Talk:Bob Dylan

wonderfull SPON.de article (in German)

Nice article about a very, very loyal long-term fan in (former Eastern) Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/bob-dylan-in-oel-wie-das-gemaelde-aufs-konzert-in-ost-berlin-kam-a-52cdc5fa-eef8-4e9f-bced-379d61a1075a

Unproven allegations

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 [1] 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)

+1 that the current coverage in the article is WP:DUE, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 12:48, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please look at the sources for that statement and provide better sourcing if you wish to have it changed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

JonLiheim09 (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Olav Arild Barsnes is Bob Dylan's biggest fan, he is the father of Håkon Barsnes that is about 7,3

this is not a serious edit request. --Jayron32 11:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Dylan at 80

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 reference should be to Dylan at 80, edited by Gary Browning and Constantine Sandis: http://books.imprint.co.uk/book/?gcoi=71157100599460

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)

I've added these new books to Bob Dylan bibliography. Mick gold (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Tours, 1988-present

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 and 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)

Dylan has said there is no Never Ending Tour. That shows his intent. Maybe. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)