This is an archive of past discussions about Bob Dylan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request to Bob Dylan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
( please add this to the 80's section.. Real Live is an excellent CD )
After the release of Infidels, In 1984, Dylan toured Europe with [Mick Taylor] on guitar (who played on the Indidels album) The tour included a huge show at Wembley which featured Eric Clapton, Van morrison , Chrissy Hydne and Santana. The resulting 'Real LIve' album is from that tour.
Important point about BD's Nobel: he is not the first songwriter/lyricist, but one of two to have ever received this honor.
Others have pointed it out in the main talk page. For some reason, it wouldn't allow me to type in there. The fact is that Mr. Dylan, as awesome and talented as he is, is not the first songwriter/lyricist to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature. In 1913, Indian literary giant, poet/lyricist, author, dramatist, and painter, Rabindranath Tagore, was awarded the Nobel for literature for his collection of song lyrics, Geetanjali, literally meaning an "offering of songs". This needs to be recognized in this really well-written article on Mr. Dylan and his many accomplishments. Of many who have made this point in various forums/media, I offer one example here:[1]Suirauqa (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As I have argued above: Surely, in addition to his songs/verses, Tagore published a large number of works that were novels, dramas, memoirs, short stories and lectures. The Nobel Prize website has a Selected Bibiliography of Tagore's work in English and lists 40 books. [1] Dylan has published just two books that were not collections of his song lyrics: Chronicles Volume One, an autobiography, and Tarantula, a strange volume of prose-poetry, that is of interest to BD scholars but not widely read by the general public. The work which earned Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature are his songs, as the citation makes clear: "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition". Tagore's citation was: "because of his profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse, by which, with consummate skill, he has made his poetic thought, expressed in his own English words, a part of the literature of the West". Mick gold (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I could add that a number of songs were written by W. B. Yeats LINK, but when he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1923, the citation read "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation". Mick gold (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All good points. But they don't contradict the fact that the bald statement, in the introduction, that he is "the first songwriter to receive this honor" is wrong. He is the first person to receive the honor for his songwriting - which is not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As edit of Ghmyrtle makes clear: other Nobel laureates have written songs. Dylan is the first to receive Nobel for songwriting [2]. Mick gold (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
< Please delete this new section and subsume my comments with the previous thread. Also, HELP!!! >
Through any browser (Chrome/Firefox/Edge), I am strangely unable to type in replies (not new posts) in the Talk pages. I am trying to reply to Mick gold's comment in the talk page. But I seem unable to type in anything in that text entry box. This does not happen while creating new entries or even this new section. The characters start disappearing at the text cursor right as I am typing them in. I don't know what is causing this weird behavior; I have never seen anything like this before in Wikipedia. Please help me if you can.
Now for my main comment: I liked the way Ghmyrtle reframed the entry. That and Mick gold's comment make more sense now in that context. However, I must remind you of what Bob Dylan's Prize Motivation says at the Nobel Prize website: [I quote] Prize motivation: "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition" [End quote][2] Therefore, it occurs to me that the Nobel Committee doesn't explicitly see him as a songwriter or lyricist, but a poet.
The same, then, applies to Tagore also; his Prize Motivation mentioned 'poetic thought'.[3] (Mick, it was in 1913, not 1923.) While Tagore wears many mantles as Mick gold has pointed out, he is primarily a poet/lyricist/songwriter, whose songs number over 2500 and are actively sung to this day in the Eastern part of India (as well as in Bangladesh) and elsewhere. Therefore, Ghmyrtle's characterization of Dylan as the first person to receive the honor for his songwriting is not strictly correct. Would either of you please comment on that? I do think that acknowledging Tagore as the first one in this context does not demean or belittle Mr. Dylan's accomplishments by an iota.
My view is that we are here to summarise, based on what reliable sources tell us. Regardless of the precise words of the Nobel citation, it is clear (as supported by reliable sources) that Dylan was awarded the prize for his songwriting rather than for, say, his memoirs or Tarantula. So, it seems reasonable to me to characterize the award as being for his songwriting, and in my view that is not true of any previous laureates even though they may have, incidentally, written songs or lyrics. It might to help to know how Dylan's work has been described in India, and what comparisons have been made in reliable sources between him and Tagore. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know about wp:vpt, shall check it out . I beg to disagree with you re 'reliable' sources, and am a bit surprised to find you dismissive of the actual words the Nobel Committee used. I'd have thought of them as the top orbiting authority in this matter. Please tell me, what kind of sources would you consider reliable? I'd try to look them up re your suggestion. Suirauqa (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Suirauqa (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is Chronicles, Vol. 1's relevant citation: LINK, which is paraphrased in this
Amazon review: "... ... ... He had thought of calling himself Robert Allyn, changing the e in his own name to a y. At about the same time he read some Dylan Thomas, and imagined that Dylan must have changed his name from Dillon to Dylan. Bobby Dylan, he thought, was too much like Bobby Darin, and anyway there were too many Bobbies making records. He settled on Bob Dylan, because it sounded right, not because he had any particular liking for the poetry. In fact, in an interview in Robert Shelton's archives, Dylan explicitly say that he disliked Dylan Thomas' flowery and affected style. ... ... ..." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Robert Shelton was close to Dylan between 1961 and 1966, quizzed him about the origins of his name, and talked to his friends from Hibbing and the University of Minnesota. The following footnote is in the text of the article: "According to Dylan biographer Robert Shelton, the singer first confided his change of name to his high school girlfriend, Echo Helstrom, in 1958, telling her that he had found a "great name, Bob Dillon". Shelton surmises that Dillon had two sources: Marshal Matt Dillon was the hero of the TV western Gunsmoke; Dillon was also the name of one of Hibbing's principal families. While Shelton was writing Dylan's biography in the 1960s, Dylan told him, "Straighten out in your book that I did not take my name from Dylan Thomas. Dylan Thomas's poetry is for people that aren't really satisfied in their bed, for people who dig masculine romance." At the University of Minnesota, the singer told a few friends that Dillon was his mother's maiden name, which was untrue. He later told reporters that he had an uncle named Dillon. Shelton added that only when he reached New York in 1961 did the singer begin to spell his name "Dylan", by which time he was acquainted with the life and work of Dylan Thomas." Shelton (2011), pp. 44–45. Mick gold (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at various other Nobel awardee entries, the tendency seems to be to put it in the first paragraph, and indicate the specific field of the award. I'd make the change myself, but I suspect there's a flurry of me-too editing going on. :-) jxm (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just read the first paragraph, and while I am aware of the innovative nature of his 1960s work, I find this paragraph focuses too narrowly on that decade. His second creative peak is the mid-Seventies: the 1975 album Blood on the Tracks ranks among the most important records ever made. I know this is taken up in the rest of the lead, but the first paragraph is per Manual of Style supposed to put the topic into context, and that context should not seem so strictly confined to 1963-1965.MackyBeth (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Dylan is FIRST musician/songwriter to be awarded Nobel Prize in Literature is surely more important than he is second, after GBS, to receive Nobel + Oscar. Mick gold (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Bob Dylan was not the first songeriter to recieve the Noble Prize. Rabindranath Tagore recieved the Noble prize for litrature much before Bob Dylan and he was the first song writer to recieve it, have written a huge verse of profound and beautiful songs. Adhiraj Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point. But surely, in addition to his songs/verses, Tagore published a large number of works that were novels, dramas, memoirs, short stories and lectures. The Nobel Prize website has a Selected Bibiliography of Tagore's work in English and lists 40 books. [3] Dylan has published just two books that were not collections of his song lyrics: Chronicles Volume One, an autobiography, and Tarantula, a strange volume of prose-poetry, that is of interest to BD scholars but not widely read by the general public. The work which earned Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature are his songs, as the citation makes clear: "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition". Tagore's citation was: "because of his profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse, by which, with consummate skill, he has made his poetic thought, expressed in his own English words, a part of the literature of the West". Mick gold (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I could add that a number of songs were written by W. B. Yeats LINK, but when he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1923, the citation read "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation". Mick gold (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All good points. But they don't contradict the fact that the bald statement, in the introduction, that he is "the first songwriter to receive this honor" is wrong. He is the first person to receive the honor for his songwriting - which is not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Scachanged "standpoint" to "(view)point" in the quote from the Swedish Academy: "is not to be taken as the official (view)point". The wording in the source is actually "standpoint", though I don't know if the statement was originally issued in Swedish. Any reason not to leave it as "standpoint"? "Viewpoint" would be a bit more natural, but "standpoint" isn't wrong, and I think it would be better to have the original wording. If we do change it we would need [brackets], not parentheses, to indicate an editorial change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In U.S. English, "standpoint" is not normally used for this meaning, and the usual word to express it is "viewpoint." (British usage may be different.) Variants in U.S. English would be "the official opinion of" or "position of."
My own preference would be to keep "standpoint" if that's the original quote, even if it sounds a bit odd to U.S. ears. If we do change it, though, I think it should be "official [viewpoint]", not "official (view)point". Let's see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
By "lede" in that context I meant the first paragraph of the "Accolades" section--sorry for any confusion. The request still stands. It's good to see Jonathunder's update which was news to me. Thanks.50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You mean [5]? Ok, I guess that takes care of it--thanks. Minor issue: I'd wikilink Nobel Prize in Literature if you're going to write out the whole award name like that.
Separately: at the end of the Legacy section where they talk about reactions to the Nobel, I'd propose adding Leonard Cohen's quip that giving the Nobel to Dylan was like pinning a medal on Mt. Everest for being the world's tallest mountain.[6] Cohen's other remark “I think that Bob Dylan knows this more than all of us: you don’t write the songs anyhow,” might also fit into the article somewhere. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Just wonder why in its religion entry it's mentioned both Judaism and Christianity (while they are certainly mutually exclusive). It's not the standard with any other religion entry of any other WP biography article. Always the present religion is mentioned. Bob Dylan was born and raised Jewish, had short flirt with Christianity and then denounced it and returned to Judaism. Therefore, only Judaism should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"... ... ... Today’s Dylan is a religious hybrid. In 2012, Rolling Stone journalist Mikal Gilmore asked Dylan if his faith had changed. 'Certainly it has, o ye of little faith,' the then 71-year-old Dylan replied, quoting Jesus. 'Who’s to say that I even have any faith or what kind? I see God’s hand in everything. Every person, place and thing, every situation. I mean, we can have faith in just about anything.' ... ..." --LINK
The most recent interview with Dylan comments: "At heart, he just likes to remain beyond reach. He is as elusive over the question of religion as he is over his songs. Born Jewish, in the late 1970s he released two Christian-themed albums that appeared to suggest he was born-again, but followed them by holding his eldest son Jesse’s bar mitzvah at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest of Jewish sites." [7]Mick gold (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the archives of this talk page, his religious affiliations have been the subject of long discussion. I think the best summary would be, "It is easier to have him identified as being of two religions, regardless of guidelines elsewhere, because it is just too difficult to keep either not listed." There are strong arguments for both, and people keep adding them. Probably the most reasonable thing would be to remove the references to Christianity, but on the other hand he very clearly identified as Christian for a period of time, and fer gosh sakes put out gospel albums. And, since his public statements about himself are always murky, it is hard to say when or if he stopped being Christian.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bob Dylan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Religious family man, etc etc. (Same demographic that just voted in Trump in the US?...)
"'The whole music scene'[?]! ... [I]t was like dealing with a conspiracy. No place was far enough away. I don't know what everybody else was fantasizing about but what I was fantasizing about was a nine-to-five existence, a house on a tree-lined block with a white picket fence, pink roses in the backyard. That would have been nice. ..." -- Chronicles, Vol. 1 LINK
@ThurnerRupert: deleted the sentence "His accomplishments as a recording artist and performer have been central to his career, but songwriting is considered his greatest contribution." In his editorial summary, ThurnerRupert wrote: (by whom? do not invent things ...)
I think the sentence is important in the lead as it helps to explain why Dylan has been awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature. Here are 4 reasons I believe the sentence to be valid. Does anyone agree with me?
Encyclopædia Britannica:
American folksinger who moved from folk to rock music in the 1960s, infusing the lyrics of rock and roll, theretofore concerned mostly with boy-girl romantic innuendo, with the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry. Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan sold tens of millions of albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing. [8]
Professor Christopher Ricks, former Oxford Professor of Poetry, Profile of Ricks in The Guardian:
Of course Bob Dylan will feature in the lectures of the next Oxford professor of poetry - the fans and the foes of Christopher Ricks would expect nothing less. The critic who made his name with meticulous readings of Milton, Tennyson and T. S. Eliot has long championed the American rock star as a poet worthy of the same close and painstaking analysis. [9]
Sir Andrew Motion, former UK Poet Laureate:
"He's one of the great artists of the century," said Motion, who listens to Dylan almost every day. He will be explaining his love for Dylan at the Poetry Society in London on Thursday, National Poetry Day… As a biographer of the poet John Keats, Motion believes that Dylan is unusual in comparing favourably to the great poets. "Most song lyrics rely heavily on their accompanying music; without their music, they're banal, repetitive, nothingy." Dylan, Motion believes, is the "exception proving a more-or-less general rule".
[10]
Rolling Stone lists Bob Dylan as "Greatest Songwriter of All Time":
Dylan's vision of American popular music was transformative. No one set the bar higher, or had greater impact… Dylan himself saw no difference between modern times and the storied past – reading about the Civil War helped him understand the Sixties –which allowed him to rewire folk ballads passed down through generations into songs that both electrified the current moment and became lasting standards. [11]
I agree the sentence should be returned to the lead. I may be missing it, but I don't see the same point made in the body; it could easily be added, using the sources you give, which would make it clearer to future editors that the statement is not arbitrary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
i've nothing against statements a reader who does not have your expert knowledge and background is able to trace down via references. i'd really appreciate if you could not only add the sentence again as you did, but add references close enough to prevent e.g. me asking "who said this" and not finding an answer. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@ThurnerRupert: The job of the lead is to summarize the entire article. Three of the above statement, the Ricks comment, the Motion comment, and the Rolling Stone List of Greatest Songwriters of All Time are already cited in the Legacy section of this article. I've tried to respond to @Mike Christie:'s point and your point by making this statement clearer in the Legacy section. Mick gold (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please put it back. ThurnerRupert, you're only supposed to take stuff out of an article if you're actually contesting the claim. If you're arriving as someone without much knowledge as you say, it's better to raise the issue on the talk page than make an edit that's outside your current qualifications and annoys people. Also as Mick gold says, the lead paragraph summarizes the article and it's ok to leave its citations til the article body, unless it says something truly surprising. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice. At the end of the legacy section, can you add Leonard Cohen's comparison of Dylan being awarded the Nobel "pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the highest mountain"?[12] I also liked Cohen's comment (maybe usable elsewhere in the article) that
I think that Bob Dylan knows this more than all of us: you don’t write the songs anyhow,” Cohen said. “So if you’re lucky, you can keep the vehicle healthy and responsive over the years. If you’re lucky, your own intentions have very little to do with this. You can keep the body as well-oiled and receptive as possible, but whether you’re actually going to be able to go for the long haul is really not your own choice.
It's a nice quote but I think the Legacy section is long enough. I added that Cohen link by adding Leonard to the list of artists who have acknowledged Dylan's importance. Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Introductory blurb at Google books: "Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist David Kinney enters into the world of obsessive Bob Dylan followers (aka the 'Dylanologists') to deliver an immersive work on the artist’s singular impact on American culture."
"We devour millions of words of scholarship on his life and work. We spend hours arguing about the songs. We celebrate new albums as important events; they help us mark time in our own lives. We manage towering collections of bootlegs and hunt down underground tapes. We find ourselves identifying with him, and quoting his choice lines in conversation. Some of us have been known to wake up in the morning and wonder what he’s eating for breakfast[...]."--LINK
OK. There's too many. Per the Cambridge Companion to Bob Dylan: "No other figure from the world of American popular music, of this or any other era, has attracted the volume of critical attention, much of it quite original and perceptive, that Bob Dylan has. Just as significantly, no popular-culture figure has ever been adopted into the curricula of college and university language and literature departments in the way Dylan has." LINK Will have to only select some of the more notable ones and move this to its own page even. Oi!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Snippet from Cambridge Companion's introduction about one of its essays "...Lee Marshall deals with the mutual construction of Bob Dylan's oeuvre and the critical apparatuses by which that work has been inturpreted. ..."--LINKHodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops! yeah I guess this is so. Still, per wp:SUMMARY STYLE perhaps something more could be said about the types and amount of material that's out there, (possibly even citing various surveys of the same in whatever reliable sources. If ever gotten around to. ( - I've noticed that the Cambridge Companion book is in the nearby university's library..)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
cmt - I think the fact that there are lots of Bobheads out there is important to make note of in some way (viz. the so-called Dylanologists, etc.) I'm not much of a buff myself, but just see this--from my local newspaper here in Santa Cruz:
I'm a Bobhead of some 46 years running and the kind of fan-atic who has an entire music and literary collection devoted to the master's works.
My own family gets nervous whenever guests look over at the bookcase, or ask what's on my iPod these days -- or gaze at the portrait in the corner of the living room.
B-O-B -- the iconic portrait of Mr. D from 1966's "Blonde on Blonde" cover.
No candle is lit alongside, however.
Of course then the columnist goes on to literary commentary/interpretation.
One friend made the mistake of arguing the point about Bob's literary accomplishments. After thumbing through several of my books , plus the volumes of lyrics penned by Dylan, she observed that Dylanology is as detailed, and obscure, as rabbinical Talmudic commentaries.
Well, I said, you just gotta listen. And read.
I pulled out a couple of scholarly books: literary critic and Oxford poetry professor Christopher Ricks' "Dylan's Visions of Sin" [relating Dylan compositions to biblical virtues and sins] and music critic Michael Gray's massive "Song and Dance Man" [the title of which references Dylan's self-description of his art], which in its 1,000 or so pages references and studies Dylan's use of early 20th century blues and scrutinizes the artist's use of the Bible as a guide and reminder of eternity and mankind's forlorn journey.
And Gray's book ends in 1999.
Then the writer ends the piece by quoting the entire lyrics of "Ain't Talkin'," from the album Modern Times (2006). (I'll include below one "stanza."
All my loyal and much-loved companions
They approve of me and share my code
I practice a faith that's been long abandoned
Ain't no altars on this long and lonesome road
So, let's google up its final line....
"...current obsession with...mortality..." "...a reflecting surface par excellence. The perfect dark mirror..." LINK
"Ain't no altars on this long and lonesome road" ...Ovidian... (page discussing l'ic isn't available for free view, but believes the speaker in "Workingman's Blues no. 2" is "...presented as on the road after losing his home and family..." LINK
"For Dylan there's no difference between an itinerant bluesman and a haggard pilgrim." "...lyrics as wildly non-linear as anything from his 1960's zenith, but weighted with a deep sense of mortality." LINK
"According to Weber, the most enduring societies manage to balance the tension inherent between spirit and structure, love and covenant. But when the flow between charisma and rationality slows or ceases, religious structures entropy..." "...Weber also suggested the possibility of religious figures and movements that might emerge to salvage the 'soul' trapped in fossilized covenants." "Dylan models Weber's 'great birth of old ideas and ideals' with prophetic art and refreshes and reimagines ancient covenants in modern creative idiom." LINK
"Perhaps Dylan’s crossroads is best described as being not between belief and unbelief, but between hope and despair. No choice is made..." "...the calm, assertive hope of “Beyond the Horizon” is not refuted in “Ain’t Talkin’,” especially given the latter’s half-ironic expectation of 'heavenly aid.'" "...the question, 'Who really is Bob Dylan?' is not as interesting as its corollary, 'What is he looking for?'" LINK
(More from above NYT piece from 2014): "Jake [ Jacob Maymudes ], too, reveres Mr. Dylan. When I went to see him, choice memorabilia were carefully laid out on his bed: set lists from Mr. Dylan’s tours, stray notebook jottings in Mr. Dylan’s hand, as well as a hilariously vituperative letter the singer apparently drafted, on hotel stationery in Tokyo, to a music journalist back home." (& from google, here (FLIKR link) is the letter to Dan Bern.LINK, LINK---Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"The foundation built a slick mini-museum for the Guthrie material in downtown Tulsa, with interactive displays for the public and a professional staff for the papers. Then, in September 2014, Glenn Horowitz, a rare-book dealer in New York who had brokered the Guthrie transaction, emailed Ken Levit, the executive director of the Kaiser foundation, teasing an opportunity of 'global significance.' The hyperbole, Mr. Levit said, made him think it had to be either Mr. Dylan or the Beatles. Mr. Dylan’s archives had been amassed over the years as he and his office simply placed reams of material in storage. But as curious collectors and institutions made inquiries, and as evidence mounted of the astronomical sums paid at auction for some of his early manuscripts — a handwritten copy of 'Like a Rolling Stone' sold for more than $2 million at Sotheby’s in 2014 — Mr. Dylan’s camp eventually hired an in-house archivist and retained Mr. Horowitz." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk)
"There is a lot of excited buzz surrounding the discovery of the Dylan archives, but fans will be disappointed to learn that although some of the material will be available to the public, the majority of the archive will be kept at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa and will be available only to 'serious scholars and for people who have a record of being Dylanologists,' University of Tulsa President Steadman Upham told the New York Times." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Dylan unique as musician awarded Nobel Prize in Literature
Surely the lead of a biography should establish the notability of an individual and what, if anything, is unique about their achievements. One reason Dylan is unique is he is the only musician who has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
There has been discussion on this Talk page about whether BD is the only songwriter to have been awarded NPIL. Some have argued the case for Tagore. I can appreciate Tagore's significance as a song writer; he is credited with supplying the lyrics for the national anthems of India, Sri Lanks, and Bangladesh [14]. For a critical perspective on Tagore as Nobel-winning songwriter see this comment [15].
However, the Nobel citation for Tagore lists 42 books by Tagore published in English [16]. Every previous NPIL laureate has been a novelist, poet, dramatist, or writer of non fiction (eg Winston Churchill cited "for his mastery of historical and biographical description"). Dylan has published 6 books of art, several collections of his lyrics, but only two books of prose: Chronicles, an autobiography, and Tarantula, a prose-poem that has not been widely read.
The Nobel Committee never awarded the prize to a musician and they didn't this time either. Dylan gets the prize for his lyrics, as a poet or writer, but not for his music. There is no mention of special musical characteristics of his compositions, or his vocal and instrumental abilities as an interpreter of his own songs. Actually I would have appreciated a Nobel Prize in Music to be awarded to great composers and performers, but there isn't. So imho there is nothing unique about Dylan the Poet as a Nobel Prize winner. Hartenhof (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There is at least one thing unique about Dylan the Poet as a Nobel Prize winner. He has not published any books of verse. Unlike other Nobel Literature laureates. His work has reached us through the records he made, subsequently published as books of lyrics. Mick gold (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mick gold: The Nobel in Literature is given for the person's entire body of work, not specific works. Obviously Dylan would not be known without his songs, but technically his Nobel applies to all of his works, including his books. Sundayclose (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: True. But when looking for the reason why Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature, we should note his citation read: “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”. The Washington Post called Dylan's prize "a groundbreaking choice by the Nobel committee to select the first literature laureate whose career has primarily been as a musician." [18]
Also see explanation of Dylan's prize of by the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius: “Bob Dylan writes poetry for the ear,” she said. “But it’s perfectly fine to read his works as poetry.” She drew parallels between Dylan’s work and poets as far back as Greek antiquity. “It’s an extraordinary example of his brilliant way of rhyming and his pictorial thinking,” Danius said. “If you look back, far back, you discover Homer and Sappho, and they wrote poetic texts that were meant to be listened to. They were meant to be performed. It’s the same way with Bob Dylan." [19]Mick gold (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that the Pulitzer Prize mention quotes the reason for his award, why not do the same for the Nobel Prize? Instead of "...Dylan received the Nobel Prize in Literature, the only musician to have been awarded this Nobel Prize", say "...Dylan received the Nobel Prize in Literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." We shouldn't really make assumptions about the reasons that go beyond the words used in the citation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a nice little introduction - but of course its claims are wholly unsourced, somewhat contentious (is that really what he's been doing for the last 50 years? - in my view it's likely that most people under about 60 are barely even aware of his existence), and it gives only one, rather superficial, understanding of what really led the Nobel committee to come to its decision. So, I don't see how it has any relevance to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
A few problems. Dylan did not play rock'n'roll at the University of Minnesota. Dylan did not make any explicit comments on the Vietnam War in the 1960s. He made enigmatic comments in a Sing Out interview in 1968 asking "How do you know I'm not for the war?" When the interviewer countered that Dylan had written "Masters of War", he replied, "There were thousands of people wanting that song so I wrote it up... I no longer have the capacity to feed this voice which is needing all these songs." Many of his fans spent the 1970s and 1980s complaining Dylan had abandoned political songs. In his autobiography Chronicles, he expresses contempt for the idea he was "the voice of a generation". I think NYT has a better account of why Dylan has received this award, and is cited in article. [20]Mick gold (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Himmelman ref cleanup?
Is there any reason why the reference to Peter Himmelman marrying Dylan's daughter has a quote about Himmelman refusing to perform on Sukkot attached to it? Perhaps it used to support a reference to Himmelman being Orthodox that used to be in the article, but now it just looks like an awkward insinuation. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it looked like it needed removing. I should have removed it myself, but I'm just a little reluctant to make edits concerning religion here, since that has been such a contentious subject.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
List of Tribute Albums
This doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea, but we are going to have to keep an eye on the section and make sure that people don't start adding tribute records by various non-notable artists. There should probably be at least one, maybe even two or three notable bands or artists contributing before it gets listed. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with both the list of tribute albums and the caution that it shouldn't attract non-notable artists. I'm not sure if WP:SONGCOVER applies, but I certainly think notability is required. That poses a problem if it is a composite album with numerous artists, especially if the album itself does not have a Wikipedia article. That's the case with several items on the list. If some but not all of the artists are not notable, where do we draw the line? I'd like to see more opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Brianyoumans, Sundayclose Seeing the list of tribute albums, I thought Wikipedia MOS suggests prose would be a more appropriate format for this part of the BD Legacy section. One problem with lists in a Legacy section is they can easily grow longer and more incoherent. Prose could suggest why tribute albums serve as an index of BD’s influence as a songwriter, so I re-wrote this section with this in mind, edit [[21]]. Mick gold (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going to try to clean up any refs that are out of date or are missing info, etc. Many I can do on my own, while others I might need to request help on from Mick gold or anyone else. I'll put ones I need help with in bullet form below. Thanks in advance. Moisejp (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Current ref #2 [[22]] is dead. There is an archived version [[23]] but the timeline stops at 2008, and does not support the statement that Dylan was active from 1962 to present. We likely need to find an alternate ref. Moisejp (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Moisejp for your edits. I've given Allmusic biography of BD as cite for years active since it covers his career until end of 2019 and I think it's Ok as WP:RS. I've put 1961 as beginning of his professional career since that year BD was signed by Hammond and recorded first CBS album. I see what you mean about one sentence Nobel para and will leave it like that for time being.
I've begun to re-write Tempest and Shadows in the Night sections as it was pointed out in FA discussion [24] that there was a repetitive "On November 4, 2014..." structure to many paras. I've also started taking out excessive prose. Other eyes are welcome. Mick gold (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Current ref #19: I may err on the overly careful side, but I'm not sure reproductions of interviews in third-party fan sites like Expecting Rain meets Wikipedia:RS. Can this part be reworded so that we don't need the clarification about the G-U-N-N-N spelling? (or, less likely, if the original Goldmine article can be located and referenced)? Moisejp (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I found a 2009 interview with Bobby Vee about BD on Goldmine website [25] but it doesn't mention G-U-N-N-N so I share your caution and will replace the former cite with this one. Elston Gunn is mentioned in Heylin and Sounes cites. Ok? Mick gold (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mick. OK, let's use your solution for now until any better ones possibly come up. I'll have a think and try to dig around for any other solutions. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
"Over the years, more songs recorded by Dylan and his band in 1967 appeared on bootleg recordings, culminating in a five-CD set titled The Genuine Basement Tapes, containing 107 songs and alternative takes." This was true until 2014, and the bootlegs were an important development and should be mentioned, but it could be argued the real culmination for BT collectors was The Bootleg Series Vol. 11: The Basement Tapes Complete, that has 138 songs and alternate takes. I'm going to think about the best way to incorporate this into the prose, but if anyone else has good ideas, please add it. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mick gold, Shelton mentions that Columbia reissued the two Asylum albums, which we could add a reference for. It's on page 504 in my book, but I seem to remember you might have a different edition than me, and it's better not to mix up the editions too much. Could you add it when you have time? (I tentatively sourced his return to Columbia to Sounes, but that could be changed to Shelton too for simplicity.) Moisejp (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the point. There was a different edition I will add a reference.
Hi Moisejp Thanks for your point about The Basement Tapes Complete. I've had a go at re-writing this sentence. Feel free to edit it. I've looked in Shelton (I have the 1986 original UK hardback and the 2011 "revised and updated" Omnibus Press edition) but I'm afraid I can't find a ref to CBS re-issuing the 2 Asylum albums. It isn't on p. 504. Perhaps you could tell me the chapter it's in and roughly where in the chapter. Shelton's book is organised in an idiosyncratic way and things are not always written about in a chronological manner. Mick gold (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mick gold, try looking up Geffen, David in the index. Asylum Records is not actually mentioned by name, maybe. The section is called "Back in the marketplace". Let me know if you can't find it and we can think of a plan B. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mick gold. There are four paragraphs describing the Rolling Thunder Review and the various concert albums and films coming from it. I wonder whether it would be an idea to trim some details and list the releases more briefly. But that's just a thought, and I don't have a strong opinion if you or others disagree. It also strikes me that "it had poor sound and mixing (attributed to Dylan's studio practices), muddying the instrumental detail until a remastered CD release in 1999 restored some of the songs' strengths" may sound subjective. Moisejp (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Moisejp, I trimmed the area you refer to because the Scorsese documentary and the associated record releases are also described in the Shadows in the Night section. As for the Street-Legal material, I certainly think that "it had poor sound and mixing (attributed to Dylan's studio practices), muddying the instrumental detail until a remastered CD release in 1999 restored some of the songs' strengths" is accurate. I was reading about this last week in the book Bob Dylan Anthology Volume 3, Celebrating 200 editions of Isis magazine, edited by Derek Barker. Barker has an essay on the releases of Dylan's studio albums. He writes of Street-Legal, "The original eighties CD album was both remixed and remastered in 1999 by the LP's original producer Don DeVito. The sound quality on this CD was a vast improvement both on the original 1978 vinyl and on the first CD version." (p. 357) We could add this as a ref if you think it improves the article. btw, What do you think of the Lead? An editor recently broke it down into eight shorter paras. Mick gold (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted it to 4 paragraphs per MOS:LEAD. About Street-Legal, can we call Barker a "biographer"? If so, to make the sentence sound less subjective we could say something like "It was described by Michael Gray as, "after Blood On The Tracks, arguably Dylan's best record of the 1970s: a crucial album documenting a crucial period in Dylan's own life."[195] Some biographers have argued that Street-Legal had poor sound and muddied instrumental detail (due to Dylan's studio practices), but that the remastered CD release in 1999 restored some of the songs' strengths." Then reference that to both Heylin and Barker. What do you think? I just used a variation of your initial wording, and didn't check whether it matched perfectly with the Barker quote, but we could tweak it a little if necessary. Moisejp (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the Lead, I agree with you. Barker has not written a Dylan biography but he has published 5 books on BD and edited the fanzine Isis for 35 years so he could be described as a Dylan authority or a Dylan critic [[26]]. I think the text is Ok and I've added Barker's book to Sources and as a cite since he endorses what the text is saying. But you're welcome to tweak if you think it could be clearer. Mick gold (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Alcohol
So, what looked bad about the section you removed, Mick gold? Is the material there disputed in other sources? It didn't seem terribly controversial, other than Dylan himself saying "oh I didn't really have a problem", which is hardly unusual for an ex-drinker, and of course Dylan is a fairly unreliable source on himself anyways.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Brianyoumans, I'll answer your question but first I have to read the chapters on the 1980s in the biographies by Sounes and Clinton. It seems wrong to cite an allegation of alcoholism to a 730 page biography. Don't we need a page number? In matters of WP:BLP I'd prefer to err on side of caution:
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity... Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid... Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
Well, if it isn't a fair summary of what the sources say, then that's reasonable. On the other hand, if isn't a molehill being made into a mountain, we should probably say something on this subject. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the deal. This paragraph is implying that Dylan has a problem with alcoholism. Now every rock star back in those days drank and did drugs, so it's no surprise that he did too. That in and of itself does not make one an alcoholic or addict. Addiction has as much to do with a persons personality as it does with use, even more in fact. We need a single source that gives that conclusion (not implication) that he has been struggling with alcoholism. The only source I read actually gave opposite implication. Alcoholics do not just quit. They struggle with it, usually for the rest of their lives. Unless we have a source that goes into all this info and gives us that conclusion, we can't just pull a bunch of bits and pieces together that imply it.
And even if it is all legitimately sourced, then we have to put that into balance with the rest of the article. We need to show that this has had a significant impact on his life and career and give it due weight, by a preponderance of reliable sources. What's next, a section on pot use; cocaine; sleeping pills? If any of these things have caused a significant impact on his life and career, then they most certainly belong in the article, but we need sources that demonstrate that and come to that conclusion on their own, and we need to give it it's due weight and no more. Since nearly all rock stars were doing it at the time, it's just a collection of trivia unless sources (and our summary of the sources) demonstrate otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's my report. I've just read what Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: Take Two (2000) and Sounes, Down The Highway: The Life Of Bob Dylan (2001), the two biographies cited have to say about Dylan and drinking. Surely the key line in the deleted para is "Throughout the 1980s, Dylan abused alcohol heavily, at times to the point of interfering with his health and performances." I don't think these biographies substantiate that statement. The only time these two books agree Dylan was drinking heavily and it impaired his performances is from late 1990 to late 1991. (Heylin, pp. 661-665; Sounes, pp. 396-398). The Dylan interview quoted is also from this period. Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone, 22 December 2001, asks Dylan about reports that "you were drinking too frequently and that your drinking was interfering with your music." Dylan replies as quoted in the deleted para. (Interview in Cott, Dylan on Dylan (2006) p.421)
The deleted para runs: Later, at concerts between 2002 and 2012, Dylan was introduced on stage at every show as a person "who donned makeup in the '70s and disappeared into a haze of substance abuse, who emerged to find Jesus."
It's true that between 2002 and 2012, Dylan used this introduction in his live shows: "Ladies and gentlemen please welcome the poet laureate of rock 'n' roll. The voice of the promise of the 60's counterculture. The guy who forced folk into bed with rock. Who donned makeup in the 70's and disappeared into a haze of substance abuse. Who emerged to find Jesus. Who was written off as a has-been by the end of the 80's, and who suddenly shifted gears releasing some of the strongest music of his career beginning in the late 90's. Ladies and gentlemen – Columbia recording artist Bob Dylan!" [[27]] [[28]]
Music critic Jeff Miers wrote it in the Buffalo News, 9 August 2002. Dylan liked it and lifted it in its entirety. But I think this is clearly a joke. Not a serious WP:BLP
The deleted para runs: "Dylan stopped drinking in 1994, due partly to the concerns of his children." [[29]]
The Rolling Stone article by Greene summarizes a book about Dylan by Victor Maymudes, published posthumously in 2014 by Maymudes's son. Maymudes was an employee who worked with Dylan from the 1960s. Subsequently he was fired by Dylan as a tour manager in 1995 and fired for a second and final time in 1997. Broke, Maymudes signed a contract for a book about Dylan and began speaking into a tape recorder. He died in 2001. This is reported in a New York Times article. [[30]] Subsequently Maymudes's son transcribed the tapes and published the book in 2014.
The tone of Greene's report about the Maymudes book seems to me to be sarcastic. He writes: "During downtime on his 1989 tour, Dylan went out to see Tim Burton’s Batman. There aren’t many more details available, but it raises many questions. Was Dylan upset by the film’s exclusion of Robin? Did he dig the Prince songs? Was he bummed out when Val Kilmer took over as Batman in 1995? Has he seen the more recent Dark Knight trilogy? How about The Avengers?
The deleted para ends: "In 2018, Dylan unveiled a new line of whiskeys under the brand name Heaven's Door."
This is true and is already mentioned in the article with this NYT cite. [[31]] But by repeating this info at the end of this para, the para suggests (to me at any rate): "Dylan tried to quit drinking. But now he has resorted to manufacturing the stuff himself."
Many celebrities promote their own brand of liquor. George Clooney has Casamigos. Jay-Z has Armand de Brignac. Justin Timberlake has 901 Tequila. These facts are included in their WP articles but they are included in descriptions of their business assets. Not in a separate section titled Alcohol.
My conclusion: The two WP:RS biographies agree Dylan was drinking heavily from 1990 to 1991 and this impaired his performances. Should I add a brief mention of this material with appropriate cites? Or should we drop this matter because it is not an important part of Dylan's career and noteworthiness? Mick gold (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Mick gold, based on your research it sounds like it doesn't deserve its own section. It could perhaps be mentioned briefly in the career section but I've no strong feeling either way. Popcornfud (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like, as usual with Dylan, that it is hard to say much with certainty about his personal life. I agree, it sounds like it might be worth mentioning briefly, while discussing his career in the 90s - along with the claim that he stopped drinking in 1994, and that he has said that it wasn't a problem.Brianyoumans (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit Request - How is Bob Dylan a convert from Christianity to Judaism?
I've never seen anyone cite him as formally converting to Judaism again. Nowhere on the page does it say so. Is this a case of erroneous categorization?
Not sure a 1965 interview should have any special relevance to Dylan, certainly not to the amount recently added which I promptly deleted. Please re-insert if there is a consensus I am wrong on this. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I want to add piece of the article explaining Bob Dylan's comparison of Croats to nazis, KKK members and slave owners; and the subsequent lawsuit. I feel like it's very relevant due to the severity of the case and how it has been ignored. Biographies aren't meant to trash people and that's why I'm willing to share it here in order for us to refine it together so that it can be passed and have more legitimacy against potential vandals in the future.
My piece is a reformed version but we can maybe remove the "where he compared the Croats to the likening of Nazis, slave owners and members of the Ku Klux Klan" and also place the quote where it belongs (I unfortunately don't know the name of the mechanism where quotes are used). We can also drop the statement made by secretary general but maybe it's important to understand the context? It is mentioned at the beginning though. I would like to retain the lawyer's statement since it explains the nature of the lawsuit (not the nominal technicality).
In 2013, Bob Dylan was sued by a Croatian community in France for alleged racist remarks made in an Rolling Stone interview where he compared the Croats to the likening of Nazis, slave owners and members of the Ku Klux Klan "If you got a slave master or Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood."[1][2] This statment was claimed to be shocking and insulting by Vlatko Maric, secretary general of the Representative Council of the Croatian Community and Institutions and thus the organisationen sued and subsequently the Paris main court placed Dylan under formal investigation for public injury and incitement to hatred. The lawyer for the Croatian organisation, Ivan Jurasinovic, stated that charges would be dropped if Bob Dylan made a public apology. The charges was later dropped in July 2014 by a french judge due to Dylan not giving consent for his Rolling Stone statements to be published in France.[3][4]
I can also add further new articles from NYT, Swedish articles as well as a french one cited in one of the articles I cited initially.
If I cite the sources or do minor faults then don't delete my entire piece, fix it or point it out. Assuming good faith there is no need for wikipedia to go one step forward and two steps back.
Thanks for raising this issue. Maybe I missed something, but I don't see that Dylan likened Croats to Nazis or the Klan. The CNN articles states that "Croatians in France pressed charges against Dylan for allegedly comparing the conflict between Croatians and Serbs to the Nazis' persecution of Jews". The comparison is between the conflict between Croatians and Serbs, which is not the same as likening Croats to Nazis or the Klan. That's not to say that he didn't make racist comments, but do you have comments by Dylan in which he directly likens Croats to Nazi or the Klan? Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have cited the interview originally where he said "Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood."
Dylan's long career – it's 58 years since he signed with CBS records – has been full of controversy, from walking off the Ed Sullivan Show in 1963 to recording three "born again" albums in the 1980s to making commercials for Cadillac in 2008. But is this "racism against Croats" incident worth a section called "Controversy"? What happened? Dylan said something in a 2013 interview with Rolling Stone. A Croatian community organisation in France made a legal complaint against Dylan. The complaint was placed under judicial investigation. In 2014, the French judge ruled that Dylan had agreed to the publication of his remarks in the American edition of Rolling Stone, but not in the French edition. The judge then dismissed the case. I don't think this incident is worth a section entitled "Controversy". Mick gold (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't see how Dylan's comment "Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood" is likening Croats to Nazis. Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I've read the links provided above, and I agree with Sundayclose, Modernist, and Mick Gold, as well as others who have reverted the changes based on WP:UNDUE. Considering all of Dylan's 58-year career, this certainly does not warrant an entire new Controversy section. Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Well it doesn't have to be a section of itself. Where can I put it in the article because it is still an aspect of his life, maybe Life and career? The importance of the significant might be argued here but in Croatia it's less of a non-controversy.
I read it entirely. He mentions Croats, Nazis, and the Klan. But it takes considerable inference to conclude that Dylan "likens Croats to Nazis and the Klan". We have to go by what he literally said, not our assumptions about what he might be thinking. The comments may be racist, but as I see it they do not directly liken Croats to Nazis and the Klan. Sundayclose (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking things over, I agree this doesn't need its own section. I think it might merit a mention. I think the remarks are ambiguous, mostly because Dylan is usually opaque and ambiguous. He may have simply meant that Serbs and Croatians were enemies. And it was a single statement, in the middle of a discussion of other things, in a very long interview. I think it is an example of him being kind of "gaffe-prone", like Joe Biden. I don't think the incident impacted him, except perhaps in Croatia.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'll jam it in the "Life and career" section maybe next week.
Sundayclose he does liken Croats to Nazis by introducing a relation (for a lack of a better term) "Victims and oppressor" and gave them names in an enumeration "Jews and Nazis, blacks and KKK" and so on. He didn't say Germans but Nazi, he didn't say white southerner but KKK members but he did say Croats and not Ustasha. Regardless if you understand or not it has been an event in his life and is worthy of mentioning due to the scope, the case was laid down due to a technical aspect of the judiciary and not the statement itself after all so there is no need for us to start an alternate trial. Prophet of Truth and Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prophet of Truth and Knowledge: I disagree with your interpretation of his words. He certainly makes disparaging remarks, but I don't see that he likens Croats to Nazis. I don't know if that's what he was thinking, but it's not what he said.
"I'll jam it in the 'Life and career section: Hold your horses. As of right now, there's not a consensus to include it anywhere in the article. Please wait. You have already been reverted by two editors for adding this information. You need a clear consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Ok, then elaborate your stance since I can't comprehend how you have come to such a conclusion. Not that it should matter if you agree or not since this is an official sanctioned event that took place and thusly should be recorded into the history of this person. If everything needs to be at first interpreted by personal wikipedia detectives then that would add a layer of bias into the article, why damn the collective human understanding of the world by limiting the information because it may hurt someone's feelings? Is this how wikipedia is run? Selective information and cherry picking?
My first stance is that he didn't specifically say what you claim he said. My second stance is that you can't add the information without a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finally bringing this to the talk page. Now, you are required to wait for consensus. And you are required to revert your most recent edit until a consensus is reached here. I suggest reading WP:BRD and WP:EW.
WP:NPOV does not mean that every detail of a person's life must be included in the biography. It does not force us to include trivial details, which is contrary to WP:WEIGHT. And do you think your preference to keep this information is not opinion-based? Do you think that just because you like it that it's not an opinion?
I could see maybe a single line mention of this, if people think it's true. I know Dylan said it, but sometimes he isn't the most reliable source about himself.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Brianyoumans: Thanks for your comment. I have doubts that it is true. And even if it's true, Dylan frequently made flippant and sarcastic remarks that should not be taken literally. This particular comment is questionable enough and trivial enough to not merit inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: I agree with you. There are a lot of strange, quirky stories in Chronicles. Immediately after Gorgeous George, Dylan writes about how important Clausewitz's books were to him. He then writes that Balzac was terribly important to him. Dylan tells us: "You can learn a lot from Mr. B." I don't think Gorgeous George should be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT. Mick gold (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Gorgeous George needs to be included here. Dylan says a lot of stuff...but sometimes it's better to just let it float; let it ride; let it be...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
the "Come Writers and Critics" link
I've reverted this person twice. They have in fact removed the link to the auction on the front page. I noticed at least one link on a subpage went to an Etsy shop, though. There is some actual info on the site, although I found it sort of awkwardly laid out. I'll let someone else do the next revert or discuss why it should or should not be kept. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Brianyoumans and those who remove the link to Come Writers And Critics:
I am the webmaster of Come Writers And Critcs. I have been working on it for decennies now. I am glad you find "some actual info" in it, even in an "awkwardly laid out": you would certainly do it better. Please just feel free to start.
I really think this link deserves its room on the Bob Dylan page, and do not understand why its publication is called "spam". WHAT it spam in it??? The link points to a Bob Dylan site that does not sell anything, it's written on the home page: "A Lot To See, Nothing To Sell". The Eltsy link you mention is just a joke, as a picture on the Books page shows items that do not exist: the link is the explanation.
Now, listen, -or read-: I have tried for years to add that link to my work on Wikipedia, but this is the last time, I am TIRED of being each time censored by people who think they are the owners of the Wikipedia Bob Dylan page.
I really do not understand your attitude, but do what you want: leave or remove the link, it's OK.
I earn nothing with CW&C, it costs me money, but it is my pleasure to inform my visitors of every new Dylan book released, show rare books for collectors, look for the better picture available of each obscure magazine with Bob Dylan on the front cover, show all issues available of every fanzine known, look for rare programmes, seek images of incredible oddities, etc... and you know what? I have visitors who like the site!
I have done my best for the Dylan Community for years, and still do: if you do not like my work, never mind, nobody cares. Once again I do not mean to make any promotion for anything with that link, but bring information (in sort of awkwardy laid out) to people interested in Bob Dylan publications.
Some years ago, another censor wrote me that I had to "stop adding a link to my own site"... Who else will do it then if I don't?
I do like Wikipedia, often search for information in it, but your rules are a bit too complicated for me. I do not even see how to reply to the critics you make. This is certainly not the right place, but you have read it anyway. You know how to send me messages to criticize my work and threatening me of being banned, I just have to accept your decisions.
@Michpom: Thanks for raising this issue on the talk page. Two important points: First, you can add the link but only if you get consensus on this talk page because there is disagreement about whether it should be added. Secondly, since you have a personal connection with the link you are trying to add, you are required to disclose your relationship with that organization. You must post this information on your userpage. You can do this with the template {{UserboxCOI}}; see Template:UserboxCOI for details about how to do this, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and at some point someone will help. You are also strongly encouraged not to make any edits to Bob Dylan until you first discuss on this talk page. Please read WP:COI. And if someone reverts an edit you make, don't restore it without discussion. This is how Wikipedia works. No one is trying to minimize your efforts. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You must abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to edit here, and not communicating with other editors is not an option. Sundayclose (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting site Michpm but I can't see any reason why it is special enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. A photo of an magazine from 60 years ago is mildly interesting for Dylanheads, but for the general public, i.e. WP reader it is not important. What the article should convey is the historical and continuing cultural importance of Dylan, your page does not do that. It's not censorship, do we mention the Nobel or your site. Nobel wins every time. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Richhoncho: It's much more than that top page. There are links on the top to lots of sub-pages, which then have links on the sides. I found it a little confusing to use, but it's not just one page.Brianyoumans (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Michpom: Your page will be discussed here. But, as said above, this is a very long article, and Wikipedia does not encourage articles to have lots of external links. Don't feel slighted if the discussion decides that it doesn't merit inclusion, because very very few external sites do. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did have quite a look through, and should have said 'interesting pages' rather than page, but because I am interested in something doesn't mean it should be in WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The article gives a full and quite laudatory paragraph regarding Bob Dylan's being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. It quotes from his Nobel lecture at length. What the article, oddly, does not mention is that the speech was the subject of almost immediate controversy. Many claimed that Dylan had plagiarized the most admired portions of it. "Bob Dylan may have plagiarized portions of the Nobel Lecture from SparkNotes, an online version of Cliff Notes, according to a new piece from Andrea Pitzer on Slate..." (Rolling Stone, June 14, 2017) Surely the author should deal with this forthrightly.
Younggoldchip (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Lead: "Widely regarded as the greatest songwriter of all time"
I do not see this referenced anywhere in the body of the article. There is something about "top 100". Seems a bit of a stretch based on the ref'd material in the article body. Suggest removing if not ref'd. --Cornellier (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mick. Actually, the point I was making was that, judging by Cornellier's comments, "widely regarded" might be a stretch, as far as what's currently supported in the article (even if we do say "one of the greatest" in the lead). I don't know – and I'm certainly not arguing with the veracity of that statement "Widely regarded as one of the greatest songwriters of all time" – but I've not read the whole article. JG66 (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, JG66. Two points in the Legacy section possibly substantiate "one of the greatest songwriters of all time":
Horace Engdahl, a member of the Nobel Committee, described Dylan's place in literary history as: "a singer worthy of a place beside the Greek bards, beside Ovid, beside the Romantic visionaries, beside the kings and queens of the blues, beside the forgotten masters of brilliant standards."
Legacy also quotes Encyclopædia Britannica where his entry states: "Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan... set the standard for lyric writing." What do you think? Mick gold (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the Britannica quote gets partway there, for sure. I'll keep a look out for other sources that really nail the point – rock histories and other reference books. I'd imagine Sounes or Heylin cover it, perhaps in a conclusion or closing chapter. JG66 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
JG66 and other editors. I would be happy to drop the phrase "Widely regarded as one of the greatest songwriters of all time" so that the article begins:
Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941) is an American singer-songwriter, author and visual artist. Dylan has been a major figure in popular culture for more than 50 years. Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s...
Seems a shame, because it's not a statement many people would question (I'd hope) – but yes, this is an FA so it might be the best idea. I did look in a couple of books; The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll was one – no joy there. Further to previous suggestion, have you got the Sounes or Heylin books, perhaps? I've just had another idea ... will come back if anything comes to light. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I changed it slightly to "Often regarded as one of the greatest songwriters of all time". The Rolling Stone article is enough to support this statement and there are no shortage of lists from other publications supporting the statement. The Legacy section also provides support for this statement. Therefore, I think the language is fine as it is. I added 'of all time' back because I found it was rather nonspecific saying he is 'considered one of the best songwriters'. I guess the alternative would be to call him one of the best contemporary songwriters or best of the 20th century. Let me know if there are issues with my edit. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Drawn Blank Series was at the Halycon Gallery in London in 2008 (14 June to 13 July, I think). Not sure if this counts as a "major UK exhibition" before the National Portrait Gallery's one in 2013. There doesn't seem to be much online about this, but I can get a newspaper citation from NewsBank if it helps. (The Independent online article about it has a later date, but it was in the paper in 2008.) The Halycon Gallery also had "Bob Dylan on Canvas" from February 13 until April 10 2010. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The Drawn Blank Series exhibition in Chemnitz in 2007 was the first major exhibition of Dylan's art. It seems unnecessary to add that this work was exhibited in London in 2008. Halcyon Gallery is a commercial gallery dedicated to selling art by Dylan (and others). Whereas National Portrait Gallery, London, is a prestigious public gallery which has exhibited work by Lucian Freud, Cezanne, Picasso. Best, Mick gold (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Children
Is there some source that says Dylan has six children? Carolyn Dennis is quoted on her page as saying, "Bob Dylan has eight or nine children". Or is there some Wikipedia policy that covers this?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
There is, afaik, no Wikipedia policy about the number of children Dylan has. And neither would any policy prevent us from reporting the existence of children, should there be good sources for their existence.Brianyoumans (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia (2006) by Michael Gray reports that Dylan has six children. Jesse, Anna, Samuel and Jakob were born to the marriage of Bob and Sara. Maria, daughter of Sara by a previous marriage, was adopted by Bob. (p. 199); Desiree Gabrielle Dennis-Dylan was born to marriage of BD with Carolyn Dennis. (p. 174) Mick gold (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how a source from 2006 is a decisive authority in this, particularly if you are referring to various pages. When I referred to Wikipedia policy, I was thinking of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Does the fact that we can identify six children entitle us to say he has six children? Doesn't the evidence really say he has at least six?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Surely the Wikipedia policy that covers this issue is WP:BLP which states:
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Mick gold (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
This edit request to Bob Dylan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change ROBERT DYLAN to BOB DYLAN.
(these notes are for reference only - the error is located at beginning of the first line of the article.
Specifics - common knowledge/facts - He was born ROBERT ALLEN ZIMMERMAN and changed his name to BOB DYLAN [not Robert Dylan]. - thank you! SJH) 76.119.49.215 (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
In the 2020s section I propose that a new reference be added at the end of the sentence "Several new biographies and studies of Dylan were published as journalists and critics assessed the scale of Dylan's achievements in a career spanning 60 years.[394][395]"
The book contains essays by Dylanologists such as Michael Gray and musicians like Robyn Hitchcock. It has a Foreword by Nana Mouskouri and endorsements by Scarlet Rivera and Carolyn Hester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lonesome Sparrow (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
At least 10 significant books on BD published for his 80th birthday, inc The World of Bob Dylan, ed. Latham, Outtakes on Bob Dylan, Gray, A Restless Hungry Feeling, Heylin, You Lose Yourself You Reappear, Morley. No need to mention Browning & Sandis, although imho it is an excellent book. (Full disclosure: I contributed a chapter to it.) Mick gold (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion as to whether or not Dylan's Rough and Rowdy Ways Tour, 2021-2024, is a part of the media-created "Never Ending Tour". Personally I would say it's not since his never ending schedule ended in 2019, but since this seems to be something that will be argued about into the future, here's what I would propose: Dylan's 1988-2019 tours, as well as the new one, are labeled as individual tours (not all with their own pages obviously, as it's doubtful that they are all notable), and that the Never Ending Tour page be rewritten to reflect what it is, a media-created phenomenon that doesn't correlate to Dylan's intent as an artist. That way the Never Ending Tour doesn't ever need to end no matter how much time he takes off if that's what people want (not me personally, but Wikipedia is a group project), and we can give up this idea that it is actually one tour, when factually it isn't. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
How do you know what is Dylan's intent as an artist? All Wikipedia can do is report Dylan's artistic career, using the most authoritative books and media sources for citations. Mainstream media reports - Rolling Stone, PBS/American Masters, USA Today - continue to refer to Dylan's ongoing tour, including the 2021 performances, as part of his Never Ending Tour. Mick gold (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The section entitled "Sexual assault allegation" gives undue weight to unproven allegations, which by their nature are extremely defamatory. The section should be removed until the allegations have been proven in a court of law. Khiikiat (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Khiikiat: Of course the sexual abuse allegations against Dylan are unproven. Nevertheless they are newsworthy and have been reported by BBC News, NBC News, Reuters, The Guardian and other major news outlets. I would favour reporting the allegation concisely along with Dylan spokesman's statement that "the 56-year-old claim is untrue and will be vigorously defended". To not report allegation could be construed as censorship. To add more material, eg Clinton Heylin's statement that allegation can't be true and Heylin's offer to be an expert witness, to me, runs the risk of WP:Recent which "can result in articles overburdened with documenting WP:RSBREAKING". That was reason for my revert of Heylin. I'd be interested in other editors' views. (btw I find this info on the lawyer behind the allegation interesting [33] but I wouldn't add it to the article.) Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't including the allegations be WP:Recent? If they indeed turn out to be impossible what's the justification to include them at all? If the allegations themselves are WP:DUE why not the reported evidence that they are not possible? Why wouldn't that be censorship? castorbailey (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not censorship to await the outcome of the judicial process before permanently besmirching a person's reputation with allegations of paedophilia. The BBC etc. can do what they want, but Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard as it is arguably more influential. Many people do not pay attention to "the news", but they do look things up on Wikipedia. (It is interesting to note in this regard that Section 6 of the lawsuit has clearly been copied from Wikipedia.) As I have said, in my view, the whole section should be removed until the allegations have been proven in a court of law. But, if editors insist on including the allegations in the article, then some degree of balance (in the form of Heylin's comments) must be allowed. Khiikiat (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, Mick's assessment is spot on and true to Wikipedia's approach. The text you added to the article, Khiikiat, should be removed, because your original addition was reverted, and the next step should have been you coming here and gaining consensus (per WP:BRD). You can do it or someone else will. If it needs saying (and it really doesn't, because Wikipedia is about remaining neutral), I think most people watching this page would be great admirers of Bob Dylan; no one is out to glorify this controversy. And I think the comment from the Dylan spokesperson says it all – there is no need for the Clinton Heylin bandaid. JG66 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It is not a "bandaid". I think you have confused a denial with a counterargument. Dylan's spokesman has offered a denial; Heylin has offered a counterargument. If "Wikipedia is about remaining neutral", then a counterargument ought to be allowed. Khiikiat (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Waiting for the outcome of a case to determine if something should be added is not a reason to avoid its addition. There are plenty of examples of existing unproven allegations, and likely false, on other wiki articles. As far as WP:Undue is concerned, that could be the case in the future, but certainly doesn’t appear to be at the moment.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there may be "plenty of examples of existing unproven allegations, and likely false, on other wiki articles". However, this is far more serious as it is an unproven allegation of paedophilia. Khiikiat (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Although the allegation does warrant mention, having a subsection of its own is more emphasis than it deserves. I'm not sure what can be done about it, though. In other articles, simply adding such a thing under a "Personal Life" section without it's own subsection would be the way to go, but in this article, everything is under a subsection. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Should wiki dedicate a section for every sexual assault claim against anyone just because the echo chamber of the media reports it? The harassment allegations against Britney were reported, it's not on her page. The assault allegations against Bieber were reported, it does not have its own section. Wikipedia is not a news site and Dylan was not even in the location during the period when this alleged assault supposedly happened. So wouldn't this be WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS? castorbailey (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that such allegations are WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS; the new 'Lawsuit' section should be deleted. Biographies of living persons are not a place for absolutely ALL allegations of sexual misconduct to be reported. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. I support the immediate removal of that section. Israell (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the lawyer's response to the biographer saying that the timeline isn't possible? If we're including the counter-argument that the accusations are allegedly impossible, it seems most fair to also include the lawyer's response, or possibly to not include any argument either way. UnfixableThoughtMachine (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an inherent danger on Wikipedia and other sites that famous or well known individuals are dehumanized, becoming nothing more than study items in debate and dissection.
Whilst it is important to ensure accuracy and consistency is maintained, it should always be underpinned by the fact you are discussing the private life of another person. 90.249.28.7 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
FAR Preparation
I think this article should be FAR, because it has not been reviewed for 10 years, and the standards at that time were very different from those now. If no one has any comments, I will submit FAR after 14 days.--Q28 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Q28; thanks for your interest in maintaining the quality of Featured articles. This notification, however, is insufficient for a WP:FARGIVEN notice; not having been reviewed for 10 years is an insufficient listing of issues where the article fails to meet WP:WIAFA. The intent of giving notice prior to FAR is to specifically list items to engage involved editors who might address them; you have listed none. I will remove this from WP:FARGIVEN, while adding your concerns as Notes at WP:URFA/2020A. Should you provide rationale for listing at FAR, I'll change that (watchlisting). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
She was named Shirley Marlin Nozinsky by her parents. Her first husband, Hans Lownds, persuaded her to adopt the name Sara Lownds. When she married Bob Dylan in 1965, she took the name Sara Dylan. Sara Nozinsky doesn't exist. As far as I know, all discussion of her life and work is under the name Sara Dylan. Perhaps you have a cite that suggests otherwise? Mick gold (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Associated acts addition
Can we add Bruce Springsteen to the associated acts list? They’ve been tied to one another and performed together essentially from the beginning of Bruce’s career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.143.132.204 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The associated acts listed have a substantial history of either performing with or recording with Dylan. Springsteen has never toured with Dylan, never gone into a recording studio with Dylan and never co-written a song with Dylan. They have said they admire each other, but, not a good idea imho. Mick gold (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Mick gold on this. I don't see any sort of substantial, even strong, association between Dylan and Springsteen in terms of collaboration. (I question the inclusion of the Grateful Dead and Mark Knopfler actually, but at least there was/have been some genuine collaborative projects between Dylan and those artists.) JG66 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Correct auction price of Blowin in the Wind at July 2022 Christie's London = GBP not USD!
That article's headline states "nearly $1.8 million" and the text as "going for 1,482,000 pounds, or $1,769,508 million in U.S. dollars".
The invoice amount was neither "$1.769" million nor "$1.8 million". Nor can we state that the invoice amount was "$1.769,508" - because we have no verifiable source to represent that it was paid in a currency other than GBP.
For Wikipedia to maintain credibility we have a responsibility wherever possible to present verifiable facts as free of "cultural bias" as might be possible.
To establish a USD amount from GBP did Variety use the currency exchange sell-price, the buy-price or a mid-price? From which exchange did they source their exchange value?
This auction took place in London and thus bidding took place in GBP. The sale amount reported in this wiki article text thus needs to be changed to "GBP 1,482,000" with 404 changed to link to this Christie's link - or with it added as a prior additional reference.
Preempting expectation of responses from contributors from backgrounds with more insular cultural perspectives, please note that the sellers of the disc chose NOT to present it for auction at Christie's NYC premises. Perhaps they were seeking a different class of customer. 60.242.235.206 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
You make a valid point that auction price was published by Christie's as GBP 1,482,000 and article has been edited. Mick gold (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
"Robert" Dylan? Never!
He has never called himself, or been known as, "Robert Dylan". Robert Zimmerman, yes, but Robert Dylan? That's like referring to Elton John as "Reginald" John, or Samuel Clemens as Samuel Twain. 49.237.4.152 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I realize there is an archived discussion on this point, but I just have to say that starting the article with "Robert Dylan" is grotesque! This sort of thing gives pedantry a bad name. Zagraniczniak (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not arguing either side of this, but if you look around, the overwhelming pattern for public figures, including musicians, is to begin the lead sentence with the actual name, although it often is done as Robert "Bob" Dylan. As far as I can tell, WP:STAGENAME only addresses the article title, not the lead sentence. I'd like to hear from a frequent contributor to this article, Mick gold. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Several possibilities have been suggested previously, any of which are better than the current wording:
Bob Dylan (legally Robert Dylan, born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941) is.....
Robert Dylan (known professionally as Bob Dylan, born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941) is ...
Robert Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941), known professionally as Bob Dylan, is...
I second Mick's proposal. Someone (i.e. not me) should launch an RFC for this, because "Robert Dylan" comes across as stilted and wooden at best, and laughable and cringe at worst. It makes us all as editors seem clueless and unable to implement policy, guidelines and precedent with any subtlety whatsoever. Le Marteau (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a bit premature for an RfC. This discussion is going well. It think a consensus can develop. This article has a lot of eyes on it, so let's see what happens. BTW, do we know for sure that it is legally Robert Dylan? Legally it may be Robert Zimmerman. Sundayclose (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I simply find the entire debate exasperating, and I am astounded it still continues... how long has it been we've been trying to work on the first sentence in the article? Probably since the article first started, and perhaps it will never end... it seems like that, anyway. One thing I do know is, it's current state is an embarrassment to the project and I support Mick's proposal whole-heartedly. Le Marteau (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Bob Dylan legally changed his name from Robert Allen Zimmerman to Robert Dylan on August 9, 1962 in the St. Louis County Courthouse here in Hibbing, Minnesota. He officially dropped his middle name, Allen, and is now legally Robert Dylan. Present in the courthouse on that day were Bob, his father and Bob's lawyer. The official court papers are on display in my museum inside of Bob's childhood home here in Hibbing. Bill Pagel (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Theroadislong, on 5 November you reverted an edit which attempted to change the first sentence [34] of the Bob Dylan article. I’m writing to find out if we can achieve a consensus on this issue. As you can see, on this Talk page a discussion has led to the suggestion that several editors would favor the following opening sentence:
Bob Dylan (legally Robert Dylan, born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941) is.....
I support this. The main opponent of this wording in the past was ILIL, but they currently claim to be "semi-inactive" (though I suspect that may change, as has happened many times before...). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Realizing this is potentially a poor idea, I wanted to present this issue: Should the allegation now be removed from the article? At the time the allegation came out, it appeared relevant. But since then, RS have essentially ignored the topic. There have not been further allegations or lawsuits - there has been no fallout (Dylan has not been made a pariah). In light of WP:NOTNEWS and similar guidelines, there is certainly an argument that the filing of the lawsuit is not relevant enough for inclusion, unless there is ultimately some lasting impact. I feel like the filing of a civil lawsuit against a celebrity is not really significant unless there is some greater effect - here, that has not happened, at least not yet. What are the thoughts on this? I can see the counter-argument already but I wanted to float this out there. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I see very little upside, and potential downside to this, in that Wikipedia could be accused of whitewashing a celebrity bio. I am of course not saying that is the case here, all I am saying is, I think too many editors don't care about how our actions are perceived by end users and critics unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards and practices, but I am in the camp of those who think we should, particularly in light of the fact that the case seems to be still open. Le Marteau (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Le Marteau. When this case is resolved we can assess whether it is of any significance in Dylan's long career. Mick gold (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
We should still remember the lawsuit going on a year old at this point and is increasingly looking like a highly publicized flash-in-the-pan. Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it should be removed, as it is covered by the press, including later news like [35]. When it is resolved it should be updated. --StellarNerd (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I think, given the outcome, this whole bit could in fact just be dropped out of the article soon. There are more important things to talk about in this too-long article than a lawsuit which appears to have been frivilous.Brianyoumans (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with all the above editors about deleting the lawsuit section. I've also deleted a recently added section on a film about Dylan's influence on Indian musicians. It's agreed this article is too long, so I think it should only mention films into which BD had direct creative input, eg Scorsese's film on The Rolling Thunder Revue. Mick gold (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, and clearly waiting was the right decision, so thanks all for the input. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 14:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC
I am once again removing the "see also" section that was added just to put in a link to a list of Jewish Nobel lauriates. If we decide to add a "See Also" section to this already too long article, I'm not sure this list should be the first link - if you read the article, it discusses Dylan's Jewishness and his Nobel. And, of course, once we start a "See Also" section, I guarantee that we would rapidly accumulate a long list of links. A very long list. And endless discussions over which ones are relevant. Let's not start.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Brianyoumans. If we add a "See Also" section I can think of many topics that might take priority over "List of Jewish Nobel Laureates". Woody Guthrie. The blues. Folk music. Someone might add List of Christian Nobel laureates since this list also includes Dylan, who recorded three albums of contemporary gospel music and during this period identified his belief as Christian, as the article explains. Let's not start. Mick gold (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Listing legal name first
Hello,
Per MOS:FULLNAME, a person's full name should be listed first, and, per MOS:HYPOCORISM, common nicknames should not be listed at all in the lead. I tried to change this, but it was reverted. I think that "Robert Dylan" should be moved out of the brackets, and should be listed as the very first thing in the lead, and the "Bob" nickname should be removed from the lead.
I think I would say the discussion didn't have a definitive result, but that most of the regular editors of the article seem ok with things as is. We could certainly discuss the matter again. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've just done a bit of research into other famous nicknamed folks, especially Bobs, on Wikipedia, and all the other articles I can find do start with their legal name (in most cases "Robert"). Given that, perhaps for consistency's sake we should start with "Robert Dylan"? The only thing that holds me back is... how certain are we that that actually is his legal name? Like many things Dylan, it seems somewhat shrouded in mystery and misdirection.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely we should never use "Robert Dylan" - who else ever has or does, outside formal legal documents? It's "Robert Zimmerman" or "Bob Dylan" and the latter should be given first. There are in fact plenty of similar examples, especially among historic artists (*painters etc). Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
In order to avoid making too many replies, I will ping a few people here.
Johnbod: Your comment about no one "ever using" Dylan's full first name, Robert, is completely false. Just because it's not the most commonly used name, it doesn't mean that no one has ever and will ever use it, or that sources for it don't exist. The name is true and verifiable, it is already in the article, and should appear first due to MOS:FULLNAME.
I said "outside formal legal documents". And by the way, your "per MOS:HYPOCORISM, common nicknames should not be listed at all in the lead" is "completely false". Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod Apologies for missing this. You added that two minutes after making the comment. I read it as soon as it was posted. Still, not every reference which contains it is an official legal document. There are book references on the article and other sources exist online. Strugglehouse (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod Please stop editing your comments after I've already replied without notifying me. I missed the last part of this reply.
My claim about MOS:HYPOCORISM isn't false. It says "If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name.". Strugglehouse (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theroadislong While true, I don't think it's necessary here to break the Wikipedia manual of style. The "Bob" nickname is covered throughout the article - as the article title, as the infobox title, in his signature, in references, in different sections, and in direct quotes. It's covered more than enough so doesn't really need to be in the very first sentence too. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Robert Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941; universally known as Bob Dylan) is an American singer-songwriter.
How about this? Normally I am not a rules-monger, but I am forced to admit that there is some value in consistency. And if you look at the articles that come up if you type in "Bob", you see two patterns - if one of their names is "Robert", no mention is made of the obvious nickname (Bob Barker, Bob Marley, Bobby Fischer, Bobby Brown). If Robert isn't in their name, it is included in quotes, as in "Leslie Townes "Bob" Hope". Honestly, I have looked at a couple of dozen articles and have yet to see one that starts with the well-known nickname. If we wanted to be even more consistent, leaving out all mention of "Bob" would be better.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested in developing a page on the The Brazil Series of paintings. I think there is a lot of information worth knowing about but that adding anything more to this page is pointless. Does this seem like an appropriate topic for its own page? Contemparteditor (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It's alright, ma (I'm only reading)
Under "Legacy", I added that Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore were influenced by Dylan when writing Watchmen. Per Gibbons: "It began with Bob Dylan." I think that merits mention; Watchmen is considered a seminal work, and was included on Time's list of the 100 greatest novels since the magazine's founding in 1923 (not just graphic novels.) I also added Conor McPherson's Girl from the North Country, which sets Dylan's songs in the Great Depression (in Duluth, Minnesota, naturally.) I think it's worth noting authors who were influenced by Dylan (he won the Nobel Prize in Literature, after all.) I know Joyce Carol Oates dedicated a short story ("Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?") to Dylan, and Stephen King named From a Buick 8 after From a Buick 6 (Dylan is one of many rock artists cited in Christine.) Not sure those last two are important enough to merit mention (no disrespect to either King or Oates, I just don't think those are major works.)
There must other authors influenced by Dylan. Anyone know of any?
I agree, I think it make more sense to put discography at the end of the article, but I'm relatively new to WP and not sure what is conventional for singer-songwriter or band articles Jameson Nightowl (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Charlie Faust, you have been re-writing the Bob Dylan article in a very thorough and ambitious way. You have tightened up a lot of the prose and improved many things. My concern is that you are adding more & more & more material to an article that has been repeatedly criticised as being over-long. In a creative life as long as Dylan’s, with such a plethora of biographical & critical information available, there is no limit to what we could add. We need restraint. I’ve deleted a few of your additions. Yesterday you asked: How did Dylan meet Ginsberg and should this be added? Historian Sean Wilentz has written a detailed account of Dylan’s first meeting with Ginsberg on December 26, 1963, in his book Bob Dylan In America (pages 65-69), because it happened in the apartment of his uncle, Ted Wilentz, above the 8th Street Bookshop which was co-owned by Wilentz’s father and uncle. I DON’T think we should add this. Dylan’s relationship with Ginsberg is described in several places in this article. Best, Mick gold (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the feedback. I'm glad you kept Larkin's review of Highway 61 Revisited, anyway.
Wasn't aware that the article had been criticized as overlong; it seems fine to me, but I will not add any more material without asking if it should be added. I thought Shepard's involvement with Rolling Thunder was worth adding, as its another interaction with a literary figure.
I'm tired of the repeated references to "critical aggregator Metacritic". It's already defined as a critical aggregator, so there's no need to repeat that. The whole idea of scoring works of art, as Metacritic does, seems reductive, you know?
Did add quote from Joni Mitchell: “I can’t really pick just one because I like so many, but the Dylan song that really grabbed me was ‘Positively Fourth Street’ and the reason for that was the subject matter seemed at the time so unique. What it said to me, not only is this a good song, but it means that we can now sing about any kind of emotion. I don’t think there was a song before that that defined the kind of hurt expressed in that song. It widened the scope of possibilities for songwriters.” I think that's kosher, as it compliments quotes in section from Tom Waits, Chuck D., et. al.
About awards: Dylan's Grammy for Album of the Year, which he won for Time Out of Mind, is quite reasonably mentioned under subheading 1990s, specifically in the paragraph on Time Out of Mind. Other awards, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, are mentioned twice, in "Life and career" and "Accolades". Since that's an award for a body of work, would it make sense to reference that once, under "Accolades"? Same goes for the Kennedy Center Honor. Other awards for a body of work, such as his Pulitzer special citation, are mentioned once, under Accolades. The Nobel Prize in Literature, also for a body of work, has a subheading under Accolades.
I know there's no shortage of critical and biographical material about the Mighty Bob (as Mr. Rushdie called him), but Alex Ross's profile, "The Wanderer" (May 22, 1999, The New Yorker), is excellent. In the unlikely event that you're looking for critical material to add, this article would be worth adding. Ross outlines Dylan's musical influences, some of which have been overlooked: "His early vocal style incorporated pieces of Woody Guthrie, Mississippi John Hurt, Hank Williams, and, not to be forgotten, Johnnie Ray, the flaky fifties crooner who smacked his consonants with unnerving ferocity." Ross, the classical music critic for The New Yorker, also describes Dylan as composer, something that may be overlooked: "he is a composer and performer at once, and his shows cause his songs to mutate, so that no definitive or ideal version exists. Dylan's legacy will be the sum of thousands of performances, over many decades." And, curiously, it includes the following: "Gordon Ball, a professor of English at the Virginia Military Institute, has nominated Dylan for the Nobel Prize in Literature." Charlie Faust (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
In the header, there are two links to Encyclopædia Britannica: Al Kooper, "Bob Dylan: American Musician" (retrieved November 5, 2016) and "Bob Dylan" (retrieved October 5, 2008). These link to the same page on Encyclopædia Britannica. Why count them as two references when they link to the same page? Wouldn't it make sense to merge them as one reference? Charlie Faust (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I've merged the 3 Encyclopedia Britannica references into one cite. Gordon Ball's nomination of Dylan in 1996 is mentioned in 2 cites at end of first sentence in the Nobel Prize in Literature section: [37] and [38]Mick gold (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for merging the Encyclopædia Britannica cites. Missed the Gordon Ball citation; my bad.
I'm getting tired of all the references to Metacritic. If people really want to know what the album scored on Metacritic, they can look it up. If a critic said something interesting (and there's no shortage of interesting things to say about Dylan), we should link to their review. Reading infinite variations of "the album scored an 89 on Metacritic, indicating 'universal acclaim'" is tiresome. Far better to link to individual reviews; the words of a good critic are far more illuminating than a (somewhat arbitrary) score. Charlie Faust (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I don’t agree. I find Metacritic cites useful because they are a portal into a variety of critics’ reviews. At one click you gain access to many critical voices, some of which would otherwise be hidden behind a paywall. WP text states Masked & Anonymous “polarized critics”. Metacritic cite at one click gives you access to 28 reviews, from highly favorable to “an incomprehensible Bob Dylan vanity project”. [39] That’s the best cite imaginable for this point. I shall restore some Metacritic cites you have deleted. Mick gold (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. I'm not saying we should never link to Metacritic; it is useful for getting critical consensus. I'm just saying that quotes from critics can be more illuminating. For "Love and Theft" (the quotation marks are in the title), we're told "The album was critically well received and earned several Grammy nominations." Not only that, it won the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album, and there's a link to the review in Entertainment Weekly. I'm gonna nix "received several Grammy nominations", since, rather more important, it won a Grammy.
As for awards; I think it makes sense to mention awards for individual works (the Grammy for Best Contemporary Folk Album, for "Love and Theft") in the relevant section under "Life and career". For works honoring Dylan's career (the Kennedy Center Honor, the Pulitzer special citation, the Nobel Prize in Literature) it's better to list them under "Accolades". At least that's what I think. Charlie Faust (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
With regards to "Hurricane", I think it might be worth noting (maybe in a footnote?) that Carter's sentence was overturned in 1985. I know, it's an article about Dylan, not Carter, but that Carter's sentence was overturned shows his crusade was a righteous one. Charlie Faust (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Charlie Faust Not a good idea to add footnotes and more info on Carter’s case imho. This article should stick to Dylan, not go down byways. Also many Dylan commentators stress Dylan’s song was a tremendous creative achievement but almost every line of his lyric is factually inaccurate and questions remain about Carter’s guilt.
Michael Gray, Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, p. 123: “Judge Sarokin only ruled that 'To permit convictions to stand which have as their foundation appeals to racial prejudice and the withholding of evidence critical to the defense is to commit a violation of the Constitution as heinous as the crimes for which the petitioners were tried and convicted.' Carter was not and never has been found ‘not guilty’. Nor has he ever sued for false imprisonment. His history of violence includes beating up a black woman who had been prominent in campaigning for his release. Many of his claims, small and large, have been discredited. Almost every line of Dylan’s song is inaccurate, from its description of events to its depiction of Carter…. None of this makes any difference to "Hurricane" as a creative achievement, any more than the facts of Pretty Boy Floyd’s life can have any power over the life of Woody Guthrie’s song. Dylan’s song has blazing vivacity, a life affirming generosity of sweep … It’s cinematic and celebratory."
Clinton Heylin, (2010), Still On The Road: The Songs of Bob Dylan, Volume Two: 1974–2008, pp. 73-9 contains a sceptical account of the Hurricane Carter case. Mick gold (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I was aware of liberties Dylan had taken with his song. I admit I'm not an expert on the case, but it is a fact that Carter's sentence for the homicide in Patterson was overturned. He may have been guilty of other crimes, for all I know.
Regarding Desire, the article mentions "travelogue-like narrative styles". That's true, and can be heard on songs like "Isis" and "Mozambique." Just as interesting, I think, are what sound like stage directions ("Pistol shot rang out in a barroom night.") These were also inspired, I suspect, by his new collaborator, Jacques Levy. Under "Accolades", I think that Dylan was named a Commandeur dans l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres merits mentioning. (Other members include Jorge Luis Borges, T. S. Eliot, Stevie Wonder, Clint Eastwood and Jerry Lewis. He was popular in France.)
I know that there's a wealth of material by and about Dylan and this article cannot include everything. Nor should it. Still, I think it would be worth mentioning Biograph, which, as the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll notes, "included 18 previously unreleased tracks" and "helped put Dylan's long career in perspective." The liner notes, by Cameron Crowe, are cited on this page. I also wonder if it might be worth noting the 30th Anniversary Concert Celebration (dubbed "Bobfest" by Neil Young).
A work that gives me pause is Tarantula. It is mentioned under "Written works", along with Chronicles and The Philosophy of Modern Song. Those works are also mentioned under "Life and career". Should Tarantula be? I admit I haven't read it. It may not be important literature, but may be an important document. Or maybe it isn't. Biograph, however, is certainly important. Charlie Faust (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
You know, I think you convinced me on Metacritic; it is a good place to see a number of reviews, positive and negative, at a glance. I think it's worth linking to. However, I would still caution against mentioning the Metascores too often in the article, as they are somewhat arbitrary, and because reading variations of "scored 90 on Metacritic" gets tiresome. But it is useful for getting sense of consensus (or, as with Masked & Anonymous, of seeing wildly differing reviews.)
Still think Biograph merits mention, and the Commandeur dans l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (hope I spelled that right; I'm an amateur at French). Charlie Faust (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The article "Times change, but Dylan remains a lasting imprint", Edna Gunsersen, USA Today, is linked to several times under "Legacy." Might be worth merging these links, as they go to same article. (Still think it would be worth mentioning Biograph...) Charlie Faust (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Charlie Faust, The principal section in the Bob Dylan article is “Life and Career”. You moved two paragraphs from “Life and Career” to “Legacy”. You argued: "On May 24, 2011, Dylan's 70th birthday, three universities organized symposia on his work"; true, but Dylan was not involved with said symposia; does it belong in "Life and career"? It might be better suited to "Legacy", where critical appreciation is discussed”. And Dylan's 80th birthday in May 2021 was commemorated by a virtual conference, Dylan@80, organized by the University of Tulsa..."; good to know, but Bob wasn't involved with the conference; does it belong under "Life and career"? It might be better suited to "Legacy", where critical discussion of his work is.”
I disagree. These paras don’t add anything substantive to Dylan’s artistic legacy. They are milestones in his life. I think they punctuate the narrative of his Life in a way that works. Dropped into “Legacy” they don’t relate to the material that comes before and after. I’ve reverted them. It would be interesting to hear other editors’ opinions about the best place for this material. Mick gold (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It might be that this kind of stuff does belong in "Legacy", but I don't think at this point that specific conferences or symposia are very significant. Perhaps they could be summed up in a sentence or two, kind of like "Dylan's work has become the subject of serious academic study, with symposia on his work being held at the University of Blah (year)(ref), Blah College... and others." Etc. I don't think each individual one deserves much mention. I agree if it was something that he himself was actively involved in, that would go more under "Life and career".Brianyoumans (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure the symposia belong in Life and career because Bob wasn't involved with them. I'm not sure what Bob thinks of academic study of his work, honestly. I think it's better suited to Legacy; critical study of his work (Richard Thomas, Christopher Ricks, et al.) is mentioned there.
I moved the sale of Dylan's Fender Stratocaster and lyrics to "Like a Rolling Stone" from Life and career to Archives. Dylan wasn't involved with the sale of those items, which are now historical artifacts. Likewise the sale of his archives to the Tulsa University. Charlie Faust (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think Dylan's work merits study. Christopher Ricks's Dylan's Visions of Sin is worth reading. But, again, I'm not sure what Bob himself thinks of academic study of his work; maybe he's flattered but kind of amused. Hard to say.
Re: "Dylan's 70th birthday, three universities organized symposia on his work"; Dylan's 70th birthday was a milestone in his life; no argument there, but he was not involved with said symposia. I thought it was better suited to "Legacy", where critical study of his work (by Ricks, Thomas, et al.) is mentioned. Same with "Dylan's 80th birthday in May 2021 was commemorated by a virtual conference, Dylan@80, organized by the University of Tulsa..." (I wonder why he donated his archives to the University of Tulsa, as opposed to, say, the University of Minnesota. Never mind.)
Anyone know about his being named a Commandeur dans l'Ordre des Artes et des Lettres? Per the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll; it was in 1990, and that's what the Wikipedia page "List of members of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" says. The Deseret News article, "France Honors a Willin' Dylan", was from 1989. Maybe it was announced in 1989 and awarded in 1990. I'm not an expert on French cultural awards. Other members include T. S. Eliot, Stevie Wonder, Clint Eastwood and Jerry Lewis (famously popular in France.) It seems like an award worth mentioning, under "Accolades".
There is a hierarchy in France’s orders of merit and there is is no doubt the Légion d'Honneur is France’s highest order of merit, both civil and military. The List of U.S. recipients of the Légion d'Honneur includes James Baldwin, Miles Davis, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Clint Eastwood, Orson Welles and Elie Wiesel. It’s a big deal. Since this article mentions under "Accolades" the Légion d'Honneur (and the fact there was a political row about whether Dylan was a worthy recipient), there’s no need to mention as well the lesser Commandeur dans l'Ordre des Artes et des Lettres, imho. Mick gold (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Chronicles: Volume One and The Philosophy of Modern Song'political ' are mentioned in "Life and career" and "Written works"; Tarantula is mentioned only in the latter. Maybe it doesn't merit mention twice; anyone read it? Charlie Faust (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned merging links to Gundersen, "Times change, but Dylan leaves a lasting imprint". There were links to two Gundersen articles, which may have caused confusion. I was wondering if we could merge the first link to Gundersen's article ("Lines that branded Dylan a poet and counterculture valedictorian in the '60s are imprinted on the culture") with the second and third links, quotes from Bono ("U2 kind of came from outer space, where punk was ground zero and you didn't admit to having roots") and Chuck D ("He is stenciled on a lot of aspects of my career — his ability to paint pictures with words, his concerns for society"), respectively. I tried this and failed. May you'll have better luck. Charlie Faust (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've attempted to consolidate the 3 Gundersen quotes: Bartlett, Bono and Chuck D. The Gundersen article is no longer online so the link is dead. Mick gold (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
That works for you? When I clicked on your link just now, it took me to the Front Page of USA Today, which today informs me Trump beat Haley in SC Primary. (I'm in UK. Maybe that's the problem?) Anyway I'll add that link to Bartlett, Bono & Chuck D, see it it works for you. Mick gold (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I've added that URL you quote above to Gundersen/Bartlett. Was unable to implant cite in quote so separate cites give a consolidated version of Gundersen/Bartlett cite after Bowie, Bono and Chuck D. BUT all I get from that link is Front Page of USA Today: Trump quickly bests Haley in her home state of S.C. Mick gold (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hmmmm, So it must be a USA vs UK issue. All I get right now is Front Page of USA Today: Threats, high turnover rock elections offices nationwide. I’ll leave it for now. Mick gold (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Chronicles: Volume One and The Philosophy of Modern Song are mentioned in "Life and career." (Tarantula is not. Whether it merits mention as literature, I'll leave to those who've read it.)
Do we need a section for "Written works"? Two of the three are mentioned earlier in the article. The section seems somewhat superfluous, as Dylan is not best known for written works, and most of his written works are mentioned elsewhere.
You may be right. What about Tarantula? It's mentioned under Written works but not Life and career. Chronicles and Philosophy of Modern Song are mentioned in life and career; should Tarantula be? (I confess I haven't read it.) Whether or not Tarantula should be mentioned twice, I'll leave to those who have read it. Charlie Faust (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I've read Tarantula and have added an account of that freeform, fragmented book to 1970 section. An oddity because Dylan apparently shelved the project in 1966 and then abruptly decided to publish it at the end of 1970. It's written in a giddy, prose-poetry style but contains Dylanesque gems, some of which were incorporated into the screenplay of I'm Not There by Todd Haynes and Oren Moverman. Mick gold (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, cool. I noticed a tarantula in I'm Not There, which I took to be a (rather literal) representation of the book. I like that movie. I moved it to Legacy rather than Life & career as Dylan wasn't involved with the production. The movie might come as close to summing up Dylan's legacy as a movie can.
You know what would be worth adding to the page? Milton Glaser's Dylan poster. It's in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and has been written about in the Smithsonian magazine. It's also been parodied, for example on the front cover of the New York Times Book Review with the headline: "It's Alright Ma, (I'm Only Reading)", referring to Jonathan Lethem's review of Dylan''s Visions of Sin. Charlie Faust (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I added the New York Times Book Reviewcover, only for it to be removed. Someone said there was 'no valid reason for it' to be here. The image is already in Wikimedia commons; actually, you'll find it on the WP for the New York Times Book Review. It's worth including because it references Milton Glaser's famous Dylan poster, and because Dylan was featured on the front page of The New York Times Book Review, and how many songwriters can say that? I think that's a valid reason. Charlie Faust (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Legacy
The Legacy section already contains the following Ricks point: "Literary critic Christopher Ricks published Dylan's Visions of Sin, an appreciation of Dylan's work. Following Dylan's Nobel win, Ricks reflected: "I'd not have written a book about Dylan, to stand alongside my books on Milton and Keats, Tennyson and T.S. Eliot, if I didn't think Dylan a genius of and with language."
To this has been added a very long quote from Hitchens: "Christopher Hitchens recalled hearing Dylan at the Poetry Society at Oxford: "I was fairly soon hooked on what Philip Larkin called Dylan's 'cawing, derisive voice', and felt almost personally addressed by the lyrics of "Masters of War" and " Hard Rain", which seemed to encapsulate the way in which I felt about Cuba. Then there were the loving and less cawing strains of "Mr. Tambourine Man", "She Belongs to Me" and "Baby Blue"...I've since had all kinds of differences with Professor Christopher Ricks, but he is and always has been correct in maintaining that Dylan is one of the essential poets of our time, and it felt right to meet him tin the company of Shelley and Milton and Lowell.”
This repeats Ricks’s point, adds more poets (Shelley, Milton and Lowell) and tells us about Hitchens’s many differences with Professor Ricks "but he is and always has been correct in maintaining that Dylan is one of the essential poets of our time." Surely this just makes the Legacy section seem repetitive and bloated. Moreover, the Larkin phrase, "cawing and derisive", is already in the article. So I’ve cut this long addition. Mick gold (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
TFA
It's been twenty years and two days since this appeared on the main page. Do you guys think the article would still be eligible to appear on the main page, or is further work needed? 750h+06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@750h As an avid Wikipedia reader (not really an editor, sorry), I think the lede would need some work. It reads a bit awkwardly, and covers his early folk period twice over (one mention of Blowin in the wind would suffice). 90.143.141.72 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a lot of small revisions. Looking at it quickly, I see some I don't like, some I do, and some in the middle. What do people think? Just for instance, I don't think taking out the description of the Nobel Prize is warranted - the Nobel Prize was a big deal.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I thought it was a v useful copy edit, pruning & tightening. A few phrases have gone which I regret but I welcome constructive attempt to keep this long WP article in good shape. Mick gold (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024
This edit request to Bob Dylan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On June 21, 2024, Dylan initiated the Outlaw Music Festival Tour, sharing the bill with Willie Nelson and other musicians.[406] ADD: Dylan's setlist during this tour is a departure from the Rough and Rowdy Ways Tour, including songs from throughout his career as well as several covers. [1]Notrobbieclark (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
Done I removed the category. Sundayclose (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
