences? From what you say, it would be unfair to mention only Nelson, but maybe something maybe like "In Minneapolis Dylan encountered the local folk music scene, meeting folk music enthusiasts such as Jon Pankake and Paul Nelson and folk musicians like John Koerner and Tony Glover; these contacts influenced Dylan's growing move towards traditional music." Not very good, but you get the idea. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is 156,224 bytes; in the opinion of some editors & administrators it's already too long. I would not advocate adding more details which are not crucial. We could name influential people in Minneapolis folk scene, as you suggest. But when Dylan arrived in New York, he was surrounded by people who gave him material, encouragement, rivalry, including Dave Van Ronk, Paul Clayton, David Blue, Rick von Schmidt, Eric Andersen, Mark Spolestra, Greenbriar Boys etc. None of these are mentioned, which I think is a good thing. I think the important thing about Dylan in the Minneapolis folk scene was that he threw himself into it, and gives an interesting account of the appeal of that material. And then he moved on, determined to head for New York, and seek out Woody Guthrie. My inclination would be to avoid adding more detail. Mick gold (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

there should be something about his drug use

during the 60s he took huge amounts of uppers and downers that influenced a lot of his live performences. also his recordings, because his out put had a lot to do with his drug use. and, during the 70s, he became a real stoner with coocaine and pot untill he converted.

not saying there should be a whole section about it, but it is an important part of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to substantiate these assertions? If so, please present them. If not, adding such content would be in violation of WP:BLP.--JayJasper (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you watch the movie "Eat The Document", it is obvious (if you are familar with drugs) that he is high on some kind of upper or speed in almost every scene. As far as sources, literally almost every book about his life in the 1960s brings up uppers and downers. There is the famous quote that Bob Dylan said in one radio interview during the 1966 tour, that "it takes a lot of medicine to keep up this pace". I also remember interviews of Bob Dylan saying something like drugs didn't influence his music, but they helped pump it out.

"Rolling Stone", "The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan", and "Eat The Document", " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

if nobody has evidence or testimony of dylan itself that could be a rumor in press conference in san francisco at 60's he did look high but I won't say that just because I believe that. Willie Nelson said he did smock marihuana and still do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.215.216 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Aliases/also known as

Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Alias, I believe that a number of aliases under "Also known as" in the infobox need to be removed. The field is for official aliases, such as "Blind Boy Grunt" or "Jack Frost", and not nicknames, such as "Zimmy". - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's stick to the official ones only.--JayJasper (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure on all of them but I think it's safe to remove "Zimmy" and "Zimbo". Agreed?- tSR - Nth Man (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "Zimmy", "Zimbo", and "Bobby the Hobo". The first two are nicknames and the third was a character he played. What remain seem to be legit aliases.- tSR - Nth Man (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

tSR - Nth Man, I think your winnowing of aliases was a good move. Richie Unterberger/All Music Guide ref [38] states:

[Dylan] also appears as piano player Bob Landy on the Elektra anthology The Blues Project (on the song "Downtown Blues"), as Tedham Porterhouse when playing harmonica on Ramblin' Jack Elliott's 1964 album track "Will the Circle Be Unbroken," and as Robert Milkwood Thomas when adding piano and harmony vocals to Steve Goodman's "Somebody Else's Troubles" in the early 1970s.

So should we add Tedham Porterhouse? Mick gold (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

added the Porterhouse alias - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the aliases not mentioned in the article should be and referenced there, then we can take the references out of the infobox, which I think take up too much space and look messy ... I believe it's a general guideline that any info in the infobox should be mentioned in the article anyhow. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved alias references from infobox to the text, and changed text when necessary per tSR Nth Man suggestion, I think it looks cleaner. Mick gold (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't Look Back

Shouldn't there be some mention of Don't Look Back in the article? It was a monumentally important film that chronicled a major point in Dylan's career, it might at least deserve a passing mention. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The film is mentioned briefly at the beginning of the section "Going electric". Mick gold (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Front Page Picture

May i suggest that you change his front page picture to something From the time period from 1963-1966, Thats when he was in his prime ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.208.253 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree, the problem is finding a photo which is not copyrighted. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny this is surfacing again. Last time around, the plaint was that a current photo would be more appropriate. The only early photo free of copyright restriction, the one that originally appeared here, is from the March on Washington with Baez, where Baez was cropped out. This is now used later in the article to cover his "early" period. I prefer the younger Dylan on general historical/nostalgic grounds, but can live with an image more familiar to the generations that followed. Allreet (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

References to nuclear angst

The 1960's section refers to "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall"'s "Veiled references to nuclear apocalypse". I see this statement as correctly asserting that whether Dylan admitted it or not, it this song, (and "Masters of War") was perceived as articulating, poetically, the widespread nuclear doomsday angst prevalent at the time - also echoed in films like "On the Beach" and "Dr Strangelove" - see Jeff Nuttall's book "Bomb Culture". For God's sake, the end of the world nearly did occur a few weeks later ...So adding a brief summary of it in the lead is surely uncontentious?Straw Cat (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons this was removed before, firstly, you should consider that this is the lead for the whole article and Hard Rain doesn't fall into the the importance of the other 3 songs named, secondly, Dylan has always denied the song was about nuclear holocaust, as the editor who reverted you said in his edit, "Undid good faith addition that's covered in the generalized statement that follows, but also is an implication Dylan consistently denied (equating rain with nuclear fallout)" which makes your edit misleading, and, thirdly your addition was quite simply unreferenced. If I was going to amend the lead, I'd want to add something about songs from other eras. But that's just me. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It should not be present in the lede because it's both a poor summary and has undue weight there; there is only one sentence in the entire long article referring to nuclear apocalypse (and refers to exactly one song), and thus is not worthy of being restated in one sentence in the lede (which currently refers to songs, plural.) Unless someone else continues this discussion by writing in favor of it remaining, it should be quickly removed. Rostz (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I take these points, although I'd already corrected that, despite Dylan's statement, Hard Rain was perceived to be about fallout etc. Other songs and references? In Chapter 2 of Chronicles, Dylan writes about being a child living under the military-industrial atmosphere of paranoia ..."When the drill sirens went off, you had to lay under your desk facedown ...as if this could save you from the bombs dropping ... the threat of annihilation was a scary thing". In 2001 he said in USA Today of "Masters of War" "It's speaking against what Eisenhower was calling a military-industrial complex ..." Straw Cat (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Too granular and not sufficiently notable, no matter how it's re-worked. However, at risk of opening a Pandora's box, I think this draws attention to other possibilities for the lead, based on providing a more complete overview of the most notable and revealing developments of Dylan's 50-year career. The first leg of that trek of course deserves considerable attention. But if you wrote down the main issues that should be raised in addition to this, you'd move directly to his electrification of folk and transformation of rock (not downplay it as being eclipsed by the handful of protest songs he wrote earlier), the ravages of pop stardom and the motorcycle accident that spared him, his experimentations with other musical forms during his years of relative seclusion, his "comeback" in the mid-70s followed close behind by the "saved" period, then the Never Ending Tour, and finally his astounding track record of the past decade, both in album sales and fame. In my opinion, these things should be summed up in some fashion to give readers a better picture of the totality rather than place the main focus on the first few years. I realize that this is a huge pill to swallow, so for now, I'll leave it at this: With or without such changes, "Hard Rain" still wouldn't make the cut. Allreet (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dylan/Beatles Footnote

Current footnote 8 in the lede references an article on Love & Theft. Besides the reference, the footnote includes a statement about Dylan's first encounter with the Beatles, where he turned the Fab Four on to pot and thus changed the course of popular music. Neither the sentence in the lede nor the reference have anything to do with the Beatles or the course of popular music. Someone at some point apparently thought this would be a convenient spot to work in this "insight". I have no doubt both Dylan's influence on the Beatles and his own work changed the course of music, but it wasn't because they smoked a joint together. I'm removing it on the above grounds (unreferenced, out of context, unnotable POV). Allreet (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dylan and drugs

The topic of Dylan and drugs has been raised several times on this Talk page. One instance is currently at the top of this page. [39] Of course, such material is very sensitive for a WP:BLP. But in the major biographies, there is no shortage of mentions of this topic. In Down The Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, 2001, Howard Sounes describes the consumption of hash and speed in Australia in 1966 (p.208). Clinton Heylin's new biography, Bob Dylan: Behind The Shades: The 20th Anniversary Edition, 2011,quotes several people on the 1966 tour describing the use of drugs, including D. A. Pennebaker. (pp. 246 – 253). In a 1969 interview with Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner, Dylan acknowledged drug use during the 1966 tour. On May 23, 2011, BBC Radio published a report of Dylan describing his use of heroin to Robert Shelton, in an interview taped in 1966. This report has attracted a lot of commentary in newspapers and online. Several journalists have been sceptical about this heroin confession, arguing that Dylan's interviews are full of stories which are demonstrably false, particularly during the years 1961 to 1966. I've added a mention of Dylan and drugs in 1966 to this article. Since it has been described by the best known biographers, by Rolling Stone magazine, and reported by the BBC, these reports can be described as WP:RS. Also, I think that mention of drugs helps to explain why the 1966 motorcycle crash was such a dramatic conclusion to the first phase of Dylan's career. Please comment if you disagree. Mick gold (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin

Shouldn't this say Hibbing, Minnesota? Dylan didn't originate in New York, I'm changing it...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bob Dylan is one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, musically and culturally. "

seriously? this is a childish and myopic statement - nothing will be diminished of BD achievements by toning this down.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.169.185 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an isolated, unsubstantiated sentence. The next 2 sentences give a basis for this summary:

Dylan was included in the Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[313] Biographer Howard Sounes placed him among the most exalted company when he said, "There are giant figures in art who are sublimely good—Mozart, Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, Shakespeare, Dickens. Dylan ranks alongside these artists."[314] Mick gold (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be toned down or responsibly re-sourced. Time Magazine is a mass-market, pop-culture, lightweight publication, not a WP:RS for so sweeping a cultural statement. Double ditto on Sounes, whose chief occupation is pop-culture bios, as indicated on his own website here: http://www.howardsounes.com/pages/about/biography.htm. Sounes' career hardly places him in a position to evaluate BD in terms of "Mozart, Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, Shakespeare, Dickens." You'd need an academic to make that stick - someone who actually knew something about the figures cited and who had credentials to make broad generalizations of this sort. It's not that you might not find such people: Christopher Ricks is a respected academic who, as most know, has written a book-length study, and Sean Willentz is an historian of unimpeachable credentials who has also written adulatory articles on the subject (among others). The fact that both have been severely criticized (to the point of ridicule at times) for their attempts to elevate BD into the cultural stratosphere is not relevant here, at least not until someone suggests that this article move away from the hagiography that much of it is and add more balance. Both have the professional status and firepower that Time and Sounes do not that would qualify them as WP:RS on the topic.Sensei48 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Joan Baez Bob Dylan.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Joan Baez Bob Dylan.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 28, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American folk singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, performing a duet at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963. Both were relatively new recording artists at the time, with Baez being at the forefront of American roots revival and Dylan having just released his second album. Baez was especially influential in introducing audiences to Dylan's music by recording several of his early songs and inviting him onstage during her own concerts.Photo: Rowland Scherman, USIA

Criticism Section?

Why no discussion of Dylan's limited vocal range and plagiarism of Henry Timrod's poetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.131.62 (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is discussed on the relevant albums' pages that those claims are aimed at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.45.199 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This WP entry mentions NYT article linking Modern Times to Timrod's poetry. Never Ending Tour section contains comment on Dylan's vocal range. Mick gold (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirection

Should 'Dylan' really redirect straight to 'Bob Dylan'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.232.75 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

White House Performance

The White House web-site has a video here (under a CC Atrib 3 licence) of Dylan performing "The Times they are a changin'". I'll upload the performance as a video or audio recording, and put it into a media multi-"listen" template. I'm not really sure where it should go on the page, and given this is a FA I thought I should flag it up here first. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. I will take a look and see if there is an obvious place to put it on the page. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious beliefs: A deal with the devil?

Editor Jpcohen has made a good faith edit, adding the following paragraph to the section Personal Life: Religious beliefs:

Although he became a fervent "believer," Dylan also claimed, in an interview for Martin Scorsese in the film No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, that when he was started out as a performer in New York City in 1961, he "went to the crossroads and made a big deal."[327] The comment references the legend of blues musician Robert Johnson (who supposedly became a great guitarist after making a deal "at the crossroads" with the devil).

I question if this information should be in a section on religious beliefs. This is the clip from No Direction Home referred to, which features interviews with Tony Glover and Dylan:

Tony Glover:

He was playing at some party or something and it was like a whole different guy. You hear those stories about the bluesmen who go out to the crossroads, and sell their soul to the devil, and come back and all of a sudden are able to do stuff, Robert Johnson, Tommy Johnson, that whole mythology, it was one of those kinds of deals almost. When he left Minneapolis he was just average, there were five or six other guys doing the same thing. When he came back he was doing Woody, and he was doing van Ronk, and he was finger pickin’, he was playing cross harp, this is a matter of a couple of months, this is not like he was gone a year or anything. He was gone a couple of months and apparently whatever he got into, he got into so intensely that he was like a real interesting performer.

Dylan:

That’s when I went to the crossroads and made a big deal, like whooshhhh one night and then went back to Minneapolis, and it was like, Hey where has this guy been? You know, (grins) he’s been to the crossroads.

I think the story told by Glover, and echoed by Dylan, is showing how dramatically Dylan changed as a performer, after he had been in New York for a few months in 1961. By placing this paragraph in the section on religious beliefs, this article is suggesting that Dylan actually made a deal with the devil. I favor removing this paragraph, and would like to know what other editors think. Mick gold (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely remove this paragraph. I've seen that clip many times and Dylan is certainly not talking about really having made a deal with the devil. Moisejp (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove, it puts too much emphasis on what was probably a throw away remark and therefore unbalances the article. However, knowing much use Dylan has made of the Bible, both NT & OT over the years, his conversion, his own roots, and the amount that has been said over the years about this (i.e. JWH has the most biblical imagery of all his albums) surely there might be a good article about "Dylan's Religion." Just a thought. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with everyone on removing the paragraph. Dylan's full quote is off-handed, playful, mocking, but on its own, not to be taken seriously. To attach more, as the paragraph does, requires sources. Also, Rich's suggestion about "Religion" as a topic is a good one, worth exploring. Allreet (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a one-off remark. Dylan repeated the same "deal at the crossroads" comment in an interview for 60 minutes with Ed Bradley. And his tone was dead serious. Both in the Ed Bradley interview and the Martin Scorsese interivew, Dylan never says that the "deal" was made with the devil. But the story obviously references the Robert Johnson legend that did involve a deal with the devil. But I was purposefully careful in the paragraph that I added NOT to state that Dylan literally talked about a deal with the devil. It's significant, I think, that Dylan's told this story twice in major, televised interviews and therefore, warrants mentions (perhaps in another section?). Whether the comments are serious or not is open to interpretation. But the story isn't secondhand or conjecture, and I don't think I presented his comments out of context or falsely.Jpcohen (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

JPCohen, are you saying that Dylan may have indeed made a deal with devil, who may have granted Dylan with some kind of musical genius? Or at least that Dylan may in fact believe he made a deal with the devil? I just can't agree that Dylan is actually saying that. You may be right that Dylan, in saying it twice, may attach some special significance to his sudden musical growth in New York, and maybe he identifies with Johnson and wants to highlight some similarity in their experiences. Maybe he just thinks it's a good story and wanted to tell it twice--that people were so impressed with his musical growth that they likened it to something that could have been brought about by making a deal with the devil. I haven't seen the 60 Minutes interview (maybe I should watch it on Youtube) but my interpretation of the No Direction Home interview has always been that he was expressing pride at his achievement and amusement at the crossroads story. But, fair enough, that's just my personal speculation. I'm not saying it's impossible that there may be a place for the story somewhere in Wikipedia, but I just really think by placing it in context of his religion, we're putting too much emphasis on the very unlikely possibility that he believed he actually made a deal with the devil. Moisejp (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think Dylan said he did a “deal at the crossroads” in the Ed Bradley interview. He discusses "a bargain" at the end of the interview. This is how it appeared on the 60 Minutes website which carried a transcript of significant parts of the interview:

His success, however, has lasted a long time. Dylan is still performing all of his songs on tour, and he says he doesn't take any of it for granted. So why is he still out there?

"It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I'm holding up my end … to get where I am now," says Dylan.

And with whom did he make the bargain? "With the chief commander," says Dylan, laughing. "In this earth and in the world we can't see."

Dylan is clearly being a bit mysterious here, and his meaning is open to interpretation. My interpretation of the "chief commander" with whom he made a bargain, in the context of his extensive exploration of the Judeo-Christian tradition, would be God, the figure Dylan addresses in songs such as "Father Of Night", "Gotta Serve Somebody", "Pressing On".

Dylan refers to God in the Ed Bradley interview. Bradley asks Dylan why he wrote in Chronicles, Volume One: "The press, I figured, you lied to it." Dylan replies:

"I realized at the time that the press, the media, they're not the judge - God's the judge. The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn't either of them. And I just figured they're irrelevant."

Mick gold (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should not be included in the religious beliefs section of the article. Even the most charitable interpretation leaves the statement very ambiguous as to whether it in any way represented Dylan's true beliefs about the devil. And even that leaves out more likely interpretations, such as he was using a figure of speech, using a good quote without necessarily thinking through or agreeing with all the possible implications of that quote, or just telling an interesting tale. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous says it. Certainly he's being metaphorical, and there is a way of applying the metaphor to what drove Dylan early on. But just the same, the thought is not in any way religious. Allreet (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dylan's comments are ambiguous; that's for certain. But just about everything he says in interviews is ambiguous. And as far as metaphors go, if you've actually heard the interview with Ed Bradley, you'll note that there's nothing metaphorical about it whatsoever. Ed Bradley asks him why he's still on the road, playing his songs night after night. And Dylan says that he's holding up his end of "the bargain." Then he goes on to explain that he made a bargain with the "chief commander" in order to have the level of success that he's had in his career. You can follow the reference attached to this comment to view the Ed Bradley interview for yourself.

As I've already stated, I did not say that Dylan made a deal with the devil. And I didn't say that Dylan said that he made a deal with the devil. But Dylan, in both the Ed Bradley interview and the Martin Scorsese interview, talks about a Faustian "bargain" or "deal" that he supposedly made with a supernatural power (I think that's indisputable). Was that power God or the devil? I don't know. But I think that Dylan is purposely vague on this point.

Whether or not Dylan is telling a tall-tale to amuse himself is beside the point. That's pure conjecture. The facts are what matter here, and that's what I was trying to report. I think it's important to leave out any convoluted interpretation of Dylan's comments (as tempting as that might be). And in the paragraph that I wrote, I think I left out any interpretation or personal opinion regarding Dylan's comments.Jpcohen (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the YouTube video, and looked at a blog or two on this. I agree with the consensus; I don't think this should be in a section on religious beliefs. It sounds to me like he feels he has a deal with destiny, or fate, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a religious thing - maybe a superstition, at the most. Many creative people feel like they can't stop creating - look at Isaac Asimov, for instance. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jpcohen, I think you raise some interesting and legitimate points, but I still don't believe, regardless of what Dylan meant by saying these things, that the quote merits inclusion in this article. I don't pretend to know how Dylan's mind works (or what his religious beliefs are), and for that reason I think we should leave the quote out. Including it in the article - even while using a perfectly neutral tone - implies something, no matter how small, about his religious views, and I don't think we should do that unless we have many different reliable sources and quotes to back it up. The religious beliefs section is fine as it is, and states what needs to be stated. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ed Bradley quote about Dylan's "bargain" with the "chief commander" is already in the section on Dylan's religious beliefs, because in this interview Dylan makes an explicit reference to his faith in God. Article states:

Dylan has continued to perform songs from his gospel albums in concert, occasionally covering traditional religious songs. He has also made passing references to his religious faith—such as in a 2004 interview with 60 Minutes, when he told Ed Bradley that "the only person you have to think twice about lying to is either yourself or to God." He also explained his constant touring schedule as part of a bargain he made a long time ago with the "chief commander—in this earth and in the world we can't see."[33]

What I (and others) have difficulty with is your suggestion that Dylan's remark "I went to the crossroads and made a big deal" in the Scorsese film should be in a section on Dylan's religious beliefs. Mick gold (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice that self-styled Dylanologist A. J. Weberman has just published a book entitled The Devil and Bob Dylan: Bob Dylan and his Deal with the Devil [40] which claims to tell "the story of how Bob Dylan sold his soul to the Devil in return for fame and fortune", and also goes into details about Dylan's alleged heroin addiction. Weberman was described by Rolling Stone as "the king of all Dylan nuts", and I know of no WP:RS which takes Weberman's claims seriously. Mick gold (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Come Writers And Critics: The Bob Dylan Paper Site

'Come Writers And Critics' is a NON COMMERCIAL reference site trying to show all Dylan related publications around the world in 27 languages so far: that is books, cover story magazines, fanzines, programmes, but also manuscripts, flyers, etc... It has been on line for 18 years now, and is considered as a reference site by collectors around the world. This is why I do not understand why it now seems to be impossible to include a link to it in the Bob Dylan 'External Link Section' The link used to be in that section for years, but now it seems unbearable to some people, I'd like to read their arguments. Once again: this is NON a commercial site: please visit before deleting! http://michel.pomarede.pagesperso-orange.fr/CW&C/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michpom (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The external links policies are - and rightly so - very restrictive. And they don't just restrict "commercial" sites although these are the most obviously problematic. They also generally restrict "fan" sites which is often unfortunate as there are some very useful fan sites such as your own. Some of the other external links in this article don't seem much different in nature from yours so these may need to be considered for deletion. The problem which I immediately identified with your website was its obvious conflict of interest. When someone adds a link to their own website this is a problem and you have already "outed" yourself as the website's owner. Once other editors decide that a link isn't acceptable it is usually difficulty to persuade them otherwise. You might want to consider bringing this matter to the administrators' notice board if you believe there should be an exception in this case. Afterwriting (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations; to avoid the 'conflict of interest', do you mean that someone else (not the webmaster) must add the link ? and do you have a link to the administrators' notice board that I could use to ask for an exception ? -besides, if all reference sites links were deleted, what would be the use of the 'external links' section ?- Michpom (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bass Guitar?

Under "Instruments" this article lists "bass" as one of Dylan's instruments. I don't know if he ever picked up a bass on a recording or live performance, but it's certainly not an instrument that Dylan has ever played with any frequency. This category should really be for a musicians main istruments. So would anyone object to removing "bass" from his list of instruments? If so, please explain why. Thanks.Jpcohen (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jpcohen, I agree with you, bass is clearly not an instrument Dylan has played frequently - either in concert or in the recording studio, so removing bass from "Instruments" in this article seems sensible. Mick gold (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Jpcohen (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

First para of lead

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous re-wrote first para of lead to read:

Bob Dylan is an American singer-songwriter, musician, poet, and to a lessor extent, a film director and painter. He has stayed a major influence popular music since coming to public consciousness.[1][2] Many of Dylan's songs of the 1960s are an informal chronicle of the times. His early songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" became anthems for the US civil rights[3] and anti-war[4] movements. Dylan's hit songs, recorded by himself and others, made him popular beyond his initial culture of folk music, many of whom who were part of that culture resented him for "selling out" by playing electric guitar and his writing and recording rock and roll songs. Dylan expanded a time limit of popular music in 1965 through his success of the six-minute single "Like a Rolling Stone".[5]

This seems less literate than the old version of the lead, so I re-wrote it, going back to some of the old phrases, while also attempting to tone down excessive "fan" tone of article, as correctly identified by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. I left out mention of Dylan as film director in first sentence, since his directing career consists of one film, Renaldo and Clara. Mick gold (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, with one sentence reads "His shift to rock and roll the mid 60s lead to the charges that he had had abandoned his responsibilities as a leader the American folk music revival which was strongly adverse to electric instruments." Please make it grammatically correct before reinserting. I think it would be better to discuss it on the talk page first before we make such bold changes to the lead of a featured and highly visible article.--Artoasis (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Artoasis's point and with Mick gold's fixes. While the original changes to the lead and subsequent paragraphs were made in good faith, some consideration should be given to the collaborative process that brought the article to this point, meaning that substantial revisions should be proposed and discussed first. In that way, we can clarify the basis for improvement and reach a concensus, rather than edit back and forth in disagreement. This is particularly true when you're not sure how to properly word something. If that's the case and your point has merit, others are bound to come up with the way to remedy things to everyone else's satisfaction. Allreet (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"His recordings with drums electric bass and guitar instrument resulted in controversy and criticism from some in the folk movement who earlier had denounced Dylan for writing more personal songs and no longer writing political songs." This is grammatically incorrect and wordy. I prefer what we had before. Also, this is the lead, so we don't have to go into as much detail here—readers who want to know more about it can read the Going electric section, or take the wiki-link and read Electric Dylan controversy. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I would vote for taking this out as well. It could be rewritten to be grammatical, obviously, but fundamentally the whole dispute was something of a tempest in a teapot, and I'm not sure it belongs in the lead, and in the first paragraph of the lead at that.Brianyoumans (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Between my last comment and the above feedback, I corrected the sentence in question, though I'm not entirely satisfied with the overall result. To me, the point is that Dylan added electric (rock) as backup to the acoustic forms he had been working with, folk and blues. This was a significant development that warrants mention in the lead, though I think it should be said more directly. The specifics, of course, belong elsewhere and are well covered in the body. As for wordiness, the additional point that this was controversial and drew criticism should be summarized as well by breaking this out as a followup sentence. Allreet (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Allreet, I wasn't sure what you meant in your comment above. Is there consensus for me reverting it to what it was originally? Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am more in line with Moisejp's comment that the current version is unnecessarily wordy and inappropriate for the lead section. A good lead should be a succinct summary of the subject, rather than elaboration like "...resulted in controversy and criticism from some in the folk movement who earlier had denounced Dylan for writing more personal songs and no longer writing political songs." I propose a minor rewording, "...However, his recordings employing electric instruments attracted denunciation and criticism from others in the folk movement", hopefully to address the issue raised by Mr Anonymous.--Artoasis (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer "His recordings backed by rock musicians attracted denunciation and criticism from others in the folk movement." to "However, his recordings employing electric instruments attracted denunciation and criticism from others in the folk movement." Surely the significance of LARS and the H61R album was that they transformed Dylan into a major figure in rock culture in 1965. But I'm happy to go with consensus. Mick gold (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has changed this yet? OK, I'm going to change it now and see what happens. I'll go with Artoasis's version in case, as Artoasis has said, Mr. Anonymous considers it a satisfactory compromise. Moisejp (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Edie Sedgwick

I was very surprised that this relationship was not yet mentioned on Dylan's wikipedia site because I thought this was very important in respect of both their lives. Edie's wikipedia has an entire section dedicated to Dylan because he was a big part of her life. Granted, her life ended earlier so he inevitably made up a bigger fraction of her future. But regardless, I thought it was very worthy of mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.169.109 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" nuclear theme

the part noted with resource no.54, concerning the inspiration of "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" is i believe misleading: "veiled references to nuclear apocalypse" are mentioned but Dylan denied that he'd ment that which is important to add in my opinion.. he says so directly anwerig to that question in Scorseses interview for his film. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hard_Rain%27s_a-Gonna_Fall has a resource supporting that denial. (i'm not sure how to 'correct' that in the article though..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.180.89.108 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As the separate WP article says, the sleeve notes on the Freewheelin' album, quote Dylan as saying that he wrote it in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis - which suggests that although he had actually written it a month before the crisis, at that time he was OK with the association.Straw Cat (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Dylan talks about the origins of "Hard Rain" in the Scorsese film. He told Studs Terkel, in April 1963, that "It's not atomic rain, it's just a hard rain. It isn't the fallout rain. I mean some sort of end that's just gotta happen... In the last verse, when I say, 'the pellets of poison are flooding the waters', that means all the lies that people get told on their radios and in their newspapers." But in this Terkel interview, Dylan also states that he wrote the song in October 1962 during the Cuba crisis, when "I was a little worried." So, as Straw Cat says, Dylan seemed to agree that "Hard Rain" was connected with the Cuban missile crisis. Mick gold (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Active years

He had his first-ever paid show on Saturday, March 1st, 1958, at the National Guard Armory - Hibbing (entrance fee: 50c) as a member of the Golden Chords (acc. to an ad in the Hibbing Tribune, as a photocopy shows in LIFE Books, Bob Dylan, Forever Young, 50 Years of Song, Time Home Entertainment, 2012, Vol. 2. No 2, February 10, 2012, p. 12). Shouldn't we change his first active year in the infobox from 1959 to 1958?--Mycomp (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Scaduto's biography, Dylan performed with his first band in High School in 1955. (Bob Dylan, Anthony Scaduto, p.7) My opinion is that Dylan (or Zimmerman) performed in High School and in the folk clubs in Dinkytown between 1955 and 1960. But he became Bob Dylan, the professional performer, when he arrived in New York in January 1961. He had signed a recording contract with Columbia by the end of that year. So I would date his active years from the start of his professional career in 1961. Anyone agree? Disagree? I've amended the High School Yearbook caption. A photo of the Yearbook is here [41] Mick gold (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Mick gold, with the additional point his "years active" should date from when he became a "professional" musician, rather than semi-pro, or a musician who sometimes got paid for a gig. Although I see Mycomp's point, I think counting from the first paid gig is more trivial than is absolutely necessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. The most significant events before Dylan's signing with Columbia were a handful of gigs in NYC and before that, nothing of note. In any case, I'd leave it at 1961 and not split hairs over the month. Allreet (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus around 1961. I'll make change. Mick gold (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I think that the lead for this article should be significantly shorter than it currently is. Anyone else agree/disagree?Jpcohen (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs." In all respects, the article's lead conforms with the guideline. I believe, however, that the two sentences on roadways that have been named after Dylan do not belong in the lead. Compared to dozens and dozens of other things that could be mentioned, these events are trivial and should be moved elsewhere. Allreet (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead looks fine to me. Span (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Span and Allreet. I removed the two sentences on roadways named after Dylan per Allreet's suggestion. I could insert them into a later part of article if other editors wish, but I don't miss them. I think lead should give solid account of why Dylan has remained a significant figure in a recording and performing career that has spanned more than 50 years. Mick gold (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Voice

hello,

why is Dylan's voice in Nashville Skyline very different as in the previous and later generations, eg not so raw? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Interviewing Dylan for Rolling Stone in 1969, Jann Wenner asked about his change of singing style on Nashville Skyline. Dylan replied:

"There’s not too much of a change in my singing style, but I’ll tell you something which is true... I stopped smoking. When I stopped smoking, my voice changed... so drastically, I couldn’t believe it myself. That’s true. I tell you, you stop smoking those cigarettes (laughter)... and you’ll be able to sing like Caruso."

Dylan biographer Clinton Heylin (Behind The Shades, 2011, p. 299) is sceptical about this claim and says Dylan had used this voice in 1960. In 1969, many reviewers commented on Dylan's "new voice" so I'll add sentence to article. Mick gold (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Languages

hello,

can Dylan speak other languages apart from English, eg Yiddish or French? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of Dylan don't mention his speaking French, Yiddish, or any second language. He has spoken a few words in French when accepting awards in France and at concerts. Mick gold (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

he used few spanish words but i don't think he speak spanish fluency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.232.89 (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

not a spokesman for anybody or anything

• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/i-am-not-a-prophet-dylan-is-back-on-tv-after-19-years-6156629.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4064869.stm --Espoo (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Christian? Jewish?

He's listed in categories as both Jewish and Christian. He is not/cannot be both at the same time. He had a Christian phase in his life. He's long over that and from references in the article one can see he's been a practicing Jew for >20 years. I propose we take him out of Christian categories.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth the early Christians also understood themselves as still being Jews and in theological discussion are often referred to as either "Christian Jews" or "Jewish Christians". There are still groups of people who were born Jewish but now describe themselves in these ways. Afterwriting (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its worth nothing. Early Christianity died out 1700 years ago with the conversion of Constantine. Because somebody calls himself a "Christian Jew" or vice versa doesn't mean they are both. By Jewish law, one gives up the Jewish religion by accepting Christ.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an erroneous argument. It is certainly significant if a person self-defines in this way regardless of how Jewish law functions on such matters. If Dylan were to define himself as a "Christian Jew" - or anything else for that matter - we cannot judge that he isn't based on Jewish or any other religion's laws. Afterwriting (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We need an objective, evidentiary record to make categorizations and write articles. The body of evidence as outlined throughout this discussion is that he never converted from Judaism, he remains a practicing Jew, he denies what the media wrote about him. Paul Simon wrote some Christian themed music recently; does that make him a Christian? We may not wish to make judgement on his being Jewish or not on Jewish law, but it is a very good way to start. Better than the way other respondents have characterized him as Chrisitan. (He is accepted as a Jew by Orthodox Jewry, and he practices Judaism with them.) One cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time, and we should NOT categorize him currently both ways. You talk about self-defining people, apparently as a criterion for categorization. If someone self-defined themselves as a Martian, should we have a category of "Martians"? Or maybe, better, should we have a category of "people who claim to be Martians". We should in your case have a category of "former Jews who claim to be both Christian and Jewish". I think somewhere there is that category. Clearly Dylan wouldn't even get into that category since there is no evidence he is currently a Christian. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously missing the point and making absurd comments about Martians doesn't help matters. Whether someone can be both a Jew and a Christian at the same time is arguably an open question and just because you or Jewish law claims that it is impossible doesn't determine that it is. It's not much different from arguing that a Roman Catholic can't also be a Freemason because the rules of the Roman Catholic Church don't allow it. Trouble is that many people do not live according to such rules. I have no idea and no particular interest in what Dylan considers to his religion(s). And because this is an encyclopaedia we don't define the "truth" on such matters on the basis of what the establishment of a religious tradition believes this to be. We take this into consideration and we balance this against other criteria when necessary. Afterwriting (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He was born Jewish; became Christian. I can find nothing that says he is no longer a Christian. do you have a source that says so? Sunray (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Only a Jew can be called to read Torah, and most of all it was at an ultra-Orthodox Chabad shul. Only a Jew get an aliyah. From the article in Wiki:"Dylan has been a supporter of the Chabad Lubavitch movement in the last 20 years,[337] and has privately participated in Jewish religious events, including the bar mitzvahs of his sons and attending Hadar Hatorah, a Chabad Lubavitch yeshiva. In September 1989 and September 1991, Dylan appeared on the Chabad telethon.[338] Dylan reportedly visits Chabad synagogues; on September 22, 2007 (Yom Kippur), he attended Congregation Beth Tefillah, in Atlanta, Georgia, where he was called to the Torah for the sixth aliyah." He was only transiently a born-again, an noted in the article. In the article, extensive record of finding Judaism, and noted is only transient born-agai. Enough references in the actual article; if more needed they are readily available.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Dylan has been connected with both religions at various times. Considering the very public nature of his born-again Christian period and his gospel albums during that period, it seems reasonable to list him in both Christian and Jewish categories. I think the article discusses what is known of his beliefs and their evolution appropriately.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In 1997 Dylan told Jon Pareles of The New York Times: "'I believe in a God of time and space, but if people ask me about that, my impulse is to point them back toward those songs. I believe in Hank Williams singing 'I Saw the Light'. I've seen the light, too." Pareles concluded: "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."[42]. In 2009, Bill Flanagan commented on the "heroic performance" Dylan gave of 'O Little Town of Bethlehem' and that Dylan "delivered the song like a true believer". Dylan replied: "Well, I am a true believer." [43] Dylan has always been famously difficult to pin down on personal beliefs, as this article acknowledges. Mick gold (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At minimum, on basis of above, he shouldn't be categorized as a Christian. This is an encyclopedia. There is no verification he is a Christian. He is, however, recognized as a Jew as noted above. He practices as a Jew. We can't define him as a Christian based only on songs he sings or on the basis of recondite comments he makes. This is an encyclopedia, and though it is ok to report his religious peregrinations, it not acceptable to categorize him as a Christian. Where is the evidence he was baptized, for instance?Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Baptism is not required by some denominations.--GoP_T^C_N 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

We have no evidence he belonged to any denomination that did not require a baptism. We have no record he belonged to any denomination that required a baptism. We have no record of anything. This is an encyclopedia, and requires documentation. If none is found, we should, perforce, we must agree to take out his Christian category.Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick I think knows this subject more than I do, although I am more or less one of the major (at least frequent, anyway) editors relating to religion and Christianity. Also, in some of his statements, like his accepting the "Apocalypse of John," is is clear that he definitely qualifies as "former". There are also a variety of Jewish Christian groups, although there is no evidence Dylan belonged to a group that has been described as such. This subject has been extensively discussed before, and in fact led to an editor being banned at one point. He did achieve a great deal of press coverage, and thus notability, for the albums he issued during his "Christian" period, and it is seems on that basis that his "Christianity" be noted. As he has never conclusively subsequently officially renounced any form of Christianity, there is a good chance WP:BLP might enter into our moving him into Category:Former Christians or anything like that, because he has never himself that I know of described himself unequivocally in such terms. In short, this is still a matter of some ambiguity about the subject, particularly taking BLP into account, and I think the current categorization schema was arrived at after those really lengthy, and frankly extremely contentious, discussions. And we really don't have a category of Category:People who have been described as both Jewish and Christian, so this seems to be, basically, the only way to go. Some sort of FAQ template at the top of the page might be useful here, but, in general, I think Mick is among the most productive editors on this article, and I trust his conclusions based on the amount of material he has personally reviewed and his knowledge of the previous discussions here. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. Category:Former Christians is an excellent idea. Being called for an aliyah on Yom Kippur at a Chasidic synagogue can only be done by a Jew. It makes perfect sense to change to: Category:Former Christians. If there is agreement of such let it be done. My goal is NOT to be banned over this issue.Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, I don't know that anyone ever actually made that suggestion before you did; I know I didn't. In fact, as I stated, I don't think BLP would support that category, because I don't remember Dylan at any time indicating that he was no longer, in some way, Christian. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious affiliations are hard to pin down in any case; in the case of Dylan everything is complicated tenfold. Certainly he was indisputably of the born-again persuasion for a period of time. Afterward, he became active within Judaism to some extent -- exactly what that extent is, is not clear. Certainly it would be highly unusual for a well-known unrepentant convert to be called to aliyah in a Chabad shul, but I'm wary of synthesis here. The logic "If he is in good standing with the Lubavitchers, then he must not be a Christian any longer" holds up any way you look at it, but I don't believe it passes WP:SYNTHESIS. What we really need is a source that states definitively, one way or the other. Anything unsourced is either synthesis or speculation on our part, and the rigorous standards of BLP policy aren't going to allow us to recategorize him based on a few ambiguous offhand comments. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the evidentiary record demonstrates that he has fully repudiated Chrisitanity. From the Wikipedia article: "By 1984, Dylan was distancing himself from the 'born-again' label. He told Kurt Loder of Rolling Stone magazine: 'I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term. I don't think I've been an agnostic. I've always thought there's a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there's a world to come.' In response to Loder's asking whether he belonged to any Church or synagogue, Dylan laughingly replied, 'Not really. Uh, the Church of the Poison Mind.'[335] In 1997 he told David Gates of Newsweek. Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like 'Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain' or 'I Saw the Light'—that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs.'[1] In an interview published in The New York Times on September 28, 1997, journalist Jon Pareles reported that 'Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion.'" The above is a very strong indication that he is not now a Christian and that he repudiates the idea that he was ever "born again." As far as "re-categorizing" Dylan: the mistake is the first (Christian) categorization. Any re-categorization is correcting a mistake.Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

First, not all Christians are "born-again." I'm not. So the first statement cannot be used to support that. The second statement is as good a source that he is not a Jew as it is a Christian, as would the third. In fact, the church to which he was said to have belonged was hardly an "organized" one in the first place, so it doesn't really address that. Yes, they are indications, but WP:BLP requires more than just indications, it requires clear statements from the source himself, or clear statements in independent reliable sources. The statements you have given, while good, fall short of being a clear and explicit repudiation of Christianity. I very strongly suggest you review the talk page archives here - you will find that this discussion is, in effect, almost a repeat of previous ones. The existing categorization schema seems to me to have been derived at as a result of those discussions, so it seems to me to be the one most in accord with existing policies. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

John Carter—any "conversion" was figurative. There actually is no source for a literal conversion to Christianity. Yes, Dylan spoke of Jesus onstage at music concerts, and yes Dylan attended Bible-study meetings. This was reported in the press as Dylan's "conversion". But where is the actual conversion? No source points to anything that takes place at any time and place. This is figurative use of language. And we have sources saying directly that Dylan did not convert to Christianity. We have Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone writing: "But neither the album itself, nor any firsthand reports from the usual suspects, say that Dylan has been "born again." At the urging of various personal friends, he went to Bible-study classes led by a fundamentalist preacher. And boy, without a doubt, this record is chapter and verse."[44] And we have Kenneth G. Bielen writing in "The Lyrics Of Civility: Biblical Images & Popular Music Lyrics In American Culture" that "Though recognizing the religious, and specifically Christian, content of the work, Wenner, near the end of his essay, is convinced and satisfied that Dylan did not convert to Christianity."[45] The problem here is the mixing of terms used literally with terms used figuratively. The full picture of the so-called "Born Again" period should be presented in an encyclopedic form. At present the article is incorrectly stating: "In the late 1970s, Dylan became a born-again Christian…" He directly refutes that. He explicitly states "I've never said I'm born again." If he is saying "This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else", then how can the article be saying "In the late 1970s, Dylan became a born-again Christian…"? Terms used figuratively in sources should not be presented to the reader as if they held literal significance. As concerns literal conversion there is no source supporting that. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

John-Carter, this not the common law system of the U.S. Precedent doesn't make law on Wikipedia. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn't mean we cannot rectify those problems. At minimum we should rectify much in the Dylan bio. At minimum we should delete the sentence "In the late 1970s, Dylan became a born-again Christian…." John, you and others are right; not all Christians need to be baptized; not all Christians are born again. Please supply evidence that has him with any type of Christianity. There is none. Is there a consensus of the respondents that we need to make changes in categorization and to take out the sentence that he became a born-again Christian?Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. This has already been extensively discussed. There are many interviews and on-stage declarations from Dylan during the period from 1979 to 1981 when he released his "gospel albums", Slow Train Coming and Saved.

In Omaha Nebraska, January 25,1980, Dylan told his audience: “Years ago they said I was a prophet. I used to say, ‘No I'm not a prophet’. They say ‘Yes you are, you're a prophet.’ I said, ‘No it's not me.’ They used to say ‘You sure are a prophet.’ They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, ‘Bob Dylan's no prophet.’ They just can't handle it.” [46]

In 2009, Dylan released Christmas In The Heart, his collection of Christmas songs. Bill Flanagan’s interview with Dylan was published by Street News Service on November 23, 2009.

B.F.: You really give a heroic performance of “O Little Town Of Bethlehem”. The way you do it reminds me a little of an Irish rebel song. There’s something almost defiant in the way you sing, “The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.” I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you sure deliver that song like a true believer.

B.D.: Well, I am a true believer.

Dylan has always been famously difficult to pin down on personal beliefs, as this article acknowledges. Mick gold (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At minimum we should: 1. change category to: Category:Former Christians and take out other Christian categories; 2. describe his so-called born again phase only in encyclopedic context.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can reconcile your suggestion that we change Dylan's category to Category:Former Christians with Dylan's statement in an interview in 2009. Mick gold (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He believes only in his music, no evidence he believes in nothing else.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick gold—he states explicitly in no uncertain terms:

"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else."[47]

Dylan has written lyrics and music within an idiom that is Christian. But we should not be equating creative styles with religious conversion, or at least not in the absence of sources supporting that.

Conversion is not understood to be something one embarks upon lightly. One does not normally consummate religious conversion by means of artistic creativity. Religion and art are generally thought of as two separate realms. Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration appears necessary to help solve this impasse. Mick gold and John-Carter, do the 2 of you see any room for compromise? Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mwinog2777, You make much of this statement from Dylan’s interview with Kurt Loder, published on June 21, 1984 in Rolling Stone: "I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term.” But Dylan did tell Robert Hilburn that he “truly had a born-again experience”. This interview with Hilburn was published in The Los Angeles Times on November 23, 1980. It is reprinted in Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, editor Jonathon Cott, published by Wenner Media and Hodder & Stoughton, 2006, pp 279 – 284.

R.H. Why didn’t you do any of the old songs on the 1979 tour?

B.D. I truly had a born-again experience. If you want to call it that. It’s an over-used term, but it’s something people can relate to. It happened in 1978. I always knew there was a God or a creator of the universe and a creator of the mountains and the seas and all that kind of thing, but I wasn’t conscious of Jesus and what that had to do with the supreme creator.

R.H. Is there any way you can talk about the changes in your life, how the religious experiences made you feel or act differently?

B.D. It’s in my system. I don’t really have enough time to talk about it. If someone really wants to know I can explain it to them, but there are other people who can do it just as well... When I walk around some of the towns we go to, however, I’m totally convinced people need Jesus. Look at the junkies and the winos and the troubled people. It’s all a sickness which can be healed in an instant. The powers that be won’t let that happen. The powers that be say it has to be healed politically.

The full interview appeared in The Los Angeles Times, but shorter versions appeared in other newspapers. For example, this one appeared in the Eugene Register-Guard, November 27, 1980: [48]

You make much of Dylan telling David Gates of Newsweek: "Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else." But in that same interview, Dylan cautions Gates against trying to establish coherence and consistency in Dylan’s answers. Gates writes that Dylan "seems near the edge of his comfort zone talking about why he's not talking about one of his most illegible back pages: that conservative, born-again-Christian phase that blindsided his liberal, secular fan base some 15 years ago." Dylan tells Gates: "It's not tangible to me. I don't think I'm tangible to myself. I mean, I think one thing today and I think another thing tomorrow. I change during the course of a day. I wake and I'm one person, and when I go to sleep I know for certain I'm somebody else. I don't know who I am most of the time. It doesn't even matter to me." [49] It is difficult to put a major cultural figure who talks like that in interviews into box-like categories.

Dylan’s relationship with religion is not a simple matter. This article records that Dylan had his Bar Mitzvah in 1954 in Hibbing. This article says that Dylan was a "born again Christian" between 1979 and 1981. There are four major biographical works on Dylan: No Direction Home, Robert Shelton, 1986; Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited, Clinton Heylin, 2000; Down The Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, Howard Sounes, 2001; and The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray, 2006. All four of these biographies describe Dylan as a "born-again Christian" between 1979 and 1981. This article says: "By 1984, Dylan was distancing himself from the "born-again" label.” And it quotes from the Loder 1984 Rolling Stone interview. The article quotes from the 1997 Gates interview in Newsweek: "Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else." And the article quotes from the 2009 interview with Bill Flanagan:

B.F.: You really give a heroic performance of "O Little Town Of Bethlehem". The way you do it reminds me a little of an Irish rebel song. There’s something almost defiant in the way you sing, "The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight." I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you sure deliver that song like a true believer.

B.D.: Well, I am a true believer.

imho the article does justice to the complexity of Dylan’s religious beliefs. As for the question of arbitration, John Carter is a more experienced Wikipedian than me, and an administrator. I will happily go along with John’s opinion. Mick gold (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this should go to arbitration. Reading the comments here, it seems like there are two sides - those who think the article is correct as is, and a bunch of editors with wildly different opinions about how to change it - Dylan is Jewish, Dylan is Christian, Dylan is a Former Christian. I think the label "Christian music" doesn't require that the artist be currently Christian, just that they have made significant contributions to that field, we don't need to cross-examine the person about their beliefs.Brianyoumans (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianyoumans—if the artist is not "currently Christian"[50] should he be in Category:American Christians, Category:Converts to Christianity, and Category:Christians of Jewish descent? You say "I think the label 'Christian music' doesn't require that the artist be currently Christian, just that they have made significant contributions to that field, we don't need to cross-examine the person about their beliefs."[51] But in this edit those categories are removed and in this edit those categories are restored. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick dropped me a note about the possibility of arbitration. To my eyes, this discussion is not so much based on content, meaning it does not deal with policies and guidelines, but rather behavior and conduct issues. ArbCom however prefers not being called in except as a court of last resort, as it were. I am not sure that this issue has necessarily risen to that level yet. Maybe an RfC would be the next appropriate step. If disruptive conduct were to become a problem, WP:ANI and other venues exist as a quicker alternative. WP:CONSENSUS does indicate that consensus can change. I do not believe it likely in this circumstance, but it would probably be best to estalish that first. WP:TE does apply to disruptive and nonconstructive commentary on the article talk page, but I don't see that a real pattern of such in this current instance has been established yet. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We should work out our differences as best as we can on this page and avoid disruptive commentaries on article page. Hopefully we can do so. Even if consensus was achieved before: that was then and this is now. I agree with Brianyoumans, we do not need to cross-examine about religious beliefs. If we don't need to cross-examine, then we need to have absolute evidence, suitable for an encyclopedia, about their current and former religious beliefs before putting the information of such in an encyclopedia as if it were clearly true. It appears to me that whatever consensus was previously present is no longer present. The idea there is a consensus is carried on by John-Carter and Mick gold, but 2 respondents don't make a consensus. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• It is fully possible to be religiously Christian and ethnically Jewish at the same time. And its possible for the same person to go to the mosque on friday, the synagogue on the sabbath and the church on sunday. But trying to categorize Dylan as either is ridiculous and shows a fundamental failure to understand what Dylan is about. People have tried to pinhole him into all kinds of categories his entire career, musically, politically and religiously. He has always replied the same: "I am not there".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost emphatically agree with you. We should not try too hard to pigeon-hole Dylan by religion; we should either classify him as Jewish, or leave it out completely. But, beyond that we have some disagreements. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Like Mormons, it is best to describe Jews as a people defined by their religion. Mormons are not defined as an ethnic group; Jews SHOULD NOT be, either. One gives up Judaism if embraces Christ, one becomes a former Jew. Jews from different areas of the world, such as Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Chinese Jews, Russian Jews, Mountain Jews share a religion, nothing else. Therefore, one cannot be simultaneously be Christian and Jewish. If somebody goes to 3 places to pray on different days, we should not pigeon-hole in categorization as any one or other or assume he's all 3 at once, which is not possible. A wedding ceremony can have both Christian and Jewish elements, but I suspect that the consensus will come to a conclusion that categorization in Wikipedia cannot. A Jew can sing gospel; Paul Simon is doing it now; that doesn't make him Christian. Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well your statements are contradicted by the many thousands of people who consider themselves Jewish by culture, heritage, language or other criteria but who do not follow the Jewish faith. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone says they are Jewish doesn't mean they should be categorized on Wikipedia as such. If someone eats at Jewish delis in NYC, loved bagels and lox and tells the world that he is therefore Jewish, would that qualify to be categorized on Wikipedia as such? A Hebrew speaking Armenian in Jerusalem in not Jewish. Heritage alone does not convey Jewishness; if someone had a single great-grandfather who was Jewish and claimed to be Jewish with nothing else, would Wikipedia categorize him as such? Heritage, culture and language in isolation do not make someone eligible for Wiki categorization as Jewish. If someone claimed to be a Martian with no other supporeting data, would we categorize him as such?Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that Dylan should not be categorized as either. But I do take exeption to your simplification of the "who is a Jew" question to mean only religion and to the mistalken notion that one can only belong to one religious community at a time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, maybe there's no answer to your question. So, maybe "neither" is the answer. "Who is a Jew" is a question bedeviling the Jewish community at the present time. It is creating tensions in Israel, creating tensions in the American Jewish community. (I know someone who had to do THREE conversions before she was accepted as a Jew by an Orthodox synagogue.) So, maybe "neither" is the best compromise?Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick Gold, are you saying that to not assert that Dylan is definitely currently a Christian is to contradict the major biographies? Where do the biographies make that claim? The biographies detail his relatively brief gospel period -- and this article does the same. It seems to me that you're reading too much into one sentence from one recent interview (re the Christmas album), particularly from a guy with a long history of saying cryptic things, shining interviewers on, changing his mind, and so on. Since Dylan is not in the habit of going around proclaiming himself a practicing Christian, why should Wikipedia do so?119.145.248.159 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 119.145.248.159, I changed my mind during this discussion. Look at Request for Comment section below. I began by supporting both Jewish & Christian categories. I switched to "neither". John Carter & Modernist also switched their votes in the same way. I think neither category is appropriate for an artist who has embraced so many points of view. Mick gold (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)