Talk:Bob Dylan

Archive 1

Monicasdude and undiscussed major overhaul

Monicasdude, the wiki is having big problems right now so I'm not going to get into it much today, but please step back and consider what you're trying to do. I don't know if you're new to Wikipedia or what, but I can tell you that if we have to go to arbitration on this you will not come out ahead. Total overhaul of Featured Articles without any discussion is not acceptable. You invoke the "be bold" statement on the FA page. Did you read further along in that statement:

But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories [...]. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. Even so, the editing of gross grammatical errors is welcome.

I did read some of your edits. You're a capable writer. However, you introduced probably more factual errors than you fixed and, overall, your version is far from an improvement in my judgment. I think you have the Dylan knowledge and overall literacy to improve this article, but it will have to be on a statement-by-statement basis, with Talk.

I won't be back on Wikipedia for the rest of today and maybe not at all tomorrow. If you persist in the revert war without discussion, your work will be reverted immediately on my return and arbitrators will be called in. (Also, why don't you have a User Talk page? It's your choice but it's another iffy kinda thing, you know?). JDG 17:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't read the revision before you reverted it. You don't cite any errors in the revisions. Bob Dylan's public career is not a complex and controversial subject, and you don't cite any examples of revisions which violate the policy section you quote. You're not an admin, and your demand for "statement-by-statement" pre-review of contributions I might make -- to say nothing of your declaration that you are going to premptively revert any contributions I may make until your "return" is an unmistakeable demonstration of your bad faith and refusal to abide by community rules. Dispute resolution has been contacted. It's plain from your comments to other users here that you lack respect for opinions which do not conform to yours. My contributions will continue.

User: Monicasdude 3:40 PM EST 30 May 2005

"You didn't read the revision before you reverted it." Wrong. I did read it before reverting. "...you don't cite any examples of revisions which violate the policy section you quote". Your main policy violation is that you're doing a major overhaul of a FA without discussion. "It's plain from your comments to other users here that you lack respect for opinions which do not conform to yours". I have been with Wikipedia since early `02 and have successfully collaborated with dozens of editors on hundreds of articles, some of them recognized as among the best. I show respect where it is due. You say you have "contacted dispute resolution". Who?. When?. Let's get on with it. JDG 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read the changes very closely so I don't know which version is better. However, there's no Wikipedia policy stating that changes to a featured article need to be approved first. It's wise to discuss changes and form a consensus of course, but there is no requirement that every change to an FA needs to be debated first. If that was the case, we might as well lock featured articles. Rhobite 02:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying every change needs to be "approved" first. I am saying (and I think it is the mainstream Wikipedia approach) that a featured article carries a serious built-in weight of consensus which should be respected, and this respect should take the form of discussion *before* substantial changes. This discussion is not necessarily an "approval" process by some self-appointed article-guardian (if more people liked Monicasdude's version I would instantly bow to consensus). Monicasdude has done none of this. He simply bulldozed in and totally re-arranged an article of very high quality. Perhaps no single policy provision is being violated, but any responsible admin would be asking Monicasdude to slow down and discuss. Normally I would fully engage here and there's little doubt continued intransigence by Monicasdude would lead to some form of intervention having the net result of restoring the article. However, I'm very ill and cannot devote the time/energy. So it's so long for now, fellas. If I get a respite (damn chemotherapy), I'll be back to fight for the right. Those who are now editing off of this new, worse version should bear in mind that a large battle is probably ahead, two or so months from now, one that will likely result in a giant reversion. So if you want to make sure your own efforts count you might think about resisting M's overhaul now. JDG 19:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has been edited hundreds of times since the "Featured" tag was applied, often substantially, with hardly a dozen subjects discussed on the talk page. That's more than an edit a day. What's being preached now is not what's been practiced.
I'm not going to sling mud back. I think that if you look at the series of edits I've made, they consist principally of correcting a significant number of undisputed factual errors (e.g., where the Zimmerman family lived when Robert was born, the name of Dylan's first wife), rearranging discussions of events into chronological order, and removing a number of clear violations of the NPOV policy (often recitations of lyrics with accompanying subjective praise). I've filled in some gaps; more remain, especially in the post-1975 discussions that I've yet done very little with (e.g., Bob and Sara Dylan's divorce). I believe I've improved the article; I've to hear any good faith disagreement on substantive points. Monicasdude 00:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The article has been edited hundreds of times since the "Featured" tag was applied, often substantially, with hardly a dozen subjects discussed on the talk page." But don't you see? Nearly all of these edits were small and measured (the substantial ones mostly *were* discussed here), often small enough so that a good edit summary served to justify them. What you've done is something else entirely-- a total all-at-once overhaul..."I think that if you look at the series of edits I've made..." No, many of your edits are complete reworkings of entire paragraphs. For instance, the "Tom Paine Award" paragraph. In the previous version it was a full, detailed treatment giving the reader some real flavor of "back in the day". Probably thinking you're being tight and concise, you chopped it to two bare sentences evocative of nothing (yes, these are subjective judgments but, for my money, where there is a one-on-one dispute, tie goes to the FA version as it carries the weight of consensus) I have allowed a good number of my own edits on other articles to be canceled for this very reason... Now, about factual errors. A ten second glance brings up these questions: 1) Your version says Dylan's forebears were "Lithuanian, Russian and Ukranian". In fact, no scholar or writer I'm aware of has taken this up as an issue to be verified, so we are left with Dylan's own statements, many made in his younger days when he demonstrably fabricated tales from whole cloth. Most of the names themselves clearly appear to be of German-Jewish derivation (Zimmerman, Greenstein, Edelstein, etc.,.) and until some real investigation is carried out, a responsible article can only say what the names look like and what Dylan claims, as did the old version. Yours instead makes an unsupported flat statement;

You're dead wrong here. The information was first presented in Robert Shelton's No Direction Home; Shelton was the only biographer to get a substantial interview with Abraham Zimmerman; he also interviewed Beatty, and David Zimmerman, as well as, if I remember correctly, at least one of Abraham's brothers. The family history is corroborated in Heylin's BTS2, which has additional details from other sources. Monicasdude

What did Abraham Zimmerman say? I have read elsewhere that his antecedents need looking into, and as such the old version is plainly better for now. (JDG)

That you read something, somewhere, that you can't cite is no reason to reject well-sourced, reliable, published information. Monicasdude

You remembered the title of a book! That's quite something. Pray what did the book *say*?? (JDG)

2) Your version says "He quit formal studies in early 1961, heading directly to New York City..." He did not go directly to NYC upon leaving university. There is a documented stint in a Denver dive in this interval and in Chronicles he mentions some extended time back in Hibbing before departing. The old version's "eventually landing in New York City" is accurate;

I probably should have made even more substantial changes here. I let the 1961 date for quitting formal studies stand, because I don't have a rock-solid alternative date. However, there's a fairly solid chronology here. Dylan spent the summer of 1960 in Denver, and returned to the Minneapolis area in the fall of 1960, at about the time the fall semester began. Whether he'd technically quit college at that point isn't clear enough to me, but it looks like his family paid for the fall 1960 semester. At the December/winter break, he finally told his family that he was not continuing in school, then spent the semester break in Chicago. He then headed back toward Minneapolis, but during a stayover in Madison, WI, decided to (finally) act on his desire to try his luck in New York City. He took a well-documented ride with Fred Underhill and Dave Berger from Madison to New York City, arriving January 24, 1961. Documented, in various stages, by Shelton (who bought into some of Dylan's fabrications), Heylin, and John Bauldie. If you put Dylan's decision to quit college in 1961, the only event you can associate it with is his decision to abandon Minneapolis as his home base, and when he made that decision he headed directly to NYC. The version of events you cite looks to be straight out of Bob Spitz, and it's long been discredited.
It would be better to say "Dylan quit college at the end of his freshman year, but stayed in Minneapolis, working the folk circuit there, with temporary sojourns in Denver and Chicago. In January 1961, while heading to Minneapolis from Chicago, he changed course, and headed to New York City." But that change would have been even more drastic, and imposed my opinion on a debatable point (the date Dylan formally quit college). Monicasdude

From this muddle you get "heading directly to New York City"?? Again, after all that, it's clear the old version is nearer the mark. (JDG)

Since the old version is long-discredited misinformation, it should be corrected, not reinstated. Monicasdude

What in tarnation are you trying to say? Your own account above admits there was substantial time between quitting college and arriving in NYC, which is exactly what the real version said. Then you characterize that as "long-discredited misinformation"... At the moment, of the 4 potential factual problems I identified a few days ago with a 10-second glance at your hacks, 3 remain in grave doubt. Johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt what a slog this already is and it's obviously only beginning. JDG 04:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your version has Dylan quitting college early in 1961, then going from Minneapolis to Hibbing to Denver to Chicago to Madison to Greenwich Village in the span of about 3 weeks, probably less. And that's dead wrong, and it's long-discredited. As for the rest, your being in a state of denial is hardly reason for anyone to entertain "grave doubts" about anyone's accuracy but your own. Monicasdude 01:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the old version said "eventually heading to NYC". That's all I'm talking about and it's more accurate than yours. As for the rest, we'll see in a few days who else has grave doubts. Where's Monica? Maybe she can help you see what you're doing here before... I'm starting to think you're an old hand at this. You prolly decided not to have a User Talk page because it would just fill up with people wailing over your evisceration of their work. You can run but JDG

The old version said "He quit formal studies in early 1961, eventually drifting to New York City." And it's wrong. Just a few paragraphs back, you insisted that Dylan went to Hibbing and Denver in January 1961; the Chicago and Madison stays in January 1961 are well-documented and undeniable. Your version of events doesn't square up with the documented record, with interviews with people who knew Dylan at that time, etc, etc. Monicasdude 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) A sentence in your new "Tom Paine Award" paragraph reads: "Accepting the "Tom Paine Award" from the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee at a ceremony shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a drunken, rambling Dylan questioned the role of the committee, insulted its members as overweight and balding, and claimed to see something of himself (and of everyman) in assassin Lee Harvey Oswald." The literal meaning of this is that *all* the committee's members were overweight and balding. The old version's "many overweight and balding members" was good. Also, to my knowledge Dylan said nothing pointing to some sort of "everyman" significance. Where did you get this?;

Another case where I probably should have made even more substantial changes. Dylan didn't insult members of the committee as "overweight"; he did say they were "old" and implied they "haven't got any hair on their head." The version you prefer states that the members of the committee actually were overweight and balding, a factually unsupported generalization. As for the "everyman" reference, that comes out of Dylan's apology/explanation to the committee; he says that "when I spoke of Lee Oswald, I was speakin of the times"; and goes on to claim, rather inchoately, that violent times put violent impulses in men -- in Oswald, in Dylan, and by implication in everyone. Monicasdude

Can't check now, but I distinctly remember "overweight", and in any case the literal meaning of your sentence is just plain wrong. I accept your explanation for "everyman". (JDG)

You "distinctly remember" wrongly, and the transcript of the speech is directly linked from the article. Monicasdude

4) You say "Dylan secretly married Sara Lownds..." Are you sure you're not thinking of his later marriage, which was in secret? I haven't read that Sara was secret in any way...

Then you're poorly read. Dylan concealed his marriage from virtually everyone; no public announcements, no disclosures even to longtime friends. Heylin, in "Day By Day," calls it "secret"; Shelton, in "No Direction Home," said Dylan "kept [it] quiet." Dave Van Ronk tells of meeting Dylan with Sara in December 1965, and not hearing of the marriage; Jack Elliott, as I recall, told a story about asking Dylan about a rumored marriage, with Dylan denying it. The story was broken three months later by Nora Ephron in the New York Post, treating it as a headline-worthy disclosure of a previously unknown event. Monicasdude

So, you are sure. Very good. As I said, we should have been going through like this *before* your massive Save. I've no doubt much of your factual material would withstand scrutiny. Stylistically and thematically, I'm not so sure. We'll see what others say. (JDG)

Your being poorly read is hardly justification for demanding that changes be pre-screened for your approval. Monicasdude

Being a wiseass won't get you too far here. It so happens I hadn't read specifically on the Lownds marriage. There are plenty of other areas in this topic on which I could take you to school. Please respond to the basic point being made here: that your giant overhaul of this FA is against guidelines and should be reversed. JDG 06:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is after just a 10-second glance. But I don't want to haggle over this or that sentence. You are simply in the wrong to roll out a massive, undiscussed overhaul to this FA. Please be big and revert yourself and I promise you many of your edits will get in after due deliberation. JDG 01:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that somebody take on the task of listing the points of difference (besides style) between the 2 versions. I think Monicasdude would be in a good position to present such a list, since he? best knows what is included, but perhaps there is some other party interested enough to do some of it --JimWae 06:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

There are three major differences: style, in that I've boiled tsome sections down and tried to maintain a consistent tone; chronology, since I've rearranged discussion to keep events, as much as practical, in chronological order; and NPOV-adherence, where I've removed several blocs of text which plainly violated the applicable standard, and were added to the article without talk activity. It's the latter that seems to have triggered JDG's responses. I've also cleaned up a significant number of minor (and unquestionable) factual errors -- e.g., the number of nontopical songs on Dylan's 3rd album, the date of the "Last Waltz" concert, where the Zimmerman family lived when Robert was born -- and added some linking text to fill in gaps in the chronology. I've also added the major biographies and recordings references to the "Further Reading" section, cleaned up the links a bit, and worked on several of the affiliated pages.

The dispute isn't about the substance of my edits. User JDG has been quite explicit in his comments, in the talk page and his edit summaries, that he is reverting the page not because of substance -- he has made virtually no substantive objections -- but because he demands that editors of this page comply with his own policies regarding editing rather than the standard Wikipedia guidelines. Monicasdude 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will everyone please tone down the rhetoric here and in the edit summaries? There is no call for throwing around terms like "thuggery" and "vandalism". Gamaliel 07:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, JDG, do you dispute the substance of any of Monicasdude's edits? If yes, please list the edits that trouble you. If you are only disputing the fact that the eidts were made, and not their substance, then this page should revert to Monicasdude's edits. Steve block 10:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Couple" v. "Few"

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

You're right. Sorry for the oversight.

Christian Conversion

I made an edit earlier about Dylan's pre-Slow Train Coming hints of Christianity, but it was taken out. I think it might be of interest to the reader that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and Christian tradition had greatly influenced much of Dylan's work, especially since his motorcycle crash, after which he started to extensively read the Bible. John Wesley Harding in 1967 is stock full of religious stuff, even extrabiblical Christian material (St. Augustine). Blood on the Tracks in 1975 references crucifixion in "Idiot Wind" and "Shelter From The Storm." Desire in 1976, although only cowritten by Dylan (except for "Sara"), contains explicit Christian language in "Oh, Sister": "We died and were reborn, and then mysteriously saved." Also in "Sara," a song about his wife since 1965 (I believe), he mentions those Methodist bells, suggesting that they married in a Christian church, which could explain who personally introduced him to Christianity (as early as 65). And of course on Street Legal in 1978, there is extensive (though subtle) Christian and apocalyptic imagery. Obviously all this information should not go in our favorite featured article, but maybe a brief mention of his pre-1979 Christian leanings. Tix 21:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tixity, I encourage you to stay on top of this page to make sure your work survives the current troubles. As you can see above, Monicasdude has embarked on a very unfortunate, undiscussed major overhaul to a very popular, recognized article and his intransigence has resulted in messy reversions that can't help but endanger the work of more responsible editors. Judging from his past behavior, the current version will soon be knocked back to his private concoction and you will have to make sure your edits survive the jump. As noted above, when I have the time and energy I will be bringing fullblown arbitration to bear on this article. Hopefully after that you'll be able to contribute without worries. JDG 22:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tixity, please note that JDG was the one who removed the edit you're talking about, and that I have restored it each time I reverted the page after his (to my mind) vandalism. Monicasdude 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course you "restored" it. His edit was made while your version was live, so reverting to yourself brings it back. Tix, it's going to be a rough slog, judging from this chap's out-of-all-proportion self-confidence. Keep it on Watch. JDG 00:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please give your opinions.

Anyone reading this, please review the dispute between Monicasdude and myself (see above on this Talk page and the Edit History) and record your vote below: Do you prefer the version he keeps reverting to, or the one I keep reverting to? We have to get this beyond a one-on-one battle. Mdude carries no more authority than I do, and vice-versa. Neither of us is backing down. Please, we need your opinion. JDG 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

For the long-established version favored by JDG:
JDG  

For Monicasdude's overhauled version:
User:Monicasdude  

 

Please note that I did not vote in this excessively personalized poll, and that User JDG took it upon himself to cast "my" vote. I do not believe it is appropriate, or consistent with overall Wikipedia guidelines and policies, to vote this way. Instead, I would hope that users raise whatever questions they may have about the accuracy and appropriateness of the edits I have made in accordance with the standard Wikipedia processes. I believe the edits I made produced a more accurate and reliable article, more consistent with Wikipedia guidelines; and that, rather than simply arguing JDG v MD, editors whould engage in the continuous process of improvement. In comparison to other FAs regarding important American musicians, like the ones regarding Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis, the Dylan article was grossly inferior, and while "my version" (which includes recent edits from other users) has reduced the distance, it is still substantial, and much more improvement is possible. Monicasdude 20:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Accept no substitutes!)

Informal polling is a time-honored first-tier dispute resolution mechanism on Wikipedia. I did not "vote" for Mdude. I listed his username under the obvious position he holds. Mdude is trying to muscle aside all opinion but his own. Do not let this happen, folks. JDG 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only the sith deal in absolutes. I think that there are good parts to them both - the new one has some sections too cut up to even make sense, but the old one did have some unnecessary paragraph structure and crap. Overall, i'd have to go with monica's dudes' one, with some additions from JDG's. SECProto 16:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) Abstain I'm not sure this can be sorted by a poll. Could you not just discuss the veracity of the two versions and settle on a compromise? Steve block 10:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's not as though Monicasdude's version has major POV issues or whatnot...a compromise of the two versions would be better. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 14:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm thinking of a way to propose this that might have a remote chance of getting Mdude's participation. JDG 15:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forget the poll. The only way to sort this out is to form some kind of compromise. JDG, do you feel that any material as been taken out or put in? Or this a re-arranging? I did try and compare the two versions, but my monitor is not wide enough! Monicasdude, do you feel you edits have to be 'all at once'? Or are you prepared to take it one section at a time? Dan100 (Talk) 16:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Given the amount of disentangling and rearranging that had to be done just to arrive at a reasonably straightforward and accurate chronology (up through 1978; the later period needs major work), it seemed to me more appropriate to make one integrated edit. As the history shows, I'd been trying to make individual changes for a few weeks previously -- only one of which raised any substantive questions -- but that process wasn't terribly efficient.

As a starting point, I'll give a half dozen example of changes I've made, which should be non-controversial, but at the same time demonstrate the serious flaws in the article as it stood. (When I refer to the pre-existing article, I'm generally referring to the article as it stood on 01:37, 15 May 2005, before my series of edits began.)

1. Duluth v. Hibbing. The pre-existing version of the article said Dylan and his family lived in Hibbing when he was born. The major Dylan bios -- Heylin and Shelton in particular -- say that the Zimmerman family lived in Duluth, but moved to Hibbing after Dylan's father contracted polio. The same version of events is found in the Life In Hibbing link I added (coincidentally) this morning.

2. Times They Are A-Changin'. Pre-existing article said the album was almost entirely downbeat/topical songs, with one exception. Actually three nontopical songs on the album, as simple reference to the tracklist demonstrates.

3. Newport 1965. Dylan was not backed by the Butterfield Blues Band. Neither Butterfield nor keyboardist Mark Naftalin played with Dylan that night. Al Kooper and Barry Goldberg did; neither was a member of the PBBB. See http://www.bjorner.com/DSN00785%20(65).htm#_Toc490789042 for backup. A similar error afflicts the report of Dylan's Forest Hills/Hollywood Bowl 1965 concerts, since Dylan did not perform with the Hawks at those shows, but hired two members for his own band.

4. Levon Helm/Basement Tapes. Pre-existing article has Levon Helm rejoining the Hawks/Band at "Big Pink" early in 1967 and playing on the Basement Tapes. Helm actually returned late in 1967 and played on few if any of the Basement Tape sessions. Backup: Clinton Heylin's "Recording Sessions" book; Levon Helm's autobiography. "This Wheel's On Fire."

5. "First explicit protest song in 10 years." The pre-existing article describes the 1975 "Hurricane" this way, and it's dead wrong. Dylan wrote, recorded, and released "George Jackson" in 1971. Backup: http://www.bjorner.com/DSN01885%201971.htm#DSN01980 His last explicit topical songs prior to that were written in 1963, released early in 1964 on Times They Are A-Changin'.

6. "Gospel" tours. The pre-existing article that Dylan refused to play any secular songs while touring to support his "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1979), "Saved" (1980), and "Shot Of Love" (1981) albums. This is dead wrong. Dylan's purely "gospel" concerts were during his three relatively short tours in the fall of 1979, the winter of 1980, and the spring of 1980, ending May 21, 1980. Saved was released on June 20, 1980. Dylan resumed touring on November 9, 1980; during this "Musical Retrospective" tour (a name apparently provided by Bill Graham), he mixed religious and secular music. During the tour, he sang 40 different songs; about two dozen of them were secular. That breakdown is a bit misleading, because he pretty much played the same set of "gospel" songs on most nights, while mixing up the covers and selections from his own older songs. By the last night of that tour, he'd reached a 50/50 mix. See Olof's Files, at http://www.bjorner.com, for backup and details.

That's a representative sample. None of these should be at all controversial; all of them are commonly reported, and rarely if ever disputed. It's a measure of how poor the scrutiny of Dylan article was that the errors were left standing for so long.

There were also a large number of NPOV violations in the pre-existing article; I'll give one egregious example:

"Solid Rock", "Saving Grace", "Pressing On" and "In the Garden" from Saved (1980), plus "Every Grain of Sand" and the title song from Shot of Love (1981), along with the Shot of Love outtakes "Caribbean Wind" and "Angelina", have been recognized by many as among the greatest contributions to gospel music by a 20th century white composer.

This is completely unsourced nonsense, sheer puffery for some editor's favorite songs.

The pre-existing article is laced with highly subjective comments about "masterpieces" and "gems," expositions of favored lyrics (without regard to copyright problems), and downright odd observations (saying that "nearly an entire generation" of Americans memorized "Subterranean Homesick Blues," for example.

The links were weirdly incomplete; the "further reading" omitted most of the major biographies. Several of the subordinate pages -- the discography, some of the individual album pages -- were seriously fouled up. And so forth. I have yet to see any substantive quarrel with my edits; JDG provided a small, superficial reply a while back, but falls back only on broad and unsourced denials.

Monicasdude 19:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is your list of these issues (which are generally not the ones I am most concerned with), your way of giving me an assurance you are ready to work in a spirit of compromise? JDG 19:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. It's a direct response to Dan100's question, and should remain threaded that way. I don't accept the subtext of your question, implying that I haven't previously shown an willingness to work in a "spirit of compromise"; you are, after all, the one who reverted the article a dozen or so times without addressing substance. If you have substantive objections, you should set them out, at whatever pace you choose, so that everyone who's interested can address them and determine whatever compromises, if any, are appropriate. Monicasdude 20:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm really tired of this BS. You have shown no willingness to compromise. You're about the most selfish editor I've ever come across, afflicted with about the largest overestimation of his own skills. While I have conceded you know parts of the subject and have ability as a writer, you haven't had the slightest kind word for me. You're 100% about pride and total control. This absurdity that my reversions are almost criminal while yours are pure righteousness and that the large block of text above wherein I address substance has no weight just shows your terminal, willful blindness. Earlier today I extended the hand of cooperation and I'm met with just more of the same. This article can fly all the way into mediocrity– I'm done with you. JDG 01:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Dan100, Shiri, Steve Block and SECProto. This is how I propose to go forward... Normally I would immediately list side-by-side comparisons of sentences and paragraphs and try to get Mdude to see why one or another should be changed from his version, but this is a big article and just listing the comparisons would take a lot of effort, nevermind the haggling on each one. I don't object to effort, but, as you may have read above, I am seriously ill and cannot sit at the computer for more than about 8 minutes at a time. So to do this right away would be totally draining and I need to keep something in the tank for things like forcing myself to eat, forcing myself into the shower, etc.,. SO, if I can get an assurance here from Monicasdude that he is ready to work in something like a spirit of compromise, I will list one or two comparisons as energy allows and we can take it from there over the next few weeks. What do you say Mdude? JDG 18:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I must say, at face value (not knowing much about Dylan), Mdude's edits no not look unreasonable. Unless his edits contravene our core policies on content (and they don't appear to), I see no immeadiate reason why they should not stand. JDG, if you do feel that the likes of NPOV, Cites Sources and Verifiability are being breached, perhaps when you're feeling better you could explain that. I understand that could be quite a task that you probably have no wish to undertake, but I see no other way forwards. Perhaps you could only highlight changes (if any) which clearly fail the mentioned policies. Dan100 (Talk) 18:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

What happened to this article? It is now full of gross grammatical and spelling errors and embarrassingly clunky phrasing. Somebody help.

---

I noticed the producer of Blonde On Blonde was erroneously named Bruce Johnston. I changed this to Bob Johnston, the producer's correct name

Mick gold 00:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is badly skewed

The introduction to this article is rather odd in that it positions Dylan exclusively as a songwriter. It is true that songwriting is probably his greatest contributions, but to entirely ignore the fact that Dylan was a recording artist and (an extremely enduring) performer, is to miss a core distinction between him and some of his predecessors in the American songwriting pantheon; Bob Dylan has spent much of his life recording and performing. In addition to being a first-rank songwriter, Bob Dylan is a Rock Star. And it's not like performing was occasional adunct to his writing; he wrote with his own performance in mind. The fact of his performance role must surely have influenced the writing greatly. His reputation - including the highpointss and the lows - has been formed in reaction to his recordings as much as the songs themselves. One can get all the through the introduction without even learning that he performed his own music. I think that anyone who sees Bob Dylan as the Stephen Foster or Irving Berlin of his generation is seeing only part of the picture; he is also reasonably thought of the Frank Sinatra of his generation - in fact, the uniting of those two roles - songwriter and performer - with all the synergies *and* all the comprimises that implies is a central part of his story. Alexkass

A very well-taken point. As you may note, I've made some significant revisions in the body of the article recently -- not without contention -- and I believe there's a good deal more to be done. I haven't seen it as worthwhile to redo the intro section until the reshaping of the body is more finished --and the intro will need to be aligned with the main text. Monicasdude 00:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm dismayed by the deletion of the references to Woody Guthrie & Hank Williams at the head of this article. I think these names are an excellent pointer to why Dylan's stature is higher than his contemporaries - such as Joni Mitchell and Neil Young - excellent though these artists are. Like Guthrie and Williams, Dylan created a mythic account of America in his work. I don't want to get into an endless revert/delete battle but does anyone agree with me? Mick gold 07:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I think it's important to mention Guthrie, at least. I think it's notable that Ramblin' Jack Elliott is not mentioned anywhere in the article. -- Dave C. 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. Another example of MDude's turning this into just-another-music-article about just-another-singer/songwriter. When will MDude and probably the majority of casual editors here understand that Dylan is unique in his generation and that this statement is not POV but is an accurate portrayal of majority public POV? The answer is: Never, I'm afraid. They have no sense of Dylan's stature and place in cultural history, so relevant comparisons to other artists of great historical stature will strike them as out of place. Woeful. I would encourage both of you to jump in on this point and others and to edit freely. So long as this article is MDude's private reserve, that's how long it will be tedious and unrepresentative of Dylan's place in modern Folk and Rock and Roll. I tried it myself but he just wore me out. It will take at least a two-on-one. JDG 18:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I didn't make the disputed edit (and don't particularly agree with it), the references to me in these comments are particularly inappropriate. Monicasdude 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To "AlexKass" you said "A very well-taken point". Now you say you "don't particularly agree with it". More Mdudeified gravity-defying illogic... Mick gold, where are ya? I see you doing things like reverting vandalisms but when are you going to step up and help take this article out of Mdude's underwear drawer? For starters, how about getting the Stephen Foster, Woody Guthrie, Irving Berlin and Hank Williams mentions back in there where they belong? JDG 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:AlexKass did not make the edit you find objectionable, and my agreement with his comments on an unrelated point has nothing to do with whatever point you are attempting to make. Monicasdude 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is not unrelated. In fact it's self-same. Quit your bobbing and weaving and own up to your own opinions. JDG 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi JDG I’m right here. As far as Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie & Hank Williams go, I found myself thinking ‘Maybe I don’t miss them.’ It’s called having second thoughts. This article already seems very long. To be honest, I have a problem with Stephen Foster and Irving Berlin in Dylan’s context. Hank Williams and Woody Guthrie, yes of course. And I would add Robert Johnson to those two. But perhaps it works without them. I have some sympathy with you, JDG, because I think you’re suffering. But your attacks on Monicasdude seem to me apocalyptic and over-personal. He has made constructive edits. I’ll go on thinking about this article & improving it when I can see a way. But right now I’m a bit busy with work. Take care. Mick gold 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Mick-- I do get a bit dramatic. Sometimes it seems to leak from a character flaw or two, but more often it's done semi-consciously as a rebellion against the staid, disinterested tones affected by people who are really as motivated by ego as I am, or even moreso... I'd hope you'd reconsider about Foster and Berlin. The key thing is to highlight D's stature as a pure songwriter. Yes, the recordings, the performances, the `tude, all that is extremely important. But what will remain as the decades, then centuries, wear on will be the lyrics and expertly matched tunes... Take it from Mr. D himself: "Me, I go back to Stephen Foster."... About Mdude's constructive edits-- yes, he has made a few. I've never denied he has some good knowledge in certain areas of the topic and that his prose is up to snuff in factual matters. But his added facts and corrections to existing sloppily stated facts pale next to his disruption of the article as a whole. For instance, he's apparently the one who has excised almost all the quoted lyrics from the article. This is extremely damaging to the article as, again, D's chief importance lies in his lyrical contributions. The reader should be given generous helpings. Here we have an artist whose primary talent is transmitted in a form perfectly reproducible in an encyclopedia, and MDude strolls up and goes slash/slash from a very misplaced idea that the lyrics represent "article bloat" or something or other. It's a travesty, plain n' simple. JDG 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please review the wikipedia fair use guidelines -- which don't apply exclusively to images -- as well as other resources concerning "fair use" of song lyrics. The best you can usually do, in very specific educational contexts which wikipedia doesn't qualify for, is 10% of the text, without getting permission/payment. Aside from the fact that lyric analysis pretty much qualifies as "original research" unless carefully sourced. Monicasdude 15:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As is strangely typical of you, you put forward absurdities wrapped in very level-headed language. It's pretty interesting, really, how you manage to convincingly sound like you know what you're talking about while the actual truth value of your statements hovers close to zero. None of the lyrics formerly quoted in this article even approached violation of fair use of song lyrics. They were all snippets of much longer pieces and were given as brief examples to illustrate why D's primary claim to fame is as a lyricist. That is, the lyrics and associated text were in no way "original research". Alongside at least a dozen other ways in which the recent overhaul degraded this article, said article will remain fundamentally deficient until the lyric quotations are restored. JDG 04:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

I seem to recall that Dylan was born not in Duluth but rather in nearby Two Harbors, Minnesota. While I have no reference at hand to verify this, I thought I would bring it to the attention of those who are more expert on this subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Heylin's "Day By Day" entry for 5/24/41 says: "At 9:05 pm a son, Robert Allen, is born to Beatty and Abraham Zimmerman, at Saint Mary's Hospital, Duluth." There is a Saint Mary's Hospital in Duluth (although it modified its name in 1997); I can't find any reference to one in Two Harbors via Google. Heylin's comment sounds to me like he was transcribing information from a birth certificate; at the time he wrote the first version of "Day By Day," he could have just walked into the Vital Statistics office for Duluth and bought a copy, so I'd bet that's the source and his info is correct. Monicasdude 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Most Famous Songs

There are two blaring ommissions in that list. "Rainy Day Women" (everybody must get stoned) and "Shelter from the Storm". There is absolutely no excuse to exclude these songs!!! dinobrya

Which perfectly illustrates the problem with having such a section. Even if it's attributed to the "perceived consensus of rec.music.dylan", it's still an arbitrary and subjective list. Rhobite 01:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

And the section is deleted. I'd thought that the "perceived consensus referred to an EDLIS poll run through rmd, but I just tracked down the rmd post describing the "best" list and it's either the personal opinion of one "Steve H." or unverifiable original research. Can't find any sources at all for the "most famous" list, and since it also leaves out the Oscar-winning "Things Have Changed" I doubt it has a sound empirical basis. Monicasdude 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

In August 1993, the Wall Street Journal had a front page article detailing allegations of plagiarism of lyrics by Bob Dylan. These were lyrics from "Love and Theft" taken from Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a Yakuza." One example, a line from Dylan's song "Floater," "I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound," sounds like Saga's line, "I'm not as cool or forgiving as I might have sounded." I would think this allegation would be mentioned.

I believe what you a referring to is a 2003 article. A google search of bob dylan plagiarism came up with an interesting New York Times article entitled "Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage." Which refers to the 2003 Wall Street Journal article.Akamad 21:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly worth adding to the "Love And Theft" article, not a major point in Dylan's career overall. The whole "plagiarism" label was mostly internet hype; Dylan took a few lines from a book and built up entirely unrelated songs around them. Whether it was "fair use" or copyright infringement is one very appropriate question, but nobody responsibly charged plagiarism. Since the book he took the lines from claims to be an unauthorized memoir of a yakuza's life, drawn from the yakuza's own words without permission, there are certainly several levels of ironies to be explored. Monicasdude 00:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature Nomination

Dylan was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature thsi past year because of his songwriting ability. It was controversial but also very interesting. Although "officially" nominees are not made public I think this should be put somewhere in the article although I don't know where. Can anyone help? Dysepsion

There's a member of the Nobel Academy (or whatever) who's been nominating him every year for at least a decade, if I remember right. It's not a very official thing, and I don't see it was terribly noteworthy as long as it's restricted to the one nominator. Monicasdude 13:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The person who has been nominating him every year is Gordon Ball, an author and literature professor at the Virginia Military Institute. However, he has done so because of the urging of Allen Ginsberg. In fact Ginsberg was the first to nominate him in 1996. I wouldn't necesarily say that this ISN'T noteworthy considering it's rare to have a songwriter "unofficially" nominated for the Nobel Prize. Dysepsion

Let me try again. I think, in context, the omission of an unsuccessful, unofficial Nobel nomination isn't very significant, since so many of the substantial awards Dylan has received -- Polar Music Prize, Gish Medal, Commandeur des Artes et Lettres (which name I've probably butchered), Kennedy Center honors, for example -- are also omitted. The page definitely needs a section on such recognition, and I want to thank you for volunteering to provide the initial draft. Looking forward to seeing it.  ;-) Monicasdude 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I didn't notice that many of his awards were omitted. My mistake. I don't think I have the "Dylan expertise" to tackle such a job with the fear of butchering the article :) --Dysepsion 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Yeah, the article continues its plummet. I propose adding the following down near "External Links":

"This article has gone through an unusual number of revisions and a recent major overhaul. Some contributors believe the best version to date can be found at this link."

Any objections? JDG 04:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections, and I think that this article should be restored to that version. It's kind of odd, this article has somewhat followed the same path as Dylan's career(quality wise).

While I would also tend to agree that many of the edits since May 30 have made the article worse rather than better, it's really not good WP practice to point to some earlier version as the "right" version... especially in the main text itself. Besides, not every change made has been for the worse, even if the overall direction hasn't been right.

Unfortunately, the much more difficult task of moving forward rather than taking a snapshot of one particular moment of the past is also the right thing to do. Section by section, what's important that has been changed (either wording or content)? Make changes one at a time (even if the change is to restore some earlier sentence/paragraph/etc), and where appropriate, provide motivation for the change here on the talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:57, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

That's just what JDG has refused to do in the past. If you go back through these comments a bit, you'll see multiple requests for him to do that. The most he did was to raise objections, then provide no evidence in support of his objections. Lulu, if you want to question specific points that you think "have made the article worse," I'm ready to discuss them (at least the changes I made). Monicasdude 01:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lulu, I am not a big fan of linking to an earlier version. This current version is what we have, and we should work on this article, regardless of whether it's better or worse than the previous version. -- Akamad 09:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I just made a fairly brief comparison between the current version, and that version. I can't see anything that has been removed that I'm disappointed with, with the exception of the list of his most popular songs. I agree with the removal of the list of his "best" songs, because they had no consensual basis. The list of most popular could probably be backed up by the fact that half of them have their own articles. I think the introduction paragraph is better in the current version than it was before, although I still feel it could use some work. Anyway, I don't think that their should be a link to an older versions. JDG, if you can't be bothered to state your problem(s) with the new version, or even add anything useful to the article, I don't think you should be angry or disappointed at the state of the article (which i find perfectly acceptable). don't take this as a personal attack, its meant as a sort of reflection. SECProto 14:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

SEC, I don't understand why you think I "can't be bothered" to state my problems. If you simply scroll up you will find me stating my problems all over the place, in approximately 3X the detail of MDude's responses. Let's isolate on just one "problem": MDude's removal of nearly all quoted lyrics from the article. If you scroll up a ways you will see my arguments for restoring the quotations and MDude's ineffective response. This problem alone (and there are many others) causes the current version to be just plain inferior to those earlier versions... I had such a bad experience trying to get MDude to make his changes in a moderate, discussed way that I'm strictly hands-off this article now. But I encourage you, Mick Gold, Lulu and other discerning editors to get in there and turn this back into a collaboration. I guess the current article must be used as the starting point for that, but if you use the link in my proposed text at the start of this Talk section you should be able to use that version as an ongoing reference for what needs to be changed... If you look again at that older version I think you will find many worthy paragraphs that have been entirely blown away or completely gutted in the recent versions. Sometimes bringing an old paragraph back wholesale would be best. Sometimes striking a balance between the livelier style of the old version and MDude's cleanup of some sloppily stated facts would be best. And so on... JDG 18:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use

It would be nice if you did not make up your own standards regarding "fair use" and lyrics, and instead applied the conventional ones. The lyric citations that I excised were not "snippets," as you claimed, but substantial quotations, often of full verses, in one case 12 lines from a 72-line song. Since you refuse to supply any source for your claims, I will quote the "fair use" guidelines from the University of California Press, which are fairly standard:

Some material that is considered to have high commercial value is treated by its owners as if it had a special status, to which the fair use exception does not apply. The most common example is a song lyric. The music publishing industry insists that lyrics cannot be quoted, even briefly, even in scholarly works, without permission–and the industry has the will and the means to enforce its position. Always obtain permission to use song lyrics that are in copyright.

Monicasdude 19:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This tone by Monicasdude is really not helpful, IMO. While I don't believe there was some earlier golden version in which all was well, and the text perfect (see The Wrong Version), I can see how JDG got annoyed by the caustic tone Monicasdude adopted accompanying edits. So please chill out, all around.

On the specific issue of Fair Use, the quoted UC Press recommendation is far too restrictive. The "music publishing industry" are most certainly blood-sucking slimebags who blatently, and frequently, abuse the legal system for their own ends. That's a given. But despite the character of record labels, there really does remain Constitutional and legal protection of scholarly/academic discussion of lyrical materials. I know UC Press doesn't want to get sued, even where they'd win; and I don't think WP wants to get sued either. But for a not-for-profit scholarly project to quote 12 lines from a song lyric—specifically if those lines are genuinely analyzed—is unambiguously within Fair Use.

Let's not completely remove all beneficial content out of the (so far, only imagined) whims of malevolent music publishers. This isn't a comment on the specific lines or specific commentary that once existed in the article (I haven't even looked at which song/verse is at issue). But clearly much of Dylan's significance is as a lyricist, and you cannot explain his connections with either his influences or followers without providing a modicum of lyrical content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:49, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Lulu makes a very good point in a very succint and precise way. Dylan, for the majority, is renowned for his lyrics which gave birth to quite a unique type of music. This type of usage can be described as "fair" and, indeed, essential. Without reference to lyrics, this article becomes mute. Soul Embrace 03:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a technical copyright term, with an established set of rules. There's something of a grey area with regard to lyrics, but the general rule, is a lot closer to the citation I gave than any of the other ideas people seem to have (the "12-line" comment is definitely off base).

Y'know Monicasdude, there's a saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. A tone of contempt really doesn't win you points, as you seem to think it will.

So yeah, I know that Fair use is a technical term in copyright law. No shit! I don't happen to be a lawyer, but I have written for some law journals and written software licenses, and am kinda the de facto IP advisor for some organizations. In other words, I almost certainly know more about the matter than you do.

However, Monicasdude is right that there is no bright line distinction about fair use. 12 lines isn't automatically fair use because of the relatively short length. If, in fact, 12 lines are used without significant commentary, it's certainly not permissible. But if those lines are used as a necessary element of a scholarly discussion, they are equally clearly OK.

The rule we use should show some subtlety and context, not just say "no quoting, period!" Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

And quite a few other articles on songwriters here get by very well without quotations -- Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Willie Nelson, Townes Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen (except for a blurt someone tagged on), Lucinda Williams, and many others. FWIW, by the way, there was _no_ lyric analysis and _no_ substantive commentary in the older version of the article, just blocks of lyrics characterized as good, memorable, inscrutable, and other superficial labels. If an individual song needs a comment (and not many will) requiring a lyrics reference, just make the reference and link the title to the lyrics at bobdylan.com.

And read the wikiguidelines on fair use, too.

As for the "music publishing industry" -- who are not the music labels who issue CDs -- they represent songwriters, and have on occasion done tremendous work in prying royalties out of the megalabels and the Clear Channels of the world and into the hands of often-poor songwriters who earned them and deserve them. For the great majority of working singer-songwriters, their publishing royalties, collected and protected by music publishers, are an important source of income, without which they couldn't continue performing careers. Calling them "malevolent" is thoroughly wrongheaded. Monicasdude 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Killing lead?!

I'm not sure why the anonymous editor from 84.100.* seems intent on reducing the lead to nearly nothing. The changelog indicated that s/he believes this is WP policy. In short, it is not WP policy to kill the lead. Take a look at just about any other article for examples.

The before-TOC section should be a relatively self-contained "compact encyclopedia" entry. The length depends somewhat on subject matter, but for a relatively notable topic like this one, two moderate length paragraphs is about right. Three paras starts to feel too long, IMO. But except for topics where there is very little total information (i.e. "Tinytown is a village of 120 people in central Missouri"), one or two sentences is too little for the lead.

Basically, the lead lets a reader feel like they have a general sense of why a topic is interesting, and what the thing is. E.g. Dylan isn't just a songwriter born in 1941 (true, but not enough to motivate the summary). He's also known for a few particular songs, has influences from a few styles, had a political/artistic effect briefly characterized as such-and-such. Not everthing you might say (that comes after the TOC), but enough for a reader to feel like she wasn't "cheated" by the information she gets in the lead. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:45, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Examples of other articles with about this balance I describe (taken from links in the Dylan article): Tom Waits, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen. All similarly important musicians (who have done other things like songwriting, acting, etc), with similar couple-paragraph leads. For that matter, cities linked like New Orleans or Minneapolis show the same pattern also. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:51, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should not be absurdly short ("Dylan is a major songwriter"). Introductions are not supposed to be "as short as possible" but rather should give some indication of what the article is about. However, as written now (even after I removed a couple of POV sentiments) it is not very encyclopedic and reads somewhat like a fan site. Can this be fixed?

Whether or not the lead is well-written, do not move it, fix it (also moving it does not make it any better as a piece of encyclopedic writing) Apollo58 20:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah... you've made a good start at removing the flowery/fandom tone. I think the Weathermen connection is a bit too footnote-ish for the lead also, FWIW. The comparison with other important 20th C songwriters in an earlier version seemed more relevant. In general though, I agree the tone could stand to be more encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:14, 2005 August 12 (UTC)