Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. Hiding 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? Hiding 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, Hiding 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

While I resent sticking my hand into this hornet's nest, I thought I'd just contribute with a factual tidbit here: There are (literally:) hundreds, if not thousands, of nominees annually. A quote from the Swedish academy ("De Aderton"):

"Right to submit proposals for the Nobel Prize in Literature, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of the Swedish Academy and of other academies, institutions and societies which are similar to it in construction and purpose;

2.Professors of literature and of linguistics at universities and university colleges;

3. Previous Nobel Prize Laureates in Literature;

4. Presidents of those societies of authors that are representative of the literary production in their respective countries." Asav

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)

my apologies then, that part of my comment was off base. SECProto 18:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't apologize; you were almost entirely correct. I've been dealing with this guy's verbal assaults for months, and he always backs away rather than putting up specifics. The "bad experience" he had was the essentially unanimous rejection of his positions by other editors and contributors. Monicasdude 02:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

SEC, it wasn't serious enough to apologize-- yet that part of your comment was off-base, as a quick look at the rest of this Talk page demonstrates. Monicasdude is unfortunately one of these almost maniacally self-impressed guys who receive any comment shaded even slightly away from their own opinions as "verbal assault". My positions in our earlier tussle were in no way "unanimously rejected" by other editors. It was during a very quiet time here on the Dylan article and the sparring between MDude and myself was basically met with total indifference. Certainly no one actively backed anything he was saying. By the same token, no one came to my aid as I tried to resist his destructive overhaul of this article. Things Have Changed. Activity picked up here and a number of editors have now realized just how much damage was done by MDude. He's fighting it every step of the way but I'm now confident he will be forced to collaborate and the article will have a good chance of becoming an engaging read again. JDG 18:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use

The Law

(added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

Copyright law of the United States

U.S. Copyright Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Insulting header from unsigned post deleted

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.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes, as somebody said a while back. However, it's been my experience that when somebody announces that he/she has no professional training on a point, cites no sources for his/her position, and announces that nevertheless he/she "knows more" about the subject than the person he/she is arguing with, that he/she is typically wrong about both the point being argued and the expertise of the person being argued with. Monicasdude 16:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that you were wrong to propound something about which you have no expertise or training. Thanks for apologizing. Now let's all move past mystification of the concept of Fair Use. (I assume the Sith thing is something about Star Wars?). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:51, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

No wonder you've had multiple RfCs filed on you. Monicasdude 20:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok now you're getting into it with someone else who dares a little input on this article. Don't spout off about RfCs. If I wasn't such a fundamentally peaceful man you would have had RfCs and worse on you from your total disregard of other editors a few months ago... And it doesn't help that Lulu is totally correct on this point while you're totally incorrect. Fair Use of song lyrics has been worked out pretty finely by other Wikipedians editing music articles and no one, including two of the better known Admins invited for that purpose, saw anything wrong with the lyric quotes as they stood before you and your machete came along. JDG 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The previous fair use discussion was about an image; the lyric quotes weren't discussed. As for RfCs, you couldn't get a single editor to support your positions the first time around, so that's a pretty idle bit of invective. Monicasdude 01:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The "first time around" took place during a strangely quiet time. No editors weighed in on anything, certainly none in support of your positions either. Once activity picked up (while I was taking my breather) we saw and continue to see plenty of comments about how out-of-line you are. I'm giving it another week or so. If you're still acting like the boss of everybody, I'll ask Lulu to join me in formal proceedings. We'll see just how idle these grievances are then. JDG 18:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The first time around, several editors did weigh in, both here and in the simultaneous "Be Bold" talk page discussions. No one supported your positions, particularly with regard to the fabricated policy regarding editing of featured articles you tried to impose. Monicasdude 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please direct me to one comment here that could even loosely be construed as weighing in for you. JDG 03:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Overall, i'd have to go with monica's dudes' one . . ." SEC Proto, 16:07, Jun 15, 2005

"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." Dan100 (Talk) 18:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The comments regarding your fabricated policy about editing FAs were unanimous and unequivocal. It's all on this page, should you care to reread it. Monicasdude 13:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

These quotes are from a later time-period, and I could quote even more people who, later on, declared your edits to be a net retrogression of the article. I asked you to direct me to one, just one, comment that supported your views during the time the relevant revert-war was happening. You did not direct me to such a comment because none exists, despite your saying "The first time around, several editors did weigh in". None weighed in, and now the consensus is very clearly against you. You have a few days to get wise and learn how to chill and collaborate. Otherwise, Lulu and I and probably at least two others will be appealing for administrative action. I'm very slow (as you've seen) to take that step, but there's simply nothing else to be done with an incorrigible who's 100% justified in his own mind. JDG 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You are, as usual, not telling the truth, as anyone who reviews this talk page can see, and as anyone who reviews the "Be Bold!" talk page can see for themselves. In the first dispute, both of us were asked to support our positions factually. I agreed, and did so, you refused, and withdrew. You had appealed for administrative action, and were rebuffed. Feel free to do so again. I have complied with all applicable guidelines. And do not re-edit my comments here to fit your favortie ways to display them. Monicasdude 17:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you're just making stuff up. It's a good thing nobody takes you up on your offers to "review this talk page", because nothing you refer to can be found there in the timeperiod under discussion. Most likely someone will soon take you up, though, and that someone will be empowered to limit your excesses. JDG 19:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to re-edit another editor's posts here. Stop changing the display of mine.Monicasdude 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My comments related to lyrics.Soul Embrace 01:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but JDG was referring to a much older discussion about images used in the article. It's in the talk page archive, just before the "sleeping subways" section. Monicasdude 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree with that, I found the reference to the Weathermen to be somewhat odd in its position in the opening statements. perhaps it could go under a section about his influences or something? i dunno. SECProto 03:13, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

late 80s religious beliefs

deleted recent addition which was out of place in terms of the article's chronology, and stated conclusions about Dylan's religious beliefs which were neither sourced nor verifiable. W/regard to the photographs, Dylan on at least one occasion commented that people were reading more than they should have into his participation in one of his son's bar mitzvah (in Jerusalem). Monicasdude 16:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

While Monicasdude's general desire to stir rancor rather than cooperate makes it harder to work on changes than it should be, he's partly right here. The "jewish roots" thing is way overplayed. But the fact that Dylan stopped doing explicitly xtian stuff is definitely worth noting at the conclusion of the discussion of his xtian period. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Monicasdude's general interest is in accuracy, and Dylan didn't stop playing explicitly Christian music in the late 1980s. We are, after all, talking about the guy who opened quite a few of his turn-of-the-millennium concerts with bluegrass gospel classics, seasoned other shows with covers of "Rock Of Ages" and "Pass Me Not O Gentle Savior," and last year played one or more songs from his "Christian" trilogy of albums at dozens of concerts. Monicasdude 19:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Stopped recording might then be a better choice of words? SECProto 22:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Even that's off target. There are Infidels outtakes (e.g., "Lord Protect My Child") that some people view as no less Christian than songs on his evangelical albums; in 1992, at the first (unused) set of sessions for the album that became Good As I Been To You, he recorded "Rise Again," a gospel cover that he'd played frequently during his fall 1980 tour. (There's probably more, aside from some debatable Oh Mercy recordings; he reportedly recorded regularly for some time in his home/garage studio, and that stuff's almost entirely undocumented.) Trying to make conclusive statements on Dylan's religious beliefs is notoriously chancy; we are talking about the guy who toured the world in 1986 with "In The Garden," often complete with rap about Jesus as his hero, as a centerpiece of his sets, and simultaneously recorded an appearance for a Lubavitcher telethon. Monicasdude 13:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Jokerman," the first song on Infidels, is subtle and cryptic, but still objectively and factually Christian in content, heavily influenced by both Old and New Testaments, which are, by the way, central to Christianity. Also, "Ring Them Bells" from Oh Mercy is as about as explicitly Christian as you can get. And while not necessarily Christian, from the 80s all the way to Love and Theft, Dylan's lyrics have clearly shown a belief in God and heaven and judgment and plenty of other themes that could be either Jewish or Christian I suppose. To say his "Christian phase" only ended in leading him back to his Jewish roots is one thing, but to deny his explicit religiosity up to this day should be out of the question. Also, Masked and Anonymous has a strongly religious, apocalyptical subtheme. All I'm saying is that Bob Dylan, based on all we know from his public life, is still very religious, regardless of which specific religion he might espouse. "Trying to Get to Heaven", from the 1997 album Time Out Of Mind, is a good example of this, a strong world-weary, religious consciousness that implies God, though not necessarily Christ... Also, his opening act on his spring tour this year was playing Christian-themed songs when I saw him in Chicago. Although not conclusive, all these things lead me to believe there is more to Dylan than all you Dylan-boxer-ins think. Tix 17:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right on target, and for all the invective that's being thrown around here, the factual side of things is pretty clear. To claim, for example that songs like "Lord Protect My Child" and "Death Is Not The End" are entirely secular or obscurely religious is, at best, absurdity or self-delusion. Monicasdude 20:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeger/Newport '65

If the Seeger story is to be mentioned at all, it needs a qualifier. Seeger generally denies the story (see, e.g., Sounes' bio of Dylan); there are no first-hand accounts of it; and there are first-hand accounts of Seeger saying something of the sort occurring during the Butterfield Blues Band's performance earlier in the evening. [Seeger himself goes back and forth over which performance he made the comment about]. There are multiple sources (Jac Hotzman, Joe Boyd) for the account which instead has Seeger in his car, windows rolled up, hands over ears, slowly driving away. A few online references:

http://buffaloreport.com/020826dylan.html

http://www.billboard.com/bb/bb110/1965_more.jsp

http://www.berkshireweb.com/rogovoy/interviews/feat010605.html

http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309c&L=hwy61-l&F=&S=&P=12743

http://www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/406.html

Among other problems with the standard story, it has Seeger backstage arguing with the soundman, even though the mixing board wasn't backstage.

Monicasdude 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is a qualifier, let's keep it understandable to everyone that reads it otherwise its inclusion will be pointless.Soul Embrace 18:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I do think that WP readers should know the word apocryphal—there's a separate Simple English WP project that uses only basic language. We could link the word to its Wiktionary definition if needed.

However, reading the sentence again, I think it's better without any adjective. While "apocryphal" is technically accurate, it borders on pedantic in its correctness (not so much as Monicasdude's 5 long background articles, but still). Just saying "there's a story..." is fine to give the general concept being presented); we don't need to do a precise archaelogy of the development of a tangential story. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:40, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

I agree that it is better without an adjective. Soul Embrace 22:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then delete the Seeger sentence altogether. Seeger denies it happened; there are no eyewitness accounts supporting it, and there are quite a few denying. It's not appropriate to have an urban legend in the text without any language pointing out its unreliability.Monicasdude 01:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It was stated as "one account" and not a fact. That was sufficient.Soul Embrace 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Abusive personally directed header deleted

Unfortunately, while Monicasdude does seem to be fairly knowledgeable about Dylan's career, he is really obnoxious about editing... generally convinced, I suppose, that every edit of his is golden, and everyone else always wrong.

The latest little wrinkle is about the language around the end of Dylan's public Christian period, which he wants to elide for some reason. In the scheme of the article, it's fairly minor. But on the talk page, every other editor wants to include something along these lines. Monicasdude seems to think that having stated his minority position in the talk page turns it into consensus. Actually, pretty much everything in his edit history (at least on this page) reflects just about the same approach: "It's my sandbox, and no one else can play in it! --Mdude" Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

No one argues the factual points. No one disputes that Dylan has performed and recorded explicitly Christian music continuously for the last 25 years; that he spent several years around the turn of the millennium regularly opening shows with explicitly Christian/gospel songs, or that the last song he copyrighted (in 2003) was explicitly Christian (that a rewrite of "Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking"). Your response to the factual argument is to spray personal abuse and misrepresent the comments on the talk page -- no one but you insists on including the contested statement -- which is, of course, a statement of opinion. Monicasdude 07:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Monicasdude does argue the plainly (and obviously) incorrect side of the factual point. He's alone in his position, of course. For a few years, Dylan recorded and peformed exclusively and overtly Christian songs. At some point in the 1980s, he started performing and recording predominantly "secular" songs, with a few here-and-there that might be suggestive of Christian meanings, but none that were anywhere close to as overtly prosyletic as on Saved and Slow Train Coming. And yeah, a few of his earlier songs also refer obliquely to what might (or might not) be Chrisitan ideas. FWIW, I actually think some of Dylan's best songwriting was during his Christian phase, perhaps contrary to majority sentiment among music critics.

It's utterly daft to try to pretend that the general tenor of Dylan's songwriting hasn't changed between 1977 and 2000, specifically in regard to the (lack of) explicitly Christian content. And no, I don't give a damn whether the third song in some live peformance he gave in 2002 was taken from Saved. As a pattern, there was a change.

Bobby hasn't called me up and told me his inner feelings about religion lately. So I really don't know. But he stopped saying Christian prosyletic things to reporters in the early- to mid-1980s also. But then, he's never been exactly effusive with interviewers at any point. I'm hardly trying to argue that he had a sudden and earth-shaking "unconversion" in 1983. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I have no idea. But Monicasdude shouldn't make believe he has some special intimate knowledge of it either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows, so the article should include your preferred conclusory statement about Dylan's religious . . . status, for lack of a better word? Not all Christians are active evangelicals; to add any text to this article (or any article) based on that way-off-base belief is clearly inappropriate. Describing (accurately) the relevant events would be appropriate, but the edit you're promoting is just a statement of (your) opinion about those events. And your "factual" starting points are plainly incorrect. Dylan's run of performing only "explicitly Christian songs" ran barely 8 months, from October 1979 through May 1980. The period of recording only such songs might have been a little longer, but by all accounts began in 1979 and had ended by late 1980. If you don't have a sound factual basis, your conclusory comments are going to be unreliable. Monicasdude 14:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read rather than blindly edit!

Monicasdude just continues to be endlessly obnoxious over trite things. He does not seem to understand that WP is a cooperative project (for example, even though his recent round of numerous "cleanups" was only so-so in terms of improving article, I left in place all of those that were still adequate, even if slightly worse than the old wording: about 50%).

It's fine to ramble in the talk page. But quit reverting the g*d article! The sentence Monicasdude keeps semi-vandalizing (removing, in any case), is not conclusory about Dylan's private religious beliefs. Its omission, however, is! Or the deliberate non-inclusion of any comment on the obvious end of his Christian phase is, anyway. I had originally use the word "overt", but changed it to "publicly" to try to answer Monicasdude's point. I'm sure other phrasings might work too, but not mindless "I'll obnoxiously roll-back everyone else" attitudes.

Gosh would this article be better if Monicasdude would just go somewhere else! No, I don't think it quite reaches the level of outright vandalism (as I've dealt with in far too many articles) or other WP abuse per se. But it sure would be a nicer place if Monicasdude would only edit articles I had no interest in ever reading or editing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:29, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Gosh, would this page be less contentious if people responded to the substantive comments of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in tirades about those editors' personalities? Of course it would. Your rationale for the edit your prefer has changed -- first it was "the fact that Dylan stopped doing explicitly xtian stuff is definitely worth noting"; since that was indisputably wrong, it changed to "the desire to imply ongoing Christian songs is peculiar"; and after I pointed out the factual errors there, it became . . . well, it became something like "Monicasdude is an SOB of an editor and leaving a disputed question open is POV, but taking one side of the question isn't."

"Is Dylan publicly [or overtly, or whatever] expressing his [supposed] Christian beliefs in concert?" is a question that's debated, over and over, on Usenet, on Dylan message boards, in print, and so forth. Saying he stopped doing so in the mid or late 1980s is pretty much inaccurate, never better than highly disputable. We are talking about the guy, after all, who in late 1988, responding to Amnesty International's use of "Chimes Of Freedom" as a tour themesong, said that he hoped they'd replace it with "In The Garden." Monicasdude 16:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what change Monicasdude thinks my explanation has undergone. It's true I didn't use verbatim the same note in every changelog entry.

There's no serious factual dispute here: Dylan had a "Christian phase" sometime around the late-1970s/eary-1980s. That phase started, then it ended. No one serious has any doubt about this, and I don't see why we should lie to readers of the article about it. Nor do I think the matter it merits 5000 words, with extensive footnotes, about the fact he played some song in concert in 2000 (but changed three words), or whatever the hell the AI comment in 1988 is supposed to mean in MDude's mind.

The only real editing issue is the obnoxious behavior of Monicasdude, who apparently wishes this encyclopedia were instead one of those Dylan message boards (I had no idea such a thing existed, though I suppose I'm not suprised that a lot of people need to get a life). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

"There's no serious factual dispute here"? Either you are joking, or you are insufficiently well-read. Two excerpts from Clinton Heylin's Behind The Shades Revisited:

Unsettling as the idea remained to the likes of Ginsberg, Dylan was still determined to place his faith not in some judgmental Jehovah but in Christ the Redeemer, something he did not leave in doubt at the shows in February and March 1986. Not only was the final song of each night's main set "In The Garden," hardly a song an apostate could have brought himself to sing, but he chose to preface the song with a rap [declaring Jesus his hero].

As the apocalyptic strain in his work became fused with a very personal sense of immortality, a number of doubts have tugged away at Dylan's faith. And yet his recent performances suggest comeone who longs to return to the simple embrace of his original Born Again faith. [The] dozen or so covers added to his repertoire in 1999 testify to both a world-weary yearning for release and an abiding faith in Christ's promise of redemption.

I'm not saying Clinton is right here; I am saying that this is a steadily debated question, with a majority of observers concluding that Dylan's "Christian period" has not ended but evolved into something less easy to glibly characterize without changing its fundamental nature. (Also, note that lists of song titles have been omitted from both quotations.) Monicasdude 18:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Post-1983 explicitly Christian performances

It's easy enough to track down statistics about Dylan's concert song selection and tracklist. There are very minor variations in totals across different sites; these come from http://db.dylantree.com, covering the years from 1983 to the current day. A few concerts from the tail end of the 2005 summer tour aren't included in the totals.

Album Total performances

New Morning 364

Planet Waves 305

Blood On The Tracks 1031

Basement Tapes 412

Desire 84

Street Legal 128

Slow Train Coming 405

Saved 235

Shot Of Love 331

Infidels 376

Empire Burlesque 691

Knocked Out Loaded 19

Note that the figures for the "Christian trilogy" are comparable to those for all the other 1970s albums except "Blood On The Tracks." Note also, very interestingly, that the totals for the "Christian trilogy" almost equal the totals for the next 3 original albums, even counting the mid-80s years when Dylan was touring to support those albums. If you add in the more than 200 performances of explicitly Christian, mostly bluegrass, gospel songs like "I Am The Man Thomas," "Somebody Touched Me," "Hallelujah! I'm Ready," and even "Rock Of Ages" that Dylan has played since 1983, even excluding about 100 performances of songs like "Little Moses" that come out of the gospel tradition but aren't "explicitly Christian," it is undeniable that, since 1983, Dylan has been more likely to perform "explicitly Christian" songs, mainly from his 3-album "gospel period" that he has been likely to perform songs from the 3-album period that followed it. No one can honestly and in good faith say that Dylan stopped performing explicitly Christian music in 1983, 1986, 1988, 1991, or any other year. Some years, no doubt, he plays more than others. But he's played it at the great majority of his concerts over the last 20+ years. Monicasdude 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Weird irrelevance

I am not familiar with anyone having ever claimed that Dylan entirely stopped performing the songs from his "Christian Trilogy" after that period was over. So yeah, the sky is also blue, and ducks also quack! I also had not heard the claim prior to today that secular musicians were unable to perform gospel songs; and actually, I still don't believe that, despite Monicasdude's apparent conviction of such. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:19, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone claim unfamiliarity with his own writing before.

But the fact that Dylan stopped doing explicitly xtian stuff is definitely worth noting at the conclusion of the discussion of his xtian period. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

The period when Dylan performed and recorded explicitly Christian songs extended over three albums recorded between 1979 and 1981. By 1983's Infidels, and subsequently, Dylan returned to performing predominantly secular songs, though a few since then obliquely suggest Christian themes. [text added to article by user:Lulu etc, 17:32, 19 August 2005.]

It should be clear from the superficiality of user:Lulu's post here to "substantiate" his position that his posture in this dispute is one of bad faith, and that he is simply engaging in "sterile" edit warring in order to force his POV into the article. If his texts on the matter are viewed as essentially factual, they are demonstrably false. If they are viewed as interpretative, they simply represent one side of a long-running argument regarding the interpretation of Dylan's art, and should not be written into the article as fact.

Wow, is this a contest to see who can be more pedantic. I concede Monicasdude is far more pedantic than I could ever be.

Of course, all the comments or edits I made, I entirely stand by. WP isn't meant to be some hair-splitting trap where some unlikely insinuation can be forced out of a commonplace edit comment. Yeah, Dylan "stopped doing explicitly xtian stuff" in the ordinary meaning of the words; i.e. his albums weren't Xtian songs after Shot of Love (yeah, yeah, if you squint just right some song or other can be interpreted in reference to Christian ideas, blah, blah, blah).

It sure seems like we're getting pretty close to RfC time for sheer obnoxiousness by Monicasdude. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

And if there is any remaining doubt about his bad faith, note his unsigned, crude defacement of the "fair use" section of this talk page earlier today. Monicasdude 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll go back an add my signature to that. Providing the actual law on fair use, verbatim, isn't exactly "defacement" according to any sane meaning of the term. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

I think the next couple of volumes of Chronicles could clear all this up real quick, since Dylan appears to have written sincerely about himself in the first volume. Tix 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Christian period

Combating the weird belief that Dylan's Christian phase "never ended"

From Shot of Love:

Shot of Love was Bob Dylan's third and final "Christian"-themed album, and his 25th overall. Whereas Saved sounded uninspired at times, Shot of Love reflected a re-invigorated Dylan, with fresher and even rockier arrangements. The religious subject matter too has been dissipated somewhat, hinting the return to form that would be 1983's Infidels.

From Infidels:

Infidels was initially considered a reversion from the overtly religious songs found on his previous three albums, but many now view the album as including subtler extensions of his religious themes.

From Allmusic:

At the conclusion of the tour in late 1978, Dylan announced that he was a born-again Christian, and he launched a series of Christian albums that following summer with Slow Train Coming. Though the reviews were mixed, the album was a success, peaking at number three and going platinum. His supporting tour for Slow Train Coming featured only his new religious material, much to the bafflement of his long-term fans. Two other religious albums -- Saved (1980) and Shot of Love (1981) -- followed, both to poor reviews. In 1982, Dylan traveled to Israel, sparking rumors that his conversion to Christianity was short-lived. He returned to secular recording with 1983's Infidels, which was greeted with favorable reviews.

From Amazon review

1983's aptly titled Infidels represents Bob Dylan's return to secular music after a not-so-well-received trilogy of CCM albums, inspired by his brief conversion to fundamentalist Christianity. While there are no directly blasphemous or offensive lyrics on Infidels, it does sounds as if Mr. Dylan were making up for lost time, indulging in forms of boldness unheard of in Christian rock.

From NY Times review of Down the Highway:

As the drummer Jim Keltner says, Dylan's music is always extraordinary, even in the Christian period, when Dylan crosses generic boundaries again, this time into gospel and soul rather than the blues.

And about 5 million more Google hits. Basically, the "received wisdom" (and truth) is that Dylan had a (overt/public/prosyletic) Christian period, and then it ended. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:13, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude worthwhile?

I dunno, what do other editors think? The sheer obnoxiousness of editor Monicasdude has certainly risen above the "ordinary rancor" of WP. He hasn't exactly outright vandalized in the same sense you sometimes see irrelevant obscenities and stuff inserted in pages (usually by anon editors). But there's definitely been a pattern of complete non-cooperation with other editors, extending back quite a while before I ever heard of him or made any trivial edit on this page.

But then, maybe I'm just a little more annoyed than I should be because he filed a spurious 3RR on me yesterday. Obviously, admins ignored that, but it pulled me into wasting time writing an explanation. Maybe I should just chill for a couple days. What do prior editors like JDG and Rhobite who Monicasdude was rude to previously think? Or other editors? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:51, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Outrageous POV mongering by Monicasdude

I kinda think a recent edit by Monicasdude (on the xtian period thing) showed a slightly lowered degree of arrogance. But this one included sentence is a pretty wild example of POV and original research:

"[The] dozen or so covers added to his repertoire in 1999 testify to both a world-weary yearning for release and an abiding faith in Christ's promise of redemption."

It is a quote, not written by Monicasdude, but its inclusion is pretty telling nonetheless.

Anyway, I corrected that, we'll see what he does next. Please keep an eye on efforts to insert such wild speculation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:50, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Read the Wikiguidelines: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly." If you think there's a significant-minority view that's not represented, then add it. You were asked to document your argument on the 3RR board, and all you came up with were superficial quotes that didn't match what you'd written. Monicasdude 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Storing compromise language

The vandalism by Monicasdude is getting even worse. In an attempt at temporary compromise, I took out my most recent attempt at compromise language altogether. If Monicasdude doesn't vandalize more, we can at least avoid his awful, rambling, POV doggerel advocating xtianity. If he touches it again, he'll be unambiguously 3RR.

This is my last try, which makes numerous concessions to pedanticism (and is probably longer than the matter merits, as a result). If editors other than Monicasdude want to help touch this up, I'd appreciate it. I'm pretty sure we'll ultimately get him barred through an RfC, and then we can put in some appropriately nuanced, but not obscenely verbose, description:

Dylan composed and recorded proselytical Christian songs over the course of these three albums recorded between 1979 and 1981. By 1983's Infidels, and subsequently, Dylan returned to writing predominantly secular songs, with a few newer songs that obliquely suggest Christian themes, but without a proselytical tone. Dylan has, from 1979 through the present, included material from his "Christian trilogy" in live performances, as well as sometimes including covers of gospel material.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

ROHA the vandal

Aside from a couple odd bugbears (wanting one-sentence-only lead; not wanting acknowledgement of "influential" in lead), the anonymous semi-vandal who uses the letters "ROHA" in comments, is making a bunch of silly edits that consist of adding and subtracting periods (or similar minor typographic things). I think these pseudo-changes are just done to insert snide comments in the changelog.

If s/he has any actual points to make about the article, they should be indicated here in the talk page, rather than by misusing the changelog. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:42, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Abusive personally directed heading deleted 2

Please note that user: Lulu's vandalism complaint was summarily rejected as an inappropriate characterization of a content dispute, and that he unilaterally overrode admin action to reinstate it. Monicasdude 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (in reality, no administrator has yet taken any action in regard to my vandalism complaint... OK, Ryan Delaney did, as indicated by him below Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

• I'm rejecting the vandalism complaint as a mischaracterization of a content dispute. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is about cooperation. Continually reverting any change that does not reflect Monicasdude's POV is simple vandalism. If you look at my history of edits, or those of every editor other than Monicasdude, you'll see clear efforts to find compromise language for any disputed descriptions, including incoporation of points made by Monicasdude (as much as possible, given the poor writing quality and contentiousness). In contrast Monicasdude, simply rolls back verbatim to his favorite doggerel w/o discussion.

If Monicasdude wishes to find compromise language describing Dylans's Christian period/trilogy, put it here first! I'm more than happy to work with other editors in finding mutually satisfactory language. But vandalism is not acceptable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Right. That's why, when I wrote up a section yesterday incorporating User: Tixity's comments/suggestions about religious themes in the Infidels songs and later works, you deleted it four times and called it vandalism. Monicasdude 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I just compared the versions that you two were having a revert war with, and Lule, your version is definately accurate. After the so-called "christian trilogy", his songwriting did become predominately secular. He did still write some songs with strong christian themes, (ie I Am The Man Thomas, which he opened many shows on his 2000 tour with) and he did still sing the ones he had written in concert, but his albums and the majority of his new songs definately had no outwardly visible christian tie-ins. i suggest we keep the version that Lulu has reinstated. Monicasdude, propose any problems you have with that paragraph here, perhaps? instead of deleting a paragraph which is, as far as i can tell, completely accurate? SECProto 19:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the paragraph is "definately accurate." As user: Tikity pointed out earlier, whether "Infidels" is a predominantly secular album remains a matter of ongoing debate. Various commentators have identified Christian or generally religious references and themes in songs like "Jokerman," "Sweetheart Like You," "I And I," and "Man of Peace"; many of the songs on "Oh Mercy" and "Time Out Of Mind" are often described religiously allusive if not incorporating religious themes. It's easy to find such discussions online; here's an example of one of the better ones:

http://web.utk.edu/~wparr/rollason.html

And you may remember a recent, widely reviewed book about Dylan by Christopher Ricks, the internationally known professor of poetry at Oxford, called "Dylan's Visions of Sin" -- a title which plainly sets out the argument that religious themes have been a central element in Dylan's songwriting throughout his career.

I don't ask you to agree with this opinion about Dylan's work. But I do think that nobody can honestly, reasonably, and in good faith deny that it is a legitimately and widely held opinion of Dylan's work that should not be dismissed as "vandalism," "doggerel," or any of the other invective Lulu mindlessly sprays in my direction.

I do ask you, however, to take a look at the text I added yesterday -- a text that user: Lulu refuses to even let stand for comments by other editors, even after I let his preferred version stand for several days to allow a dialogue to play out -- and reply here as to why (and whether) you think it should be deleted, in light of the NPOV guidelines regarding disputed opinions. Monicasdude 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I commented that I thought the long description of Dylan's later live performance and composition of Christian, or suggestively Christian, material might make sense in an independent section called something like "Later religious material" (or something better than that). But it was extraordinarily poorly written as is, and completely did not fit in the flow of the paragraph where you placed it. I have no objection to incorporating an improved version of that discussion elsewhere in the article though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:26, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

That's funny. Yesterday you called the section "outrageous POV-mongering" and horrible "xtiran ranting." [sic] And it wasn't a discussion of Dylan's "later" "Christian" work, but a discussion of the continuous appearance of religious/non-secular themes and motifs since the mislabeled "Christian trilogy" was issued. In short, you deleted because it didn't match your POV, and you're unwilling to abide by the applicable wikiguidelines. Monicasdude 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My actual edit comment: A separate section on "later religious attitudes" MIGHT be appropriate, this summary is already longer than it should be in efforts to compromise. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:21, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Really? You didn't say that stuff? Then who logged in from your account and made the "outrageous POV mongering" comment on this page? Monicasdude 03:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at several of the version changes and I have some comments about them. Your additions to the paragraph starting "Dylan's work in the late 1970s and early 1980s...." were great, well written. I'm not a dylanologist so I can't verify they accuracy, but I can say that they are a good addition to the article.

The paragraph that you added after that paragraph, starting "Dylan composed and recorded explicitly Christian...", however, is not so good. I read it several times just to get the hang of what it is saying. It seems to be a jungle of song titles, hard to cut through it all. we should also find something to say about it instead of "explicitly christian." "heavily influenced by his christianity" might work in one case, but it is not as enjoyable to read when it says the same thing (explicitly christian) several times in one paragraph. So I think this paragraph should be expanded, or maybe take out some of the song references, as it read now almost like a list.

And in a reply to what you said above, I don't think the debate is about whether Infidels does not have some religious themes, I certainly believe it does. But the three albums before it didnt just have themes, they had direct relations. Songs with names like "property of jesus" are not just somewhat oblique references to Christianity, unlike the majority of his major work. And again, the paragraph is simply stating that he moved away from Christianity as the main focus of his work, not completely ditched it. SECProto 01:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment You wrote: And in a reply to what you said above, I don't think the debate is about whether Infidels does not have some religious themes, I certainly believe it does. But the three albums before it didnt just have themes, they had direct relations. Songs with names like "property of jesus" are not just somewhat oblique references to Christianity, unlike the majority of his major work. This is original research. According to WP:NOR, may not insert your own interpretations into Wikipedia articles, only the published and peer-reviewed interpretations of others. You may say "Rolling Stone said this song means X", but not "This song means X". I hope that helps resolve this dispute. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Understanding vandalism

Thank you, Ryan Delaney, for protecting the Bob Dylan page. I also read your comments on the Vandalism in Progress page. I would like to understand better what qualifies as vandalism, and how to approach users such as the currently troublesome User:Monicasdude.

In characterizing Monicasdude's edits as vandalism, I realized the case was atypical of simple vandals. He certainly did not insert, e.g. "John Smith is a fag" or the sort of irrelevant graffiti that you see on some pages. But it's also not a matter of any particular factual or POV issue in the article.

Judging by the changelog and the discussion page, since before I ever read or edited that particular Bob Dylan page, Monicasdude has shown a particular and consistent pattern of "bad faith editing." His edit history is mostly on either the Dylan page, or on related pages (albums by Bob Dylan, similar artists), with a clear concentration on the Dylan page itself. It seems that Monicasdude has a particularly monomaniacal enthusiasm for Dylan; moreover, I think he honestly believes that his edits are correct and of high quality. But at the same time, his immersion in trivia around the particular subject has bred an exaggerated sense of his own writing skills and knowledgeability. Enough that he believes this WP page to be "his page."

The concrete result is that Monicasdude finds it loathsome for the page to contain any wording written by anyone else. Most recently I've tried to make some (pretty minor) changes, and encountered that. But in the talk page you can see several past editors who banged their head against the same thing (and eventually left in frustration). When I make an edit (or before I tried to edit, when other editors did), Monicasdude inevitably rolls back my wording to whatever he had himself earlier written about the same topic (it must only be verbatim his own words). If I try variations that seem to satisfy his stated concerns (with some additional concern for clear expression and factuality), he equally inevitably makes rude comments in the edit history, and again restores his "golden" version. Sometimes he writes long, rambling digressions on the talk page to justify his version, but while rich in trivial footnotes, they never actually relate to the edit in question (not seeing the forest for the trees). His rollbacks are not always literally restoration of an exact prior version, which makes it harder to see if you haven't worked on the page—he might restore the paragraphs he himself wrote a while back, not necessarily in the same order as other people have modified those paragraphs.

The net effect is that no single edit by Monicasdude is unreasonable if taken in isolation. They're not necessarily particularly good in either factuality or writing quality, but no worse than a lot of edits by good faith editors (on whatever pages, not speaking just of other Dylan editors). But taken together, Monicasdude editing stategy is "this is my page, and no one else is worthy to edit it."

So what to do? Is there an appropriate administrative mechanism to try to get the page to be a cooperative project rather than just Monicasdude's personal user page? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

You are simply not telling the truth here. This is just obsessive personal abuse. Anyone who reviews the article's history can review the claim and see that it is utterly false. Monicasdude 18:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Ryan Delaney now willing to act as some sort of arbitrator on this page? We very much need it. Ryan, while I'm not in complete sync with Lulu, his characterization of the situation with Monicasdude is entirely true and pins down very well the problems we've been having with this formerly excellent article. Don't be thrown off by Monicasdude's level-headed-sounding way of discussing issues, nor by the benignity of most of his edits when seen in isolation. Overall, he has seized control of this article and for months now has shot down all good-faith efforts at collaboration. His primary anti-social act was his all-at-once, undiscussed major overhaul of an article already recognized for excellence. He refused to go step-by-step and doggedly wielded the revert capability. Since then he has stood guard over this now much-diminished article, gunning down a series of people who have tried to make even minor adjustments. An arbitrator in your position would have a tough job because very little of what Mdude has done, seen in isolation, is against any policy or guidelines (although I still maintain that his original overhaul, carried out with no Talk activity until I forced him onto the carpet with reverts of my own, should be actionable in some way). In short, Ryan, if there is some way you can loosen Mdude's grip on this article, you will be doing WP a great service. His claims of "personal abuse" are just ridiculously thin-skinned and untrue. He obsessively controls this article and he registers any attempt by others to exercise their normal function as editors as a personal affront to him. Please let us know what you can do. JDG 17:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You are, as usual, not telling the truth, except when you point out that I have not violated any applicable policies or guidelines. Anyone who reviews this talk page can easily find examples where I have urged others to contribute, and anyone can refer to the FARC page where I said that steps should be taken to encourage greater participation. In this context, the bad faith of your comments should be apparent. Monicasdude 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Truth as you see it is an odd thing, and seems to be confined to you alone. It's true you've lip-served the idea of contributions by others, but in practice you just gun them down. And what happens in practice is what matters and is what will be judged if you continue to chase all the other kids out of the sandbox... And please get off this "bad faith" and "personal abuse" kick. No one here is trying to tear anyone down for tearing-down's sake. We're trying to find a way to retain your involvement with this article in a way that doesn't erase everybody else's input. If the two can't co-exist the former will be jettisoned. Believe it. JDG 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who reviews your long history of revising and erasing so many contributions to this page will understand why your comments are bad faith. Monicasdude 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Revising and erasing"-- isn't that called editing? It's flat-out amazing how you cast a sinister light on normal Wiki actions when they are done by someone other than yourself. When you do them, of course, they are sparkling and pure. Well, we seem ineluctably headed for arbitration. Good luck, Mdude. JDG 19:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No. You were simply removing anything from the page that did not conform to your narrow and often factually ungrounded perceptions. That is not editing, that is censoring. Monicasdude 23:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I'm all moved in, and I am ready to mediate this dispute when the involved parties indicate willingness to accept mediation. Please sign your name below this line and indicate your preferred times and mode of communication (IRC/email/AOL IM etc). ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy to "talk" on IM any time about 1-12 p.m. EDT (any day), I think I have an AOL IM account setup w/ my iChat (though last used months ago, and only a couple times). Or email is fine with me (my address on my user page). Or if we want to use a special talk page here (subpage of this, subpage of a user page, whatever) that's good too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:13, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

• I see nothing to mediate at this time. Your comments to user: SECProto amount to a determination that the text user:Lulu persists in inserting into the article is inappropriate, since it "is original research. According to WP:NOR, may not insert your own interpretations into Wikipedia articles, only the published and peer-reviewed interpretations of others. You may say 'Rolling Stone said this song means X', but not 'This song means X'." If the article discusses the disputed religious/secular nature of Dylan's post-1981 compositions, it must present the range of critical opinion, and must not make conclusory statements like the ones user:Lulu has insisted on inserting. The mediation you are proposing is simply negotiating over NPOV. NPOV is not negotiable. Monicasdude 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• This article desperately needs mediation. I'd rather not do IRC because of all the malware vulnerabilities. I can dig out an old IM account, or email is fine too as long as people stay put during the session and don't force others to play tag. Tomorrow (Saturday) is out for me. Sunday from noon to midnight is good. Any weekday of the next week excluding Tuesday is good. JDG 02:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Since User:Monicasdude has refused mediation, I suggest that this be brought to a request for comment. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate, but asked you to clarify various comments you made before accepting you as mediator. You made no substantive responses to my requests. I again ask you to explain what the subject of mediation should be, since your comments to user:SECProto on this articles talk page apparently disposed of the issue in the content dispute. Monicasdude 22:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You know full well that the problems other editors have with you include your notions of what is and is not NPOV, and that Ryan was here to help us sort that and all the other disagreements out. You tried to put him and us off with your usual obfuscation tactics, but time has run out on that kind of manuevering (Mdude at 00:58 Aug. 27: "I see nothing to mediate at this time", Mdude at 22:51 Aug. 27: "Excuse me. I did not refuse mediation. I accepted mediation as appropriate"-- give us a break). It is now early morninig of Sunday, August 28. If I see no unconditional acceptance by you of Ryan's mediation on this Talk page by 9am Eastern U.S. Monday, including your preferred communication mode and times of availability, I will join the formal RfC against you with all the energy I can muster. JDG 07:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Formal mediation started

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

Note: Subsequent to initially creating the RfC page, I toned down the inflammatory language in my description (taken from this talk page), and provided a list of WP policies and edit diffs. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:22, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

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

Lulu the scandal

The writer Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters seems to have a problem with accepting other points of view apart from his own. Those contributors to this Wiki article that he doesn't like, he uses to call "vandals", like "== ROHA the vandal ==", or "== Monicasdude the vandal ==" Where will this end up to? This reminds me of a line in a famous Dylan song: "A self-ordained professor's tongue"... It rather seems that Lulu's behavior is a scandal. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) PS: Note, this posting may not take into account some of the latest submissions to the discussion page.

That's ever so precious, hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de. Maybe I'll tape it to my fridge, being so proud. I guess that means ROHA=ROsentHAl, right? It's not very hard to register an account, y'know (I'm not sure if the username ROHA is taken, but I'm sure you could find something). I was a professor in the past, but I don't really think ordination was involved. And I don't want to be a bum, so I chew gum... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:16, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

I don't mind what you were in the past. I would be happy if you could stay to the present. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) PS: Eat your fridge, then bleich back your answer.

To All Editors: Please visit the current RfC

To all concerned Editors: As you can tell, the Dylan article is currently blocked to editing. This is due to the ongoing disputes centering on Monicasdude's editing actions on this article from early June to now. In the interest of getting a speedy and definitive conclusion to these disputes, resulting in the unblocking of the article, I encourage you to visit the "Request for Comment" now being held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. I do not suggest to you which way to vote or what sort of comments you should leave at that page. I simply encourage you to record your votes and/or opinions there so that arbitration can come to an end and we can get back to work, hopefully on a much better footing. JDG 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: There's not really such a thing as voting at an RfC. If any editor has information to add to the request, please provide a comment describing your viewpoint. If you concur with the RfC description, you may sign as a co-certifier. If you feel any existing comment(s) accurately describes your own impression, you may add your name as a co-endorser of that statement. An editor may co-endorse more than one description/comment if she feel more than one are accurate. But an RfC has nothing to do with "counting up" the endorsers of various sections. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:54, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

LotLE, maybe you can help us understand what exactly the RfC is there for. I've generally stayed away from Wikipedia dispute resolution stuff, so although I'm one of the "oldest" active Wikipedians I'm a neophyte when it comes to RfCs, RfAs, etc.,. What is the hoped-for result of the RfC? I basically assumed that the main hope was to get enough of a consensus one way or the other so that 1) Monicasdude will bow to the collective will and desist from his heavy-handed reverts and generally strive to act in the collaborative spirit, or 2) You, me and others will bow to the collective will and learn to accept Mdude's current way of working. So, the RfC is primarily to collect opinions and publish "the collective will" in the hope that disputants will then behave accordingly? Or are we looking for some sort of disciplinary action and, if so, who will impose it? JDG 17:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not extremely experienced with administravia (though more than I might like). An administrator, especially a member of the Mediation Committee may know more. But my understanding is that in an RfC, various parties will state their grievance, their defense, or their outside perspective. Uninvolved editors will attempt to intervene with the parties to resolve the problems, perhaps by getting agreements to change behavior or follow certain guidelines in the future. An admin especially is often the best uninvolved editor to attempt resolution since they can, in principle, take more forceful actions (blocks, page protections, etc). Some consensus about what to do next may emerge and/or a recommendation from a admin who has kinda "assumed responsibility" for the RfC may be stated.

WP isn't like a court of law though. It's not as if an RfC, or even an RfAr is a trial, which ends with a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict (nor even like a civil action with a damages award). WP is anarchy that is just slightly structured. An RfC is just a semi-formal way to work out conflicts or a poor editing process that emerges. Admins are not really cops or jailers, their powers are far more limited than that, and used reluctantly. After all, even if the most draconian possible action were taken, and Monicasdude account was permanently blocked (which I absolutely do not think will or should happen), it would take the physical person "behind the scenes" about 30 seconds to create a new account (and even less to edit anonymously). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:29, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure that for really hardcore vandals and chaos-causing troll-editors there are some pretty effective remedies available, mostly involving IP blocks that can't be gotten around anonymously or with sockpuppets (usually forcing the banned user to post from friends' computers, libraries, internet cafes, etc., of which they soon tire). But we're not looking at anything like that for Mdude, although a clearcut censure of his behavior over the last 3 months in this RfC would lay the groundwork for more serious intervention should he simply ignore that censure... Anyway, the ideal immediate outcome of the RfC for me would be this: Mdude agrees to lay off the article for a span of about 5 days during which I and anybody who cares to join me will develop a new baseline version of the article (incorporating most of Mdude's contributions and retoolings); after this 5-day period we return to the normal wiki process, perhaps under the benevolent eye of a volunteer Administrator, and we go forward on the understanding that Mdude will discuss any *substantial* changes he wishes to make *before* he commits the text to the live article. I do not include additions under the heading of "substantial changes", I'm talking about changes to existing text and deletions... In the past, Mdude has refused to discuss major changes. On one occasion his changes were to the entire article (the "major, undiscussed overhaul to a FA" I was always squawking about). On subsequent occasions he made major changes within sections, also with no Talk activity. I would like this RfC to strongly urge him to reverse his past stance, to clearly state that he has reversed it, and that any failure to discuss substantial changes beforehand and any associated revert war will then justifiably be received by other editors as grounds to proceed with RfAr... Do you, LoTLE, think we can work these objectives into the RfC? JDG 19:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm generally on the same page as JDG on the best possible outcome of the RfC. However, I think we need to let other editors, and especially administrators, weigh in with what they think would work best. Other folks might have other approaches that would work even better; and moreover, neither JDG or I can be considered "neutral parties" to work out a resolution framework. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Protest removal of Shelter link

Friends of truth, Last year I posted a link under the "Commentary" section of the article on Bob Dylan. It contained relevant commentary on a certain religious aspect of some of Bob's songs. At that same time I sent the same link to many people who had websites on Mr. Dylan. I received some "thank you"s and we will pass this on comments. Yet the one identifying himself as Monicasdude remove said link from the article on June 11, 2005 generally calling it "inexplicable." I must seriously protest this action, and request that the community replace that link (or allow me to), for it is in perfect harmony with the other two links that were under that section at that time. That is, there was one explaining the Judaic roots in Bob's songs, while the other was touching on the Christian roots. My linked article addresses both of those roots, so there is no fair reason why it should be excluded from that Commentary section. I realize that the content in the link is very controversial, but it is quite factual. If anyone thinks that it is in error as to the meaning of some of the most thought provoking lyrics in Bob's songs, then somebody should ask Bob, himself, about whether I am right or wrong on the matter. That, or produce something better and more accurate to the biblical meaning of the images he is using to portray the feminine aspect of the salvation he so often proclaims he loves. So how can the "wiki community" be truly representative of those who have practical knowledge on matters which some would like to consider so "ambiguous" as to allow anyone to form their own opinion on what Bob is saying, while at the same time totally ignoring the fact that he is truly singing about what he has first hand knowledge of and is trying to "turn us on" to the joy he finds in such realities. Therefore, I think that it would not only be wholly appropriate to reinsert the link to my article, but also that in leaving it excluded from the Commentary section would be cheating the wiki community by depriving them of an insight that Bob Dylan, himself, would applaud. How can I be so bold in saying this? I, like him, have been trying to come in when She called, and am also seeking Shelter from the Storm. Here is the link in question.

*Come in, She said, I'll give you shelter from the storm

Anyone 7 9:22 CST 31 August, 2005

To the above user: Deciding on which links to include in an article is a very subjective thing. I visted your page and feel it would benefit by a short, plainspoken introduction on what the page is about, why you feel the biblical material you quote is of particular relevance to Dylan's lyrics, etc.,. As you can tell if you've read much of this Talk page, many editors are unhappy with Monicasdude's heavy hand. If you would like to comment on the matter, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude and record your opinions. We need the issues in that RfC resolved before the article can be unlocked, and the more opinions we get the easier it will be to arrive at some satisfactory resolutions. JDG 17:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Cooperative draft

I have established Bob Dylan/Draft as s a working copy of a redraft of this article to encourage cooperation between conflicting editors. I have proposed special editing conventions for the redraft. They include: no reversion; strikeout instead of deletion; underlining of all additions; inline explanation of all changes. We can tidy up individual sections once their form is agreed. —Theo (Talk) 09:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasting a comment on the draft's Talk page--- Those of you marking up this draft version, please be aware there is no guarantee that the result of your efforts will in fact become the new Dylan article. This draft was started by a user who became involved in Bob Dylan through the RfC against Monicasdude (as a defender of Monicasdude), is clearly a partisan in the struggle most editors are having with Monicasdude, and who has shown a skewed and incomplete understanding of what has gone wrong in the current Dylan article. The idea of starting a draft article as a means to reinvigorate cooperation may be a good one, but it should have been discussed on the RfC Talk page and/or the Dylan Talk page, and implemented with the informed consenus of all concerned editors. Instead, the draft was simply created on one person's impulse. I'm not leaving this comment as a way of ordering you what and what not to do. I am just concerned that some of you will put a lot of effort into this only to find that it was purely an exercise. JDG 15:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC) --- JDG 23:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on TheoClarke's part. I also don't agree with most of his outside view in the RfC, but only as a matter of judgement, not as a question of Theo's good intentions. I think he honestly is trying the Bob Dylan/Draft approach as an idea for resolving the conflicts that have arisen. I don't know whether that approach will bring about the desired resolution, but he's trying. I would, however, request that an admin make a minor change to the main Bob Dylan article to indicate (near the top) that this draft version exists. A lot of readers who have not been aware of the conflict are likely to read the article, and might want to join in the draft fixer-upper project. Even if the draft is never adopted whole-clothe as a replacement, it might be a source for paragraphs to later add incrementally into the main article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:48, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to me. JDG 02:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

More on Shelter and Monicasdude, and Christian Controversy

Dear friends, I am writing this in regards to having my link put back in the Bob Dylan article. But as the article is involved in a controversy at this time, and as my link is somewhat relative to a certain aspect of the controversy, I must address that matter also.

There is a controversy as to whether or not Bob had a "Christian" period in regard to his music (which may or may not be over), and also a secular one that is totally separate from the "Christian" one. While it is true that he did do some openly "Christian" albums, I cannot think of any of his published songs that do not contain a "Christian" evangelistic theme. I say this because of what he has, seemingly, always been doing in reference to what is written here:

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Colossians 3:16.

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Eph 5:19. (See the preceding verses for the context).

Where is the evidence to support the idea that Bob's music did not contain these principles to some degree or another? Not all of the "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" that Christians (or Jews for that matter) are to do are required to have overtly religious language to fall within the counsel give above. For centuries many involved in the Protestant reformation have used metaphors and parable like songs to preach the truth of the moral aspects contained in the pure Judeo-Christian tradition. Christ, Himself, did that. To wit,

"And He spake many things unto them in parables... "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?... He said: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.... "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:... "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Matthew 13:3, 10, 13, 34, 35.

One of Bob's earliest songs, Long Ago, and Far Away, expressed the principle that was to underlie all of his work. In there he said,

"To preach of peace and brotherhood, Oh, what might be the cost! A man he did it long ago, and they hung him on a cross. Long ago, far away; These things don't happen no more, nowadays."

Of course he was being somewhat sarcastic therein, for those things do happen today (in one form or another), and were happening to him.

His song, Rainy Day Women 12 & 35, is but another expression of the same biblical principle that is stated in the Sermon on the Mount -

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Matthew5:11, 12.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophet." Luke 6:22, 23.

In that song Bob was just expressing that principle as it related to his own experience of preaching truth and being persecuted for it - he was being "stoned" everywhere he turned, but was so filled with the Spirit for doing what was right (regardless of whatever wrong he may also have been doing), that he was encouraging everyone to do the same right doing by saying, "Everybody must get stoned." Though he may have been somewhat drunk or stoned as he wrote that, or during the time he wrote it, it is the biblical principle that is at the heart of the song. It is not a "secular" (non-religious) song, as some would want to portray it.

In his recent TV interview, he spoke quite plainly about the agreement he had with "destiny" from the early days of his career. When asked of who he had that agreement with he said, "the Commander and Chief." Ed Bradley asked if that was the Commander and Chief of "this world." Dylan replied, "this world, and the unseen world." So believe his own testimony on this matter. He knew who he has been trying to serve. Allow him to have his due in this regard, and refrain from trying to look at him through variously colored glasses.

The folk singers got upset when they couldn't put him in their box. The same is true with many others, including the so-called evangelical Christians. When Bob seemingly separated himself from those type of Christian fellowship many said that he left Christianity. Why? Because they defined Christianity as their particular version of such. But Bob rejected their notions without rejecting his own faith and experience. Years after he left those type of fellowships he came out with the song, "Trying to get to heaven before they close the door." The last line of the last verse from his newest album says,

"Look up, look up - seek your Maker - 'fore Gabriel blows his horn."

If that is secular, then a monkey is my uncle (no comments please).

So, back to my link. There are things in many of his songs which plainly speak of a feminine aspect he was, and is, relating to in a salvation relationship. That is what my link comments on. For those who are not aware, Jewish Kabbalists go through all kinds of religious exercises in order to just get a glimpse of Her (see The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai, Wayne State University Press). But Bob says to some, "I've forgotten more about Her than you'll ever know."

Therefore, while the controversy among Monicasdude and others goes on, there is no good reason why Wiki should allow my link to remain an innocent victim of Monicasdude's stated "inexplicable" removal. Unless someone has a specific valid issue as to why my link should not be there, please do not let the spirit of blind bigotry prevail in this matter. If someone has a valid reason for keeping it out of the article, let's talk about it. I do intend to add a short explanation of it, as suggested by JDG. Thank you for your ears. Anyone 7 10:15 CST 12 September, 2005

Hasn't this country been punished enough by the Branch Davidians, their megalomaniacal leader and their supporters (e.g. Timothy McVeigh)? Apparently we have to be treated to more of their rants even through Wikipedia. 216.119.139.33 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OH MERCY

Evidently the writer of the above statement feels that Wiki is a place to disseminate uninformed opinions, and prefers to use misapplied labels and slander to accomplish his/her agenda. For the record, I (Doug Mitchell) represent those Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists who never followed nor supported David Koresh. If the author of the above had taken a few minutes to read the Welcome to our web site, he could have seen that we are not who he/she wants to paint us to be. For the record, we have nothing in common with the Koreshians (except that they have stolen our name, a matter which will be rectified). If we had something to hide in this matter, we would have changed our name, and attempted to hide who we are, rather than simply telling our story (as we do on our web site). In the past, another writer who commented on a link we have on the Branch Davidian article chose to do something similar in trying to portary us as something we are not, yet at least he was honest enough to say that he didn't read, and would not read, our article that explained who we are, and why so many, including David Koresh, are making an all out warfare aganist the true Branch church. Of course, the writer of the above statement made no substantive reply regarding the Shelter link in question. As Bob has said, "Mercy walks the plank" (from Political World, Oh Mercy album).Anyone 7 8:33 CST 13 September, 2005

MOREOVER

Regarding my input as to the religious/non-religious aspects of Bob's music, what does it matter who I am associated with? Either what I wrote has the ring of truth, or it doesn't. While I know that there are many who will agree with me, I also know that many will not accept anything that doesn't fit into their box. As Bobby said, "It's alright ma, if I can't please him." Dualing Banjos - Dualing Bobbies???? Anyone 7 9:42 CST 14 September, 2005