Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 3

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
Is it true that "All Along the Watchtower" by Bob Dylan was submitted for the Xbox 360 version of the game? Could someone verify this?

Cafe Wha?
I created the Cafe Wha? page. Worth mentioning in Bob Dylan page.

A section dedicated to covers of Bob Dylan songs done by popular bands
I think it would be wise, since Bob Dylan is one of the most covered artists of all time, to includea section dedicated to Bob Dylan songs covered by other artists. But maybe instead, because this page is so crowded a whole new page should be created. here are some songs that would make the list: "Maggie's Farm" by Rage Against the Machine "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Eric Clapton and Guns n' Roses I am forgeting the many other songs, so i think it would be wise for another person to start the page.


 * "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Roger Waters, and also by Avril Lavinge; "All I really want to do" by Cher come to my mind.  Behdad 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"All Along the Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix and "Forever Young" by Joan Baez

This would be an informative list. See a similar one on the Leonard Cohen article. Given Dylan's iconic status, I don't think a List of Bob Dylan songs covered by other artists would be out of place if the page is too long. I would surely contribute to it. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Subterraenean Homesick Blues by chili peppers --Klyv

I agree that there should just be a separate list page for that, but what about songs written by but seldom/never performed by Bob Dylan? Does that count as a cover, or would there have to be yet another distinction made...I think that in Dylan's case it is a fairly important one. --lehkost

Hey, Mr. Tamborine Man and All I Really Want To Do by the Byrds.. those guys really made a carrer out of dylan hits Plus I would say that the most importan cover would (besides maybe watchtower) would be Blowin' in the wind by peter paul and mary

Updates?
Live at the Gaslight 1962 and the seventh volume of The Bootleg Series were released not long ago (about a month or less), and I think that we should at least put in a mention. We can't go about compromising the Wiki's up-to-dateness, can we?

And, also, someone linked to Live 1975, Rolling Thunder Revue as just Live 1975, which is a bad link.

Kaishin 01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS FROZEN
Nothing is going to happen to this article until it is unprotected. It will not be unprotected until Requests for comment/Monicasdude has been resolved. As has been said above, 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. Perhaps you would like to add your own comments there. Soul Embrace 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words: This Wikipedia-Article has faild to be an ecellent one. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

This article has been protected against all edits for about 27 days in the past month. That's a ridiculously long period of protection over a squabble between a few editors on this wiki. Moreover the RfC which is given as a pretext for page protection has not been edited since Sep 16th, five days ago. I'm unprotecting so that the page can be edited. Editors who are aware that their edits are being discussed in the dispute should probably discuss proposed changes first and gain consensus. All others should feel free to edit. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe this unprotection is premature. Lots of articles that I've seen remain protected much longer than 27 days (we had a problem user on Nehru, and that got locked for several months, for example).  The RfC has been edited multiple times in the last day (but on the talk page, i.e. discussion; we've stalled waiting for Monicasdude to respond to the RfC on the main page).


 * Nonetheless, since it is unlocked, please keep an eye, editors, on shennanigans by Monicasdude. I suspect, in particular, that he will quickly litter the article with link spam to his personal sites. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the unprotection is premature. Tony, did you look at the Talk page of the RfC? Activity has moved there because threaded debates aren't allowed in the RfC itself. We were trying to arrive at a remedy that would take effect upon unprotection of the article, but now you've unprotected it and the same old revert wars have started right up. Please reconsider and reprotect until our proposals for remedies can be polled. JDG 05:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A disputed section: proselytical Christian songs
Since the disputed section was discussed by several users during the protection period, and the majority of comments opposed it, and because no one actively disputed admin: Ryan Delaney's declaration that lyrics characterizations of that sort was inappropriate as original research, I deleted the section without inserting the alternative text I'd previously proposed. The article is therefore silent, for the moment, on a point for which no consensus has been reached. I expect you'll now see why this dispute reached an intractable stage. Monicasdude 18:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All editors except Monicasdude support inclusion of cooperatively developed language. If you have a variant to propose: put it here first! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The main disputed passage appears to be:


 * After composing and recording proselytical Christian songs over the course of his prior three albums, on 1983's well-received Infidels Dylan returned to writing predominantly secular songs, with a few songs that obliquely suggest Christian themes, but without a proselytical tone.

If, as Monicasdude maintains, the contested statement is an interpretation rather than a fact, it should be sourced ("X described Y as..."). If it's a disputed fact, then it should be removed until a source establishing that it's a fact can be provided. Either way a source should be provided to support the disputed text. It doesn't really matter how many people agree on the wording; consensus cannot be used to get around No original research.

Prior tries
It does seem to me that the term "proselytical tone" is a matter of interpretation. The phrase "returned to writing predominantly secular songs" implies that Dylan not only composed some "proselytical Christian songs" in the three albums running up to Infidels, but predominantly "proselytical Christian songs". This statement should either be supported or it shouldn't be present in the text. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * More than "predominantly" on the "Christian trilogy"; the first two at least are exclusively so. Prior to the RfC and the page freeze, I attempted providing external quoations supporting the characterization, but Monicasdude took them immediately out as "unreliable" (i.e. Allmusic.com).  This is all in the RfC, and here on this talk page.  I'm more than happy to work out a mutually acceptable phrasing (using external quotes or otherwise), but Monicasdude continues to refuse anything other than a reversion to his favored version, verbatim.  This is what the whole RfC was about (not the particular phrase, the non-cooperation). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop with the personal attacks and concentrate on the material. Is the word "proselytical" appropriate here? That has a specific meaning: attempting to convert someone to a religion or doctrine. Some religious music is proselytical in tone, some isn't. For instance the Saint Matthew Passion is about as religious a piece of music as you could find, but it isn't proselytical. It takes Christian belief for granted. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * During the earlier edit history, editors attempted a number of different adjectives to modify "Christian". I think another editor had first used "public", and I later tried "overt".  I think "predominantly Christian"  was in the sequence.  I settled on "proselytic" because it seemed like the most accurate (and compromise) word.  In every case, Monicasdude refused to suggest any compromise or adjusted language, but simply mass reverted to his verbatim version (just like now).


 * Using that word allows "proselytical" allows that some later songs might still insinuate xtian themes, while drawing the accepted contrast between the "Christian trilogy" and later albums. The word is quite precise in characterizing the quality of the three recordings mentioned.  I don't think the matter really merits a 5000 word description, since it is simply meant to state an understanding shared by essentially everyone in the world who is familiar with Dylan, other than Monicasdude.  That said, I am by no means terribly attached to the exact language I proposed.  Any other formulation that gets at the general meaning is fine by me (I do think after some revisions the form I found is pretty clear as to scope of meaning). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well how about sticking to facts? By this I mean try to make the statement as factual as possible and remove interpretive words such as "proselytical Christianity".

On Slow Train
I've had a look at one or two of the tracks from Slow Train Coming (the title track, and man gave names to all the animals). Slow train (from memory) contains a reference to wondering if his friends are saved. There may be some Christian imagery in there, too, but if so it must be fairly well hidden because most of it seems to be a classic Dylan political diatribe. Man Gave Names seems to be, in its lyrics, a rather banal nursery song. Maybe I looked at the wrong ones, but this doesn't suggest proselytism to me, though obviously he's incorporating his religious thoughts into his songs.

So on this outing I'd suggest we try:

The lyrics in Dylan's three albums after his conversion incorporated references to his religious feelings, but Infidels brought a return to predominantly secular themes. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's great by me. Give it a try, and see if Monicasdude immediately reverts it. It's almost identical to the first (short) version that Monicasdude started reverting; but perhaps he'll give your edit deference because he knows you're an admin (I have doubts about it, but try). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Btw. Some lyrics from Slow Train Coming sort of show the tone:

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody.


 * Or

There's a Man up on a cross and He's been crucified. Do you have any idea why or for who He died? When you gonna wake up, when you gonna wake up When you gonna wake up and strengthen the things that remain?


 * It's kinda hard to characterize those as other than "proselytic". Saved is even more so.  Saying that kinda, maybe, if you squint just right, you can discern a Christian metaphor in, e.g. "Things have changed"  really misses the rather obvious change in lyrical content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Attacks?
Well there you go again with the attacks. Could you stop that please? It's fundamental Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks and that policy exists precisely because we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia and not engaging in petty personal squabbles. I'll wait for some input from other editors, including Monicasdude, but in any case I won't be performing any edits. --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying that Monicasdude has done these things in the past is not a personal attack, it's just factual. Calling me stupid, ignorant, meglomanaical, delusional, a "fragrant [sic]" hypocrite, liar, and so on.... well, it's not quite as nice.  And that's just in the last couple days. It's hard to see a lot of good faith in there. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Silliness of dispute
The disputed sentence shouldn't be under dispute. It is far and away the consensus of published comment (and that's what we're about-- to summarize critical opinion, not to present "fact", as there is no "fact" in art). Oddly, I am in basic agreement with Mdude that Dylan probably has not entirely dropped Christian beliefs. But when it comes to the explicit content of songs and albums it cannot be doubted that Infidels marks a turn away from a proselytizing approach. I will join in editing corrections and reversions should Mdude continue his attempts to expunge this sentence or any sentence with the same meaning. JDG 05:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not know myself whether "Dylan entirely dropped Christian beliefs". Or entirely retained them, for that matter.  Or dropped them in 1986, then held them again in 1987.  To make any claim either way violates WP:V and WP:NOR.  I have no more idea about what Dylan may or may not believe religiously than I do... well, about whatever it is that Monicasdude believes on the question.  Despite all the obstructionist editing, I haven't even begun to fathom what position Monicasdude thinks he's trying to defend, in all honesty.  Maybe just the position that doggerel is better than clarity :-(.


 * But no sentence ever reverted by Monicasdude ever stated anything about those possible personal beliefs, but simply about the recorded material, which is well known to all the editors here (and to all the biographers, reviewers, etc). The sentence itself (or something much like it) is so plainly obvious as a summary that even asking for footnotes or sources is a extremely silly and contentious&mdash;by a standard like that, each and every sentence might need external sources.  What if I were to demand external verificationn in the article that Dylan really was born "Zimmerman", or that "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Jokerman" really were songs of his.  The absurdity of this whole painful process is that one can no more sensibly doubt the basic "Christian trilogy" idea than one can those other brute facts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at about a half dozen songs from Slow Train Coming, I agree that it's possible to call the lyrics proselytism. Lulu, you say it's "far and away the consensus of published comment" that Dylan's works on the Christian period albums were "proselytical Christian songs". Let's move on to discussing the published comment. How did Rolling Stone magazine describe the albums? Well Christianity Today says Jan Wenner described Slow Train Coming as "artistically ambiguous". And there's a 1986 Rolling Stone interview (Gates of Eden Revisited) conducted by Toby Cresswell in which Cresswell says:


 * "When Dylan gave up writing specific protest songs in 1964, he began writing songs about hypocrisy, prejudice, injustice, malice, exploitation and cruelty. Those concerns are still the subject of his songs. At the same time he was writing love songs like "Love Minus Zero/No Limit", which is a tender and complete statement of affection that is also a religious statement. Dylan has sung of both sacred and profane love throughout his career, sometimes concentrating on one, sometimes on the other. Then there was the electric bite of pure rock & roll as portrayed on "Subterranean Homesick Blues," a song that Dylan notes, on the five-album 'Biograph' retrospective, was recorded in one take."

To me this doesn't sound like a music journalist who thinks of Dylan's Christian years as a distinct anomaly, a blast of proselytism, but as part of Dylan's work as an artist. A more overtly Christian artist then than at other times since, but nevertheless an artist.

The live material in that period doesn't seem to have been always new stuff, either, he made concessions to fans of his old stuff. A setlist from November 9, 1980,at the Warfield in San Francisco reads as follows:

1. Gotta Serve Somebody 2. I believe in You 3. Like a Rolling Stone 4. Man Gave Names to All the Animals 5. Precious Angel 6. Ain't Gonna Go to Hell 7. Girl of the North Country 8. Slow Train 9. Abraham, Martin and John 10. Let's Keep It Between Us 11. Covenant Woman 12. Solid Rock 13. Just Like a Woman 14. When You Gonna Wake Up? 15. Senor (Tales of Yankee Power) 16. In the Garden 17. Blowin' in the Wind

So he was playing those oldies back in 1980, supposedly at the height of his proselytism. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course Dylan's Christian trilogy is part of his work as an artist! I can't imagine anyone who would suggest otherwise. As an athiest, I frequently hum "Gotta serve somebody" in the shower (or Al Green's "Jesus is waiting", for that matter); he wrote some great songs during his overt/proselytic/public/whatever Christian period.  But it was a period in his career; likewise, earlier, Dylan moved from stricly acoustic to mostly electric instruments.  Despite the apocrypha about jeers at a concert, no one ever claimed he stopped or started being a musical artist when he changed instruments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with any of the half dozen other formulations that Monicasdude blind reverted before. And I'm perfectly happy with the suggested sentence you propose above.  The dispute isn't about whether the adjective "proselytic" is the best one, it's only about whether Monicasdude will allow any sentence he did not personally write into the article.  FWIW: the "far and away" characterization was JDG's (but I concur, obviously).


 * During the brief earlier unprotection a couple days ago, he did the same silliness about not letting an anon editor state the plain fact that George Jackson was killed in prison (claiming that fact was somehow "POV"). He didn't suggest that the sentence might read differently, but simply that anything someone else added must be reverted as non-Monicasdude. Seriously, try editing the article to your version, and see what Monicasdude does! I think it will help drive in the actual issue for you. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could we please stop with the personal attacks? I've asked you many times before to stop this. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * With regard to various matters, as briefly as I can state things:


 * Proselytical v. Christian v. . . . The standard/most common description, in biographies, in reviews, etc, has been "evangelical"; a Google search on "Bob Dylan" and "evangelical" turns up over 100,000 hits -- some, no doubt, spurious in terms of this discussion. On "Bob Dylan" and "proselytic(al)," 70 total, and the only nonspurious hits were to the Wikipedia article or mirrors.


 * Concert performances. This edit is factually inaccurate.  In concert, from November 1979 through May 1980, Dylan sang only religious/explicitly Christian/evangelical songs.  Documented, concert by concert, here:  and here  and here  . (Full disclosure: one night, near the end of this run of concerts, he riffed on the instrumental intro to Lay Lady Lay for a minute or so, then segued into one of his evangelical songs. That was it.  Didn't sing a word of that, or any other, older song.) He resumed playing older songs, "secular" and otherwise, in the fall of 1980, touring in support of "Saved," the second album of the supposed "Christian trilogy."  As Tony Sidaway quite correctly points out, there's a fairly clear continuum or religious influence/expression in Dylan's music; it's stronger/more conspicuous at different stages of his career.


 * "Infidels" and secular/religious music: Far from there being a consensus that Infidels marked Dylan's return to secular songwriting, the record, both in terms of contemporaneous reports and later commentary, shows a general recognition that the songs on Infidels showed Dylan continuing to express religious ideas in a non-evangelical mode, from a perspective that couldn't be pigeonholed simply as "Christian," "secular," or any other convenient term. For example, the NYTimes review described the album as "quasi-Biblical"; the Boston Globe noted that "there are still some Christian fire-and-brimstone warnings" on the LP. (A few years later, writing in the NYTimes, Jon Pareles said that "Empire Burlesque" was Dylan's first predominantly secular album of the decade, not "Infidels.") In the mid-1980s, biographer Bob Spitz called the album "less ecclesiastical" than its predecessors, a difference in degree rather than kind. In the early 1990s, Entertainment Weekly, publishing an overview of Dylan's career, described "Infidels" as an album which expressed Dylan's religious ideas from a broader, less explicit perspective than the evangelical albums. (EW's hardly a learned voice in criticism, but its comments show that this view of Dylan's work was hardly limited to hard-core fans or religiously committed listeners.) Dylan biographer Clinton Heylin, in both his published biography, Behind the Shades (Revisited) and his Recording Sessions book, notes that all the songs on Infidels include Biblical references, that three are specifically rooted in New Testament texts, and interprets the album as a whole as an extension of Dylan's thoughts on "the end times," apocalypse, and the Book of Revelations, which he had "preached" about at length during his evangelical touring. Howard Sounes, in "Down The Highway," is less explicit in interpreting the album, but concludes that both Dylan's music and personal life continued to reflect his recently acquired, still evolving, religious beliefs. People can disagree about the interpretation of particular songs, or about the balance of secular and religious concerns in Dylan's songwriting on the album. But there should be no denying that the interpretation of the album as "predominantly secular" is, at best, an often- and strongly-disputed opinion. Monicasdude 03:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! I'm more than happy to accept this collaborative suggestion for phrasing (it's changed accordingly). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess Tony Sidaway's songlist was from slightly later in 1980; that's the point, right? I kinda think that six months worth of concerts is a bit too narrow to single out as particularly significant. If it had even been a year, that's more interesting. But I guess if the briefness of the exclusively evangelical touring is highlighted, that's OK to include. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters


 * In other words, the characterization of "predominantly secular" is precisely accurate, right? Certainly that's exactly what the WP article on Infidels says as well. I guess I'll try to stick in a very brief clause that indicates Infidels is the "start of the transition to predominantly secular songs" rather than simply the end point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A half-dozen citations pointing out an extensive set of religious referents hardly supports the idea that calling the album "predominantly secular" is "precisely accurate." Not that accuracy has been a concern manifested by you in this dispute, given your consistent failure to provide any directly relevant sources for your claims. Monicasdude 20:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I implemented some of the information you wrote above into the article. I agree that infidels is not secular. but throughout the 80's he did move away from religion as the main focus of his new songs. -SECProto 21:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the matter?
Lulu, why did you change my link under the Commentary section without first discussing it? We have just seen the results of people wanting to dominate this page, and it seems that we are seeing it again. Tomorrow I am going to revert the link to the format I put it in before you chnaged it, unless you can put forth some strong reasons for not doing so. Anyone 7 11:15 CST 14 September, 2005


 * I didn't remove the external link, as I say in the edit history, I just wanted the short link descriptions in that section to look structurally similar. Having part of the description as a link, followed with no separation, by further description of the link, looks funny.  I don't happen to agree with your analysis, but an external link to material that is "original research" in the WP sense is perfectly fine, just as long as it characterizes the general nature of the link.


 * Tell me what you think is important in the specific phrasing you used for the link, that was missed by the edited form. Most edits are not discussed first (how could they be); but certainly since you feel there was something innaccurate in my edit, let's agree to wording of the link. I think that if you want both the actual title and its characterization in the link you give, you should try to provide the same style for the links to things other people wrote (I presume those pages have such information on them; I haven't followed the links). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. My main complaint is that you removed the article's title. That is the propminent feature of the link. That title alone was what was there before Monicasdude removed it calling it an "inexplicable link." I see that that title should be in quotation marks to be true to the article and copyright matters. But the rest of the description was added at the suggestion of JDG. The title is needed to let those many, many people who are familiar with the song get an idea of what the nature of the article is related to. That is why it should be there. To spark curiousity.

As to the what you say about the link being "original research," it is not really such. The subject in the article is supported by many scholars. There is a book called the Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai (a renown Jewish anthropoligist), published by Wayne State University Press (first in 1977 by another publisher) in which the author gives all kinds of sources (Rabbis, etc.) for the facts therein, which say the same basic things in various ways. The premise of my article is also in keeping with a long held tenet in the Kabbalah tradition. What may be called "original" is that I have simply said that such things lie at the root of Bob's thinking and experience. I have been passing out that article for well over a decade, and have never had anybody even attempt to tell me that the facts are incorrect. They may not believe what I say, but the facts stand outside of being my mere opinion, as they also appear to be Bob's. He is the one who has praised Her in song.

So, here is my suggested form of the link:


 * "Come In, She Said, I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm" - discusses the Judeo-Christian feminine imagery in Bob Dylan's songs

That should all fit on one line. There are many places on the page where a link in blue is followed by a description in black (as I had it in the reposting). Just because the other Commentary links don't have the same format is irrelevant to me, as the same it seen throughout the page. So if that form is okay with you (and you are the only one who has ever complained about the title of my article being there), I will change it later today. Thank you. Anyone 7 10:00 am CST 23 September, 2005


 * That link form is fine, but could you please make the other links look similar? Uneven degrees of detail looks ugly. For example:


 * "Bob Dylan: Tangled Up In Jews" - discusses the influence of Judaism on Dylan


 * FWIW, what you describe above is almost exactly what the term "original research" means in a WP context. See WP:NOR.  Original research doesn't mean "false", or "without argument in support", it means non-consensus opinion advocated by one or a few people.  And as I wrote, that's what your article is The folks you cite as support do not themselves state: "I fully agree with Anyone"; you just feel implications can be drawn from their work.  But even if those few sources explicitly supported your essay, that's just a couple people, not consensus.  Not to belabor this point though, linking to original research is fine, at least in many cases, the restriction is on the WP text itself.  The other links in the same section are just the same in this regard. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Lulu, I added the suggested descriptions to the other links, trying to be accurate to their content. I hope the symmetry is more aesthetically pleasing to you. If you want to change those, no complaint from me. I wish I had a forum to take a poll and see if I could get a consenus on the content of my article. But I have had a lot of people visit the article from Wiki and others who borrow the content for their web sites, and none have e mailed me and said I'm crazy. In my personal experience in sharing the view with other Dylan listeners I have had quite a bit of positive input. So maybe we have a silent consensus here. May I be so bold as to invite you to e mail me at the address at my web site, and state your opinion on the content of the article. I mean, who was Bob talking about in "Shelter..." when he said, "If I could only turn back the clock to when God and Her were born...? Shalom. Anyone 7 4:35 pm CST 23 September, 2005

PS I like that you have put in the "Bob Dylan: Tangled Up In Jews" words. I missed it in your suggestion. Anyone 7 4:46 pm CST 23 September, 2005


 * Frankly, and not to start controversy, but I do not believe that this link should even be on this page. It starts with a collection of quotations from the bible, maybe some other religious texts as well. This first set of quotations has no explanation of how they relate to Bob Dylan's songs at all. It then has a collection of definitions to explain words in the previous quotes. After that, it has another group of quote, again with certain parts in bold, but no description of how they relate to dylan's songs. Finally, it has one paragraph describing some sort of relation between Shelter from the Storm and The Book of Proverbs, which doesnt make a whole lot of sense. (at least not to me, perhaps because i only skimmed through what was said further up in your article.) It then finishes with a couple more religious quotes, and two unexplained quotes from Bob Dylans songs. (These quotes seem to be speaking of Females in general, rather that divine beings personified as females, but again that is my opinion.) Just my two cents. -SECProto 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not very impressed with the linked article either. Like SECProto, I can't really make heads or tails of what the link is actually claiming (I skimmed too, but no thesis sentence jumped out).  But the standard for including a link to something are much lower than for text in the article body itself.  And there seem to be three other linked articles right next to the "Anyone" article that argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs and how those might have affected his songs.  I don't really think we'd be any worse off with that whole link subsection removed, but I think singling out Anyone's "analysis" for removal is asking for trouble. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As one who bends over to pick up pennies, SECProto's "two cents" are of value to me. The same with Lulu's input. Their main complaint seems to be with the format of my linked article, rather than the points brought out therein. But this is no surprise to me as SECProto states, "i only skimmed through what was said further up in your article." Likewise, Lulu says, "I skimmed too." So I cannot give them a passing grade on their reports of the article. SECProto also says,"doesnt make a whole lot of sense." Lulu similarly says, "I can't really make heads or tails of what the link is actually claiming." There are some very key sentences in the article which quite plainly state the relationship between Bob's songs and the Bible fact related in the article. If one does more that a cursive reading of the article, the point of how the Bible facts therein relate to Bob's song are quite apparent.

But I must admit that the article was somewhat brief in defining the relationship of the Bible quotes to Bob's song. This is due to the fact that it was first written to fit on one piece of paper folded into a booklet format. Due to your inputs I see that it could use some improvement, which I may attempt (as time allows). But I must say that there seems to be an underlying antipathy to anything in Bob's article that touches on religion. I say this because the article contained some wording that revealed that enmity. That is, the word "proselytizing" (or another form of the word) was used in describing Bob's so-called "Christian period." To many people the word "proselytizing" is a dirty word. There are many countries in this world which have laws against people proselytizing, some even pronouncing death upon those who engage in said activity. But for such a description to appear in Wiki in the context it was used only adds fuel to the fire of bigotry and close-mindedness.

As I am well aware (and as it appears that Dylan is also aware of this), some people just can't read anything from the Bible without having a mind blowing negative reaction. Nonetheless, Bob, evidently found such a comfort in reading the Bible and believing in God that he risked his career to proclaim his faith, no matter that people would do what he well portrays in his song, "I Believe in You" - "They show me to the door. They say 'don't back no more,' cause I don't be like they like me to..." It seems like I may be in a similar position here (as well as those others who have links under the Commentary section), for, of the Commentary section, Lulu says, "I don't really think we'd be any worse off with that whole link subsection removed." He further states, incorrectly, that, "seem to be three other linked articles right next to the 'Anyone' article that argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs and how those might have affected his songs." I cannot see how anyone one who has read the two other links to religious articles (one to a Jewish source, and one to a Christian source) can come to the conclusion that either my article or theirs in any way "argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs." Which of us is arguing against the others, or anyone else, for that matter? I am in harmony with the others' opinions, as far as they go. There is nothing in their articles that argues against my view. Sounds like someone may be, wittingly or unwittingly, stirring up trouble where none exists. As to the "Ambiguity..." link, I think it is an insult to Bob Dylan, but that is another matter. But, as Bob said in an interview in the 1960s when asked what he thought about those who give their commentary on his songs, "I welcome them....with open arms." So, maybe we should ask Bob about whether or not the Commentary section should be there, keeping in mind that he wrote, "Do you take me for such a fool to think I'd make contact with the one who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with." (Positively 4th Street). He never has been very tolerant of bigotry, has he?

So, if you want me to quote the sentences in my linked article that, to me, clearly express the meaning of it all, and how it relates to Bob's songs, I will - either privately through the e mail address on my web site, or here. Peace and Love, Anyone7, 4:29 CST, 9/27/2005


 * Thank you for taking my comments well. :) Now that the links have been sorted out, I actually have no problems with leaving a link to your article on this page. I only hope that your article could be expanded somewhat more to make more sense, I would recommend an essay-style of writing for simple ease of reading.


 * As Lulu said, singling out a single one of those group of links is not a good idea, and as Dylan did have religious beliefs, I feel the group of links would be better off staying in - They are well described, and if someone is doing further research into dylan's religion - i think they are useful. -SECProto 02:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Chill, Anyone7. Neither SECProto nor I are going to remove your link  My hunch is that different essays (as those linked) must differ in some respect, but if you say you wholly agree with both the other sites, fine by me.  I do tend to agree with SECProto's comment that your essay would be clearer if it was more essay styled: i.e. start with a thesis sentence summarizing the position(s) you hold, followed by evidence or argument for that position.  But I don't really care; you are more than welcome to put whatever material you like on your web site.


 * FWIW, I don't think of proselytic as a dirty word, and I ain't advocating execution, nor any harm, to anyone hereabouts, whether or not they are proselytic. Of course, neither am I going to believe anything that anyone proselytizes.  But in any case, my latest edit, at Monicasdude's suggestion, uses "evangelical" instead, which seems fine as an adjectvie. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on religious themes
I noticed that someone changed the Commentary title to "Commentary on Religious Themes." Is this appropriate as the link to the "ambiguity" article appears to be non-religious? Also, should someone else want to add some commentary of a non-religious nature, where would they put it? Therefore, I think the word "Commentary" would be better. Especially as each of the links now has its own description. I will not make the change back to what it was. But if the one who narrowed the section by adding the other words, wants to undo it, I do think it will be better. Anyone7 10:55 CST, 27 September 2005


 * "Commentary" by itself seems too generic. Just about everything linked to, in every heading, is commentary of some sort.  If you have an idea for a better characterization of what's common in the four links, please make the change. (though I do wish, Anyone7, that you'd register a regular account so the edits are easier to identify, and comments easier to sign; quite likely the username 'Anyone7' is available, or something else you like). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have an account under Anyone7, but I forget to log in under it each time. I must admit that I do not know how to properly use the account, and what to include in my account info. That is partially because the account page is corrupted on my screen, with words overlapping each other and the fillin boxes. That may be due to the fact that I am on a Mac. I have logged in when making edits, but not always for the Talk pages. How about "Commentary on Lyrics" or something to that effect. That seems to broaden the category to include non-religious commentary on Bob's lyrics (which is what the "Ambiguity" link is), while narrowing the section to comments on the lyrics, which seems to the nature of all the links. Anyone7 9:50 CST, 28 September 2005.