Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 5

Why no mention of Dylan and Chabad
It doesn't talk about Dylan's move to Judaism after Christianity.

Very Long/Breaks Needed
I feel that this is a very exhaustive article regarding Mr. Dylan but in my opinion I feel that it should be condensed. Also, some of the paragraphs are EXTREMELY long and could possibly be broken up into subparagraphs. Doing so would make the article more aesthetic and easier to read.Terrillwhite 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a Dylan scholar needs to come in and make breaks at once. Peak


 * Don’t agree. This article has just been through exhaustive review whether it’s still worthy of Featured Article status. Consensus verdict was ‘keep’ (by a slim majority). Review looked at structure, quality of prose etc. One comment by administrator Marskell was that some one sentence paragraphs should be eliminated, not that paragraphs were too long. See Comment of FA Review below. See box:This article was reviewed above. Mick gold 10:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't agree. I just had a bad experiance with the John Smith entry on Wikipedia.  It was all broken up into different periods, so instead of just reading one long article, I had to read four long articles.  If you think that breaking it up keep the fragments short, think again.  Infromed readers would take it upon themselves to expand each article and provide new information, so the articles would blow up at a quick rate.  By having a long article now, readers are less motivated to add small pieces of information then they would be if there were, say, six shorter articles detailing seperate periods of Mr. Dylan's life.  I think it should be kept the way it is.  -Notahippie76

POV and weasel terms
This article contains a lot of weasel terms ("acclaimed as perhaps the best American concert film yet produced", "considered his finest album by many fans" etc.), and without inline citations they look rather POV. There are also several statements, such as "A successful mix", "a highlight of the album", "accurately but prosaically titled" et al, that are unquestionably POV. Some of these statements introduce original research issues, like "He sang his songs with an arrogance and aggression that was anathema to the music industry of the time." Many of these need citations, and many need to be removed completely. Extraordinary Machine 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally disagree. If Wikipedia writers were to robotically adhere to these injunctions (which, by the way, are almost all subjective guidelines, *not policies*) no one would read our articles because they would have all the personality and sparkle of printouts produced by machine and proofed by hidebound comittees. Thank goodness we have writers willing to stand up to this sort of Sophist browbeating and to go on including interesting, insightful original prose. Yes, I said original. Many, like "Extraordinary Machine", conflate original prose with "original research" and are on a mission to destroy their mistaken target... Also, each and every thought in an article, particularly in a non-sci/tech article like this one, does not require a citation. To do so would be to compile towers of needless references that bloat the byte length and, when inline, seriously interfere with the movement of the eye along the line. The Wikipedia writer has room to bring in his own thoughts and observations, so long as they make no sweeping, value judgments on the subject's life and career divorced from the public's POV. In the total absence of these thoughts and observations, once again, you will end up with a lifeless document that literally may as well have been compiled by machine... Perhaps Extraodinary Machine, who is so concerned about being "encyclopedic", would do well to read and reflect upon the first sentence in Britannicaa's Dylan article, which reads: "Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing." Now-- you know Ex Mach and many others like him would jump all over that sentence if it had been written here rather than in the Enc. Brit., screaming POV! and deleting it until their index fingers went blue. Yet it is the lead in from the most recognized encyclopedia of our times. Really - think about it. Arts, Entertainment and Humanities subjects are qualitatively different from Science, Math, Tech and the other subjects Wikipedia first cut its teeth on. Let's show some subtlety and intelligence here. JDG 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedic Britannica comparison of Dylan to Shakespeare would probably be considered POV by a handful of people until a reference was cited, which could be easily done, then no one would touch it. As a matter of fact, you just cited a reference, so post it if you don't believe me. As for the rest of the excerpt, do you consider "Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing" to be objective facts or "interesting, insightful original prose"? Looking at the recent history of this article, I see that your major contributes to it lately have been deleting readers' requests for citations, and have even gone so far as to delete citations people have provided. All I can say is if you don't like Wikipedia's policy on original research, stop trolling and try Geocities; the username dylanisg0d!!! might still be available. Roballyn 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just a silly response and I should let it stew and stink in isolation. But I have to point out that the portion of the Enc. Brit. quote that, more than any other portion, would bring on the withering attacks of the OR fanatics is "set the standard for lyric writing". A simple, honest and true statement like that would never survive in Wikipedia because of these people, unless it were in the form of a quote frm a recognized authority (in other words, one of these hallowed "citations"). But Wikipedia is not, and should not be, Wikiquote, so stop trolling to make it so... Your 'Tangled Up In Blue' reaction, described by you below, is even more ridiculous. I never asserted that I, JDG, declare "Tangled' one of Dylan's 3 best songs. I wrote that it is included in many lists, formal and informal, as among the top 3. I have seen so many editors like "Roballyn", who otherwise seem possessed of generally normal intelligence, suddenly lose their ability to reason when this issue comes 'round. For the hundredth time: this is not the editor describing or putting forth his own position&mdash;it is the editor describing the public's, or a particular audience's position, as documented in citable sources... Finally, on the dylanisg0d tripe: If you cared to isolate my contributions to this article (including attempted contributions) you would find some of the most critical statements of both the man and his work made during the article's construction. Some of them were summaries of professional criticism and, yes, some sprung from what I am calling "original prose". It's a shame most of these statements have been shown the off-ramp.... And finally finally, I invite you to submit this article for peer review and for reconsideration as a FA. Like many before you, you'll be roundly rebuffed. This article, due primarily to user:GWO, was one of the first non sci/tech FA, has been included in every stable WP release, and is among the top 5 or so of all WP articles in positive reviews/mentions outside of WP. Good luck. JDG 11:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to agree. I remember reading on here that "Tangled Up In Blue" is considered to be one of Dylan's three best songs and thinking what a silly statement that was. I really believe that this article should be peer reviewed and reconsidered for featured article status, mainly because I'd personally like to see it cleaned up a little bit. I've seen people complain that certain statements in this article don't do their subject justice. That's not really the point here. This isn't dylanisgod.geocities.com. Roballyn 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These comments were a trifle less nice than they could have been. Reasoned discourse, everyone please. -  brenneman  {L} 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obviously Wikipedia has changed somewhat since Mr.Dylan's article reached prominence. Today's editors have hammered out guidelines and policies to fit a wide range of articles. One of the mainstays is WP:V which states, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Briefly, if a statement appears in an article which an editor is fairly sure has never been published, then said editor may remove the unpublished statement. An alternative is to place (Citation needed) immediately after the questionable statement. Another alternative is to copy and paste the statement to the discussion page for discussion and citing. This is insurance of good, reliable information. This is also insurance against individuals coming to Wikipedia to toot their own horn. In this Dylan article, for example, WP:V would prevent a close friend of Dylan's from editing the article and inserting unpublished, unknown information about him. It also acts as a brake to personal Crusades by an editor who would exaggerate good information. Terryeo 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

were there any important non-white songwriters?
The opening section compares Dylan to Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie, and Hank Williams. I'm not a musicologist but (weasel term) it seems to me (/weasel term) that have been a few important musicians that were not white. Shouldn't we add someone like Muddy Waters or Miles Davis to the comparison to broaden the scope and avoid ethnocentrism? -Tom


 * I agree. When Dylan published his "Writings and Drawings" volume in 1972, he dedicated it to two people: Woody Guthrie and Robert Johnson. Mick gold 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement currently reads "His enduring contributions to American song are often compared, in fame and influence, to those of Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie and Hank Williams." What all of those artists (except Williams, to my knowledge) have in common is that they have single-handedly penned several songs that are American standards today. Although Waters, Davis, and Johnson are certainly influential, their work is known primarily among enthusiasts and fellow musicians, while just about every child in America knows at least one song by Foster, Berlin, and Guthrie. Besides, the point of the statement is not to promote the artists mentioned, but to make a point about Dylan's music. Plugging more names into it "to broaden the scope and avoid ethnocentrism" is definitely ill-advised. Roballyn 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. JDG 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You suggest the reason that Foster and Berlin are listed is that "every child in America knows at least one song by Foster, Berlin...". But how many of those children (and adults) of America could tell you that Foster and Berlin were the ones who wrote the songs. We are currently assuming readers will realize who those people are and the magnitude of their work by name association, not by having them listen to and recognize a musical tune they wrote. Since we are listing names of musicians, and not providing audio samples, I think Miles Davis would be a better inclusion. I think far more people know the NAME "Miles Davis", even if those same people know more melodies by Foster or Berlin. -Tom


 * I was just about to bring up the exact same point. I've never even heard of irving berlin and stephen foster outside this article - looking at theirs, I certainly recognize some of their songs, but i would never have connected their songs with there name. SECProto 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said, "the point of the statement is not to promote the artists mentioned, but to make a point about Dylan's music." Name recognition is not important here. The reader is not assumed to know any more about the artists mentioned than they are to know about Dylan himself. What do you think this article and all its blue words are for? ;) Look, if you really want to see non-write musician on the list, you might want to start by suggesting an actual songwriter known for one of more songs, like Ray Charles or Bob Marley. I don't know how much you know about jazz, but I can assure you, comparing Dylan to Davis is like comparing Kurt Cobain to Mozart. Roballyn 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The reader is not assumed to know any more about the artists mentioned than they are to know about Dylan himself." So what's the point of listing the names at all then? If there's a good chance, as you acknowledge, that the reader doesn't even know who the people we are comparing Dylan to are, why make a comparrison at all? I thought a comparrison served the purpose of given context. It seems pointless to give context if the context being developed is unknown, or unnecesarily esoteric. You're right, I don't listen to much jazz, but I still know who Miles Davis is, unlike Foster or Berlin. Maybe the difference of opinion here is because I'm looking at the opening as a way of suggesting that Dylan played a strong role in transforming our music and culture, while others are suggesting he writes catchy songs that we whistle at work. Is the primary impact of Dylan a cannon of recognizable songs, or the lasting effect of those songs on music and culture in general? -Tom


 * I realize what the blue words are for, and I find them very helpful and engaging. But I think the average reader should be able to get through the first three lines of an article without having to read several background articles. -Tom


 * "You're right, I don't listen to much jazz, but I still know who Miles Davis is, unlike Foster or Berlin." I don't want to seem insulting, but pretty much anyone with even a passing knowledge of pop music knows who Stephen Foster and Irving Berlin are.  I don't know where you get the idea that most people will need to read several background articles for those names to ring a bell. Carlo 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. People know their music but not who they are by. The artists have made contributions but their names haven't stuck with the music. They are poor comparisons. SECProto 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of Foster and I have no real idea of Berlin. Looking at their articles, I can understand the reason why this is. I am equally uncertain of what constitutes an "American standard". I do know that Dylan's influence extended far outside of his own country and that his style was (and still is) somewhat unique — although heavily influenced by Guthrie by his own admission. Comparing him with Foster and Berlin or, indeed, limiting any comparison to only American artists would not be to this article's benefit. -- Alias Flood 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dylan's influence did indeed extended far beyond his "own country" and heavily influenced The Beatles, John Lennon in particular. Lion King 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as someone once said, "Show me someone that's not a parasite and I'll go out and say a prayer for him". -- Alias Flood 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah and like Louise always says, you can't look at much can you man as she herself prepares for him. Lion King 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think the average educated American should have some sense of who Irving Berlin and Stephen Foster are. If they don't, it certainly is no hardship to click on the blue words to find out, especially if they are considered important enough to place in the opening lines of the article!  I agree that the recognition of Dylan's music is more comparable with recognition of Berlin's or Foster's than with that of Davis.  It makes no sense to include a less-valid comparison simply for the sake of having a token non-white on the list. Applejuicefool 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bonjangles
There are many songs of Dylan's that are not on Wikipedia. Mr. Bojangles is one of them. Someone should write an article for this an many of his other songs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhoff (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 July 2006.
 * Sorry to inform you-- Mr. D. did not write "Mr. Bojangles", nor "Stuck In The Middle With You", nor "Eve of Destruction", nor "Mellow Yellow". JDG 12:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But unlike the others, he actually sung them. Unfair comparison. SECProto 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

NNPOV tag
It looks like we need a little vote here. Should the NNPOV tag be kept or removed? JDG

KEPT

REMOVED
 * JDG - The editor who placed the tag really wants Wikipedia to be Wikiquote. There is still a place for original prose in Wikipedia, without every single word built upon a citation. That is the composition style that has made Wikipedia a household word and we should stick with it.


 * Mick gold - The prose style is suited to the subject. The line about " Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" (struck listeners as somehow new and ancient simultaneously) says something arresting about the song which helps to explain Dylan's originality as a writer. The biographical info is solid. Mick gold 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Carlo 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Some people think "neutrality" means using no adjectives at all.


 * Lion King 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Agree with Carlo 100%.

Thanks ppl. 4-0, tag is outta there (btw, I should have dated the original posting of this informal poll-- it's been up for over 48 hours now...) JDG 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are probably four or five big banner disclaimers that could be fairly applied to the article; I'm not sure that there is a Wikipedia content policy that this article isn't violating. That said, I'm dubious about the value of big disclaimer banners that no one actually intends to do anything about, and the article remains significantly better than a number of comparable ones.  Jkelly 23:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In re this, I'd like to mention that I'm not invested in the tag staying there. I actually removed a tag for which there was no discussion, and replaced another tag with the  because that seemed to be what the discussion was about.  Jkelly 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like one or more anon hooliganish guys came arounnd and put up two tags, NNPOV and WEASEL, and you decided to blow away one and keep weasel. On the strength of the vote above, I think it's fair to have no such tags at present... About your "there are probably four of five big banner disclaimers that could be fairly applied to the article"... which ones, and why? This article has been cited for excellence many times over and I really don't see these violations. The biggest drawback right now is the lack of new-style references (with the tag), but that will be addressed shortly. The article was selected by committee for inclusion in the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia, pretty much the highest accolade an article can receive. Only a subset of FAs are selected for this release, so the selection of Bob Dylan makes this a kind of beyond-FA article. Hard to argue with that... In light of these facts and on the authority of the poll above, I'm again removing the current (weasel) tag put there by SECProto.. SEC, two tags (NNPOV and weasel) were put there by anon fly-by-nighters. JKelly knocked it down to one and says he is "not invested in the tag staying there". If you want to go against the Version 0.5 committee and the voters above, you're free to put it back. But I would expect an in-depth account here describing your reasoning. JDG 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't give a damn about the tag i just thought you were removing it on faulty reasoning, this is fine by me :). The external links on the other hand... SECProto 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for banner tags, I'd suggest that, , , , and could all conceivably be stacked at the top of this article with justification.  I'm not going to do it, largely because I don't think that they are helpful in general, and especially in the specific.  Incidentally, I am under the impression that the 0.5 criteria is the importance of the subject, not the quality of the article.  I am certain that articles that are not FAs have a 0.5 template on them (see Talk:Republic of Ireland for instance).  Jkelly 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Verifiability and Neutral point of view are official policies; if you think they are "Sophist browbeating", then feel free to explain why on the associated talk pages. I do not believe each and every thought or word needs an inline citation, or that Wikipedia should turn into Wikiquote (quotes can be paraphrased anyway), but I do think that statements like "Humor was a large part of Dylan's persona" certainly do need citing. Who said this? Was it Dylan himself, a friend or family member, a biographer? We're not supposed to "bring in our own thoughts and observations"; that's original research. If the weasel and peacock terms present on this article really do reflect "the public's, or a particular audience's position, as documented in citable sources", then it shouldn't at all be difficult to cite reliable sources supporting them. Otherwise, stuff like "playful sense of humor that has often reappeared over the years" and "Whether through necessity or opportunism, Dylan used an extended convalescence to escape the pressures of stardom" looks like the author's own interpretations of events in Dylan's life and career.
 * What the Encyclopedia Britannica has written about Dylan is neither here nor there in the development of this article. NPOV is a key policy on Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable: we're here to present the facts in an unbiased and neutral way. You have no right to tell readers of this article that Dylan is an "undeniably a fine interpreter of traditional songs" or that Blonde on Blonde is a "classic record" and "a successful mix". I don't think anybody likes having somebody's personal opinion (and yes, that is just opinion) being presented as fact; it's at best presumptuous, and at worst insulting. We've managed to create some truly excellent articles that abide by this policy, and I don't see why this article (or any about arts-related topics) should be treated differently just because of the subject matter. Statements like "Hard-working elder statesman" are simply unacceptable. NPOV is also a requirement for any featured article; if the article stays as it is, it will likely be defeatured and have a lower chance of appearing on any future physical release of Wikipedia. If you want it to be kept featured, I think you should accept that it is not up to FA standard in its current state. Extraordinary Machine 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Disc jockey
Minor edit to the all important opening sentence. Bob is currently a disc jockey. I added this to what he is. Someone took it off. Why? 86.139.53.220 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who took it off, it might have been me. This is because he is not best know for being a disc jockey - it's not where he got his start or what he is most famous for. Many famous people might take up celebrity golfing when they get older, but it's not what they're most known for, so it wouldn't say that in their introduction. Equally, he is not best known for his disc jockeying, so it doesn't really belong in the introduction. SECProto 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with SecProto. Bob Dylan is, and has been, many things, but you don't need to mention them all in the opening sentence.  The opening sentence (I'm just pondering here) should really sum up why this person is being included in Wikipedia, ie what is notable about him, and everything else should get shunted to the body of the article.  Of course, I'm saying this without having consulted the official WP policies on intro text, but I imagine that this is a reasonable rule-of-thumb.  After all, if Bob had retired and was now working as a bank teller, we wouldn't describe him as "an American singer-songwriter, author, musician, poet and bank teller".  Leeborkman 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

References, etc
This article is a complete mess. it has almost no references, changing the header for the list of books about Dylan won't wash. WP:BIO requires that sources for derogatory comments about living people be well-sourced and cited, saying that BD stole records from his friends and didnt live up on his record contract are derogatory. Way too many value judgements and statements of opinion. Way too many examples of "facts" that are argued about, and prolly dozens of errors. All of this has been discussed on the talk page before. Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove the "derogatory comments" instead of just putting by them? As I said, they are in chronicles.SECProto 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, removing unsourced defamatory statements from biographies of living people is an obligation. The removals in question didn't strike me as particularly defamatory, but unsourced statements of any kind really don't belong in an article.  Jkelly 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, right, that whole seigenthaler thing. I agree that the article needs inline references, but I specifically remember those two "derogatory" comments being made by bob dylan himself, in chronicles. I haven't read the book in a year and a half so i dunno where in it they were said, but alas. SECProto 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't wikiquote. If you're unfamiliar with some of the more frequently referenced works in this article, perhaps you should find articles in which you have greater expertise.  Direct citations after every statement would make this article a mockery of the featured article it once was.  I'd completely revert all of these references, particularly since they are hindering more progress in the article, but I don't want to establish an all-out edit war.
 * But seriously - educate yourself before you start this - Bob Dylan openly admits to "borrowing" records on last year's documentary. It is also very accurate to say that he did not live up to his record contract.  This, in fact, is why the 1973 album "Dylan" was released of mostly outtakes - to fulfill his contract by releasing a final album.
 * And if this is some personal battle between you and JDG, as it would seem from below, please take this to some video game, or something else - this is no place for it.
 * --RandomPrecision 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. Jkelly 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the time to treat all the inline external links with the {cite web} template and created a references section with the references tag. In the process I discovered that a lot of the citations provided were irrelevant to whatever statement they were supposedly citing, so not all of them are useful. I would review them more thoroughly, but I think I'd rather work on appling needed citations, so if somebody else is up to the task we would all appreciate it. Roballyn 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayshus what have I done? I made a statement on some page where this Harmonica Wolfowitz guy hangs out and now we have another banshee, with no respect for all the voters who elevated this article to FA, on the loose. H. Wolf-- this article is not a mess. All it needs is its old-style refs brought into line with the new tagging style. Please don't tear through the article making off-the-cuff changes: see WP:BB (which, while generally encouraging boldness, also says "...making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea."). You, H. Wolf, may not agree with its FA status, but show some respect for the dozens of Wikipedians who gave it that status and who have gone on to include it in fixed releases. Thx. JDG 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't you the one who said that "towers of needless references" would "bloat the byte length and, when inline, seriously interfere with the movement of the eye along the line"? Either way, does your new attitude towards citations mean you'll stop deleting the ones provided? Roballyn 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP:BB page says it is "often" a bad idea to make large-scale changes to featured articles, not "always". Editors being bold on this article is probably the best way it can improve (possibly maintaining its FA status in the process), and users doing so should be applauded, not chastised. Extraordinary Machine 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image removed
I've removed the fair use promotional photo Image:Bob Dylan by Daniel Kramer.jpg again, because an image under a free license has been located. Per Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Extraordinary Machine 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And has restored it again . No, we haven't already "been through this"; that the copyright holder for this photo said its presence on the article was flattering  is unrelated to the project's image copyright policies. Actually, not only does this photo not qualify as "fair use", but it has no information its copyright status. So, I've removed it again. Extraordinary Machine 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a freely-licensed image of Dylan. In fact, we have multiple freely-licensed images. Per WP:FUC #1, any unfree image is subject to deletion. Jkelly 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The quality of the article comes before legal nit-picking. The photo you keep changing to is from a distance and uninteresting. The photo everybody else (excepting JKelly) wants is a famous close-up we are lucky to have as fair-use. Changing. JDG 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't "legal nit-picking"; we're trying to build a free-content encyclopedia. See Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 15:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This new image of Dylan is too far away, unflattering, and very uninteresting. If I saw that picture on it's own and not on this page I wouldn't have even known it was him.  It looks more like Daniel Johnston.--Hypermagic 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a free alternative photograph? free being the key word? SECProto 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can people stop arguing and achieving nothing and instead help me find a modern, flattering photo for the top? The man's still alive, so surely people want to see what Bob IS as well as WAS? I typed some random names of artists who were more famous early in their careers, look at Johnny Cash, Paul McCartney or Jerry Lee Lewis. Even if the closer to the present, flattering photo isn't the head one, it's still there. May I point out that I've even got two dead musicians here? Levi allemany 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The modernity of the photo, while quite important, is not what anyone was arguing about. You have not asked anyone to help locate a picture in the recent past, and you were not being very civil right here. I would consider that escalating the argument on this page, I believe you should have asked politely if anyone could help and they probably would have. Needless to say, I will look around for a picture! :) SECProto 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken about subject - but I did ask recently and nobody did. Look at archive 4 right near the bottom, about three or four from the end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Dylan/archive_4 86.141.134.41 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding freely-licensed images
I've looked in the obvious places. I suggest that the Dylan fans here ask around on email lists and message boards for someone willing to license concert photographs under a free, reusable license. The copyright holder can email permissions AT wikimedia.org to verify their licensing if they don't want to get an account. Templates for request letters can be found at Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture needs to be changed. There are several "early" Dylan photos, but none of the 65-66 era. Best to represent his most famous period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.221.137 (talk • contribs)

So long folks.
We have an Administrator abusing his powers here, but I'm in no condition to bring action against him. My only alternative is to steer clear of this article. Good luck folks. JDG 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no administrator abusing powers here. your condition seems like a copout. SECProto 11:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with JDG - this has become a farce. Lion King 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your complaint? Jkelly 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE tells how to ask for citations. User:Jkelly did not follow policy appropriately. That single editor has several hardworking editors confused. At this editing difference: User:Jkelly inserted 89 "citation needed" stickers in two edits. Those edit summaries are, and state: 10:41, 3 August 2006 Jkelly (Talk | contribs) m (+)  and 10:48, 3 August 2006 Jkelly (Talk | contribs) (merging several different cleanups lost in reversions w current revision). User:Jkelly, I flunk you. Read the appropriate guideline which I have stated in this edit. I am removing all of your citation needed stickers. Should you choose to ask for citations, do so appropriately. Which, in this case means one or two at a time, the text which you wish to see a citation for placed here on the discussion page for discussion. By your single action you have brought into confusion and question, an article which has been widely regarded by several sources as being a high quality, Wikimedia article. Terryeo 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Harmonica Wolfowitz added those citation needed tags in this edit. You're looking at a complex revert of mine.  I'd like to mention, however, that this article is currently undergoing a Featured article review, and to encourage editors to examine recent Featured article candidates to observe what the current expectation of referencing is.  Jkelly 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you are responsive. I see that your editing difference does show a large number of citation needed tags added. Why didn't you simply point to the procedure for requesting a citation which my previous-to-this-posting points to and removed all 89 tags?  The tag, after all, has a specific purpose and article disruption is not the purpose.  The purpose is to ask for a citation or two, not to disrupt an otherwise fine article. I'm glad you took responsibility for what appeared to be your insertion of 89 'citation needed' sticker, but please leave them out and insist that an editor who requests a citation do so by approved procedures rather than by disrupting an article. Terryeo 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing inherently disruptive about asking for a citation for every expression of personal opinion during an article review. There is no "approved procedure" other than seeing something that needs citing and asking for a cite.  I don't think that the tags should be removed, which is why I included them in that complex revert, and why I reverted your stripping of them.  Instead of worrying about whether the tags were applied correctly, it would be a lot more productive to track down references for statements like "his songwriting is generally held as his highest accomplishment".  That should be relatively easy to source.  Jkelly 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However easy they are to source, most of the requests for citations are inappropriate or unnecessary. Furthermore, statements that do need sources have been overlooked, so I'm begin to wonder if whomever added those tags had any idea what they were doing. I doubt that anybody is going to verify literally dozens (more than a hundred before Carlo plucked out the more trivial ones) of one person's demands for citations with no explaination or constructive criticism. Roballyn 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may add my two cents - don't all those books listed on the bottom for "further reading" cover a lot of it? Carlo 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As one of the early authors, and the only one to stick with the article all the way from `02 to `06, I admit it has needed a sourcing overhaul for quite a while. But this should, without doubt, be happening in a /temp directory. Somebody above mentioned "all the tools being all over the place". Well then the light should be tuned on inside and the garage door closed. It's like changing one's clothes in public. Hundreds of people are reading this while this is going on... Also, it seems that whenever the new sourcing occasions a rewrite of a sentence or paragraph, the writing is quite shaky.. But all-in-all I do wish you success. I must admit it was overdue. JDG 18:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Can I ask why "citations are needed" for statements that have been pretty much done to death in every single book ever written on the subject? Do we REALLY need a "citation," for instance, for the young Dylan adopting a Huck Finn persona, and telling tall tales about what he'd done? Doesn't everybody KNOW that? Can we at least assume that regular editors of an article have read one book on the subject? The article looks like crap with "citation needed" plopped at the end of every sentence. Carlo 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. SECProto and Roballyn are outright vandalizing under the approving gaze of JKelly and Ex. Mach.. Painful to watch. JDG 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalizing? Wow. Then please, by all means, turn me in. In the meantime, if improving this article is too painful to watch then stop watching it. We're tired of hearing you talk about what a great article it is everytime somebody complains about how bad it is, which is almost daily. If my car breaks down and the mechanic tells me a lot of work needs to be done, telling him all the compliments I get about it isn't going to matter much. Instead, we're getting the thing fixed, and that requires there to be tools and parts scattered about the garage. It will be worth it in the end. Roballyn 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I didn't know that. You can't assume readers have read any of the bios published on him. After all, they're coming here to learn about him. However, you might want to bring up your question on WP:CITE's talk page. My grad school training on citing sources was that if it was in at least 3 reputable books I didn't need to cite it as it can be assumed to be common knowledge. I have no idea if WP follows the same rule of thumb, so you might want to ask there. plange 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Readind WP:CITE it looks somewhat ambiguous. But it implies that cites are needed for opinions, or for info that someone is likely to dispute.  The "citations needed" in this article often do not fall under those categories, like my example above. Carlo 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, many of the "citations needed" are unnessary. I was actually surprised that a lot of the statements that could be disputed were looked over. For instance, "Dylan and Lownds divorced in July 1977, though they reportedly remained in regular contact for many years and, by some accounts, even to the present day." Statements like this (weasel words, probably rumors, and unencyclopedic) are the reason why the POV of this article is being disputed in the first place. I think whomever put all those {fact} temps there should explain his/her criteria for including them if they want to keep them there. Roballyn 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the "citations needed" tags in if I saw a factual dispute in the history, if the statement appeared unlikely or needed clarification, or if the statement mixed fact and opinion. I hoped editors would go through them and clean the article up. Good work is going on now, in reaction to it. I think lots more work needs to be done, especially (like I think somebody else said) in making sure the citations match up to the text (Example: the Masked&Anonymous review reference, where the page cited shows the majority of critics had mixed reactions, not overwhelming bad reviews). The problem with mixed fact and opinion isn't really being fixed yet, citing one review doesn't make one critic's opinion a fact. If I googled "Dylan best album" I could probably find a valid cite for a dozen different albums, but the article would really be silly if I put them all in. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion here: I do a lot of reviewing at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Because Wiki has come under such intense media scrutiny since the Siegenthaler incident, readers need to be able to locate a source for every claim we make. No, IMO we shouldn't assume any facts are a given, and if something is in 3 books anyway, it's not hard to cite. I never knew Dylan assumed a Huck Finn persona, and that is exactly the sort of thing I would want to see cited, because Wiki has been such a source for fueling rumors and speculation. (Wiki conferred upon one controversial political figure a Master's Degree he never had, and no one noticed for several years. Since seeing that, I say everything should be cited.)  Wiki readers shouldn't be asked to "take our word for it", even less so when considering that anyone can edit here. Wiki has to have a higher standard on referencing that other information sources, because anyone can edit. Also, I've found that as soon as an article is scrupulously referenced, vandalism and nonsense edits decline, as new editors see the level of referencing required. Personal life, details about divorce? Absolutely need to be cited, because it's personal details that are too easy to get wrong and can be too damaging. I like to see everything cited except "the sky is blue". That's what I'll be looking for on the FAR. Hope this helps, Sandy 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by the great mess this article has become. By adding roughly 80 x [citation needed] the article looks like a joke. I’m puzzled for 2 reasons.

I looked at Miles Davis, another Featured Article about a major figure in 20th century culture. It’s a good article but it has dozens of sentences that could be regarded as opinion and yet there is not one [citation needed]. For example:

“The quintet’s approach to improvisation came to be known as “time no changes” or “freebop”, because while they retained a steady pulse, they abandoned the chord-change-based approach of bebop for a modal approach.”

I think that’s good, but why does it not need a citation and yet we have [citation needed] next to: “Dylan’s 1978 album Street Legal” was lyrically one of his more complex and absorbing.” ?

The second reason I’m puzzled is that 90% of the [citation needed] can be answered by reference to one of the major Dylan biographies: Sounes, 2001, and Heylin, 2003.

To take 4 random examples from the article:

1. “Street Legal… suffered from a poor sound mix (attributed to his studio recording practices).” [citation needed] Heylin, 2003, pp 480-1 details the defective recording technique of this album.

2. “That summer Dylan stoked the drama of his legacy by performing with…Mike Bloomfield, guitar, Sam Lay, drums, Jerome Arnold, bass, plus Al Kooper, organ, and Barry Goldberg, piano. [citation needed]” Heylin, 2003, pp 208-216 tells the oft repeated story of Dylan’s 1965 Newport set.

3. “The relaxed atmosphere (of Big Pink) yielded renditions of many of Dylan’s favored old songs and some newly-written piece. [citation needed]” Sounes, 2001, pp 222-5 tells the very familiar tale of the Basement Tapes.

4. “In August 1965, at Forest Hills Tennis Stadium, the group was heckled by an audience who… still demanded the acoustic troubadour of previous years; their reception on September 3rd at the Hollywood Bowl was more uniformly favorable. [citation needed]” Sounes, 2001, pp 189-90 details the Forest Hills and Hollywood Bowl concerts.

If we’re talking about critical evaluation of Dylan’s songs, then Ricks, 2003, and Gray, 2006, contain many insight into lyrics that correspond to this article. For example:

5. “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall marked an important new direction in modern songwriting, blending a stream-of-consciousness, imagist lyrical attack with time-honoured folk traditions to create a sound a sense that struck listeners as somehow new and ancient simultaneously. [citation needed]”

Ricks, 2003, pp 329-44 contains this insight and many more.

6. “The Brechtian influenced The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll, a highlight of the album, describes a young socialite’s killing of a hotel maid. Never explicitly mentioning race, the song leaves no doubt that the killer is white, the victim black. [citation needed]”

Ricks, 2003, pp 221-233 makes this point and many others.

Would 80 references to the works of Heylin and Sounes and Ricks enhance the authority of this article? I’m not sure. I’ve added 10 web-based references to this article in the last week but indexing Sounes and Heylin and Ricks may be a step too far. When this article was externally reviewed by The Guardian on 24 October 2005, Derek Barker, editor of leading Dylan magazine Isis rated it 8/10. That shows it’s factually solid.

btw, I’m not brilliant at footnote software but if anyone wants to turn the above points into footnotes for the article, they’re welcome.

I must acknowledge the points Sandy makes above answers some of my puzzlement. (I was writing this while he posted)

Mick gold 06:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm... interesting.... within 5 minutes of my posting this, someone (Plange) had turned them into references... I'll do more when I get the time... or Plange do you want to contact me & I'll give you more references? Mick gold 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Was just trying to help out since you were so kind as to give sources :-) That's the kind of thing needed and I was hoping that by me doing those it would show how you (or other editors of this article) how to go about adding references. I'm not really an editor for this article but an outside person watching the progress. plange 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thanks :-) Mick gold 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great job so far! Thank you for stepping into a situation that seemed to be at a stalmate and taking ownership! Let me know if you come across an instance where you need to cite from the same pages in two separate places and I can show you a handy shortcut for attributing. Keep up the good work, you might save this from being an FARC! plange 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your intervention was v helpful & constructive. Can you do anything to address the point Sandy makes below (Work on references) re: Ref 1 BBC website? I'm not sure I understand his point. thanks again! Mick gold 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, in fact I already did it after seeing Sandy's note. Sorry I should have noted that :-) plange 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah, you did, that was quick, you must have done it while I blinked, :-)Mick gold 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

More notes: please don't compare to any other current FA. Standards have changed, articles deteriorate, and the FA process allows some articles through that don't meet criteria.

Also, if one book can be used to reference a number of statements, easy: do it. Using named refs makes it very easy to repeat references. End of problem. Don't assume the Wiki reader has read the book: tell them exactly where to find the info.

Why do you need a referece for “Dylan’s 1978 album Street Legal” was lyrically one of his more complex and absorbing.” ? Because that is obviously a POV statement. We need to know if a reliable source said those words; that is, we need a reference, or else the statement is original research and POV. Sandy 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate. Jkelly 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro lead paragraph WP:V - fixed
I fixed the lead. It now gives the reader an objective sign of Dylan's "stature" as somebody wanted, but it does it with statemetns of fact not unsourced opinions. I didn't put inline cites in because in other articles no citation of individual awards is needed when the award statement is directly linked to a well-referenced WP page about the award. If that's not OK I'll fix it again. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You destroyed the lead. Dylan doesn't get his stature from the "Polar Music Award" and Time magazine. The comparison to Foster and others was perfect. JDG 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * saying he destroyed the lead is a bit extreme - i think you are the only one who was genuinely satisfied with an unsourced comparison to those people. I'm not saying that the new one is perfect either though - some musicians have won dozens of awards and are hardly notable at all. SECProto 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Work on references
I noticed lots of progress ! A couple of comments:


 * The first reference currently used is from BBC: that's good.  But the unfortunate use of cite web obscures the fact that a good reference is used.  It comes across in the footnotes as a generic website, rather than a reliable news source.  That footnote should give (for example) an author (if available), publication date (BBC always provides), and be refd to BBC news.  Using cite news in place of cite web will make the reliability of your sources more apparent to reviewers.  I don't like to have to click on a reference to find out if it's a personal website or a reliable source, so please expand citations to full bibliographic style, and use cite news or better templates where appropriate.  The strength of your sources will be more apparent if you use a complete bibliographic style.  It'stroubling to see BLPs referenced to personal and non-reliable sources, and full entries will remove that doubt.
 * Done! plange 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There appears to be quite a link farm in External links: can that be pared down, per WP:EL and WP:NOT ?  Sandy 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the crucial ones are Bobdylan.com (Official website with lyrics), Expecting Rain (Dylan related news stories & events updated daily), and Bob Links (Comprehensive log of concerts & set lists) These 2 sites contain myriad links & portals to other sites. I would be happy to delete the others.Mick gold 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I pared it down some, no doubt quite a few of the links are still unnecessary - I think the ones I would add to your list are the two links under the heading "chords and lyrics" as they contain very useful information not found on the other sites. SECProto 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I agree, I've deleted the others, best wishes Mick gold 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan in Reform School?
I recently read a book "Redwing, A Year And A Day" written by a former inmate of a juvenile reformatory in Minnesota. It contained a chapter that details Bob Dylan's arrival there in 1958. This is the first time I had read anything of this nature with regard to his formative years in Minnesota. Could this be Dylan's deep, dark secret of his past and troubled teenage years? My research concerning his life story indicates that this may be something of a revelation. My question would be: Why was this brief period of Dylan's young life not revealed in any previous publication? Perhaps the author (Larry Haugen) could shed some light on this (apparently unauthorized) version of a young Bob Dylan. It would seem to me, that without the inclusion of that portion of his life, any biographical (or autobiographical) account of his life is incomplete.

Macredenbacher 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Mac Redenbacher

Clinton Heylin (Bob Dylan, Behind the Shades Revisited, 2003) writes that Dylan may have spent time at a "country club reform school" in Pennsylvania called Devereaux in the summer of 1959. Heylin thinks this episode may have inspired Dylan's song 'The Walls of Redwing' which was recorded for Freewheelin' and released on Dylan's Bootleg Series Vol. 1 -3 (1991). In his liner notes for the Bootleg album, John Bauldie says it's definite Dylan never spent time in Redwing, though Heylin claims Dylan told Al Aronowitz he'd served time in Redwing. (Heylin, p 27-28) The lyrics of 'The Walls of Redwing' can be found on Dylan's website www.bobdylan.com  Mick gold 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * btw "Redwing, A Year and a Day" is self-published by Lulu Publishing, they describe the book as "a novel based on a true story" whatever that might mean.  Mick gold 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hattie Carroll & Christopher Ricks
Dear Extraordinary Machine, I’ve reverted the lines about Dylan’s song The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll to their previous formulation because I don’t think your version is quite right. A lot of critics have written about the racial aspect of the song and how it is implicit in the narrative. The point has been made by Gray, Heylin and Marqusee to name just 3 of the critics cited in references and further reading. People have commented on it before Christopher Ricks’s book and after Christopher Ricks’s book. I think it’s valid to suggest that the song works in this way and then give a concrete citation to Ricks because his discussion of the racial angle of Hattie Carroll is particularly good. But to attribute the idea to Ricks alone – as you do in your version – distorts this point. I could also give citations for 5 critics who have called Hattie Carroll a highlight of Dylan’s song-writing career, so I think it is valid to call it a highlight of the album. I've addded some further thoughts on the note I've posted on your User page. Best wishes Mick gold 09:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but it would be more in line with Wikipedia policy to introduce the statement with "many sources wrote that the song...". The song's lyrics are still being interpreted by these people, and it's more opinion than fact that they are about race (the article says it doesn't mention race); therefore, we can't simply state that "the song leaves no doubt that the killer is white, the victim black".
 * Providing there's a reference, it's fine to say critics consider the song a highlight of the album; it's not fine, however, to say that it is a highlight of the album, because again it's opinion rather than fact. See Neutral_point_of_view. The same things applies with calling Dylan "hard-working". I left the "elder statesman" statement in because I didn't really know what that meant (or that it implied a POV), but I suppose would make just as much sense to change the header to something like "Later career". Extraordinary Machine 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * HA...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAA!!!!!THAT IS HILARIOUS!Dylan in Reform school?Fuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.179.107 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Theme Time Radio Hour?
Someone has posted a list of the episodes Dylan has aired on his radio show. Since Dylan's discography (which is central to understanding his work) has been removed to a separate Wikipedia entry, would that not also be appropriate for Theme Time Radio Hour? Dylan may go on doing his radio show for years, so the list may become very long. It's making a long article even longer & that info is easily available on Expecting Rain web-site & many others. Mick gold 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ve deleted Theme Time Radio listings. Many have complained this article is too long; Dylan’s radio show is a footnote to his career, not central. There are a plethora of web-sites giving detailed track listings and song lyrics e.g. http://www.notdarkyet.org/themetime.html Mick gold 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody, please...
I've sworn off editing this article (at least until the sourcing dispute dies down), so would somebody PLEASE do something about the horrible 1st paragraph? Mick Gold, maybe? It's beyond embarrassing to have this article define Dylan's accomplishments in terms of prizes and magazine covers. The lead paragraph is (rightly) taken as the basic formulation on the article topic. I shudder when I think of mirrors and other sites slurping up this intro. JDG 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved the list of awards to the end of the section, leaving the first sentence of the old lead para as the first sentence of the new lead para, which is the second para of the old version plus the first sentence of the old first para. yay! Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion & References
I’ve been trying to add as many citation/references to this article as I can. However, I can only give citation/references for paragraphs I believe are true, or critical opinions I think deserve to be substantiated. In the 1980s section there was a long rambling discussion of Dylan’s religious values in this decade. Administrators have added next to practically every sentence. I can’t supply these references because I basically don’t agree with this paragraph. It treats Dylan’s religious values as though religious commitment arrived in Dylan’s work with Slow Train Coming, and may have departed some time in the 1980s. I think this is a misunderstanding of Dylan. I think his work is drenched in religious imagery and the language of the King James Bible from his earliest recordings to his most recent. Certainly Blowin’ In the Wind and When the Ship Comes In are written in the language of Biblical parables. Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve deleted this paragraph, but if an editor wishes to re-instate it and provide the citation/references necessary to substantiate it, they are very welcome. Mick gold 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem in CD chronology
On Down in the Groove the album chronology leads to 'Dylan & Dead', but THAT page leads to the rest of Gratefull Dead's discography, and NOT Dylan's..

Comment of FA Review
Hi guys. The keep consensus was slim, but there was a definite sense of improvement based on Mick's work and given the extensive citations here there was not a basis for remove. Two things:


 * Try to take care of the last two cite tags.
 * There are some one and two sentence paragraphs that should be eliminated. Marskell 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cite tag 1: On the question of the Oscar atop the amplifier, I've seen Dylan live 5 times in the last 5 years. Each time the Oscar was atop the amplifier. Is there any way I can convert the evidence of my own eyes into a ref/citation? Mick gold 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cite tag 2: Walkerma made the following comment:
 * "Many of the citation needed tags seem to be going overboard - by those same standards we would delist most of the FAs I have read recently, and reject most of the scientific papers I read. Example: "The songs were in the same vein as the hit single, surreal litanies of the grotesque flavored by Mike Bloomfield's blues guitar, a rhythm section and Dylan's obvious enjoyment of the sessions.[citation needed]"  Surely if Dylan's enjoyment is "obvious" it doesn't need citing?  Is it really controversial to say that the songs were in the same vein as the hit single?"  I agree. The chief evidence of Dylan's obvious enjoyment is the way he giggles while singing 'Highway 61 Revisited'. I suppose if I continue to scour the extant literature I could find something, but I think Walkerma has a valid point.  Mick gold 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Discography, film, books
This section is empty. All it says is to go look someplace else. I think that it would be good practice to write a small summary of his discography or just a small explanation of this paragraph. E.g. "Having been active in the creation of music for very long, Dylan has managed to create 32 albums as of September 2006, Modern Times (2006) being the most recent. For a full discography, please see Bob Dylan discography". —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree. The paragraph you suggest is just repeating info from the main article. It is not very difficult for anyone seeking Bob Dylan's Discography to click on the link. Mick gold 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead added in "Associated Acts" section
Since Dylan toured with and recorded an album with the Grateful Dead, I think they should be listed in the "Associated Acts" section in the box on the top-right of the page (I don't know what else to call it. I'm a new user!). I can't seem to be able to edit that section, so I'm hoping that whomever can will do so. Is this even the right place to be suggesting/discussing this? Thanks! Tented 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Lion King 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramblin' Jack Elliott
I’ve toned down fulsome tribute to Ramblin’ Jack Elliott’s massive influence on Dylan. Partly, because pre Chronicles Dylan was not so respectful towards Elliott. In Izzy Young’s Journal from October 20, 1961, Young writes down Dylan’s words: “I’ve been with Jack Elliott. Jack hasn’t taught me any songs. Jack doesn’t know that many songs. He’s had a lot of chances.” (Published in “Younger Than That Now: The Collected Interviews with Bob Dylan,” ed. James Ellison, New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2004, p.12) In Scaduto, Dave Van Ronk recalls Dylan rolling around the floor helpless with laughter on discovering Elliott’s real name was Elliott Adnopoz. (Scaduto p. 67). I can find no authoritative reference to Dylan’s early concert being billed as ‘Son of Jack Elliott’. Surely a cite/ref is necessary for this ‘fact’. Mick gold 15:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like you Mick, can find no reference to the "Son of Jack Elliot" tag. In fact, I think the first time I saw it, was in this article or the Ramblin Jack Elliot article. Cheers, Lion King 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there, hope I'm doing this right, forgive me if not, I'm a newbie. I did the Jack addition to the Bob article. Thanks for your attention and editing of my contribution, it was a surprise that unseen angels had fluttered and fussed and fixed my hammerings while I slept. I'm quite chuffed to have made an addition that was allowed to let stand - it reaffirmed my faith in the wiki principle. Now, to specifics. First, the "Son of Jack Elliott"  question. I know I saw this in a bio way before the internet, haven't had time to check my books. Nonetheless, Google gives 92 references albeit none with primary sources: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22son+of+jack+elliott%22+OR+%22son+of+jack+elliot%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en  . It shouldn't be a surprise to any Dylanographer.


 * Secondly, Dylan's dismissive tone towards Jack. This is a topic of long-standing fascination for fans of both men. Their relationship (sporadic -- intervals between meetings can be measured in decades) has always been fragile. Yet they are friends of a sort. The quote above with Bob seething acidic about Jack sounds perfectly accurate and perfectly Bob. Yet at the start, Bob stole a bunch of rare Jack LPs recorded in England from friends so he could learn from them (cf: various Bob bios -- too late in the night for me to dig 'em out, but if you can't, let me know and I will. It's well known.) Furthermore, Mick -- have you read the citation in Chronicles? Bob admits to being gutted by hearing Jack's voice on record. Pulling out a dumb Bob quote like the above is weird -- it suggests unfamiliarity with your flibbertigibbit subject, with all due respect.


 * Jack once told me that "Bob regards the word 'friend' almost as a bad word, a put-down. He once said to me [switching to Dylan voice] -- 'Gee, you sure have a lot of FRIENDS, Jack.'"


 * The relationship is explored in many places, most tellingly in Jack's filmed biography "The Ballad of Ramblin' Jack" and many other places.


 * Anyway, thanks for listening and if you need harder evidence that you can't find, tell me and I will. Cheers, stanjarin


 * PS: The Van Ronk story of Dylan helpless with laughter at hearing Jack's real name is one of my favourite Bob/Jack stories. The point of the story is that Bobby Zimmerman's all-American cowboy hard-travellin' hero, pal of Woody, Jack Elliott was a son of Brooklyn NY, and the son of a Jewish big-city doctor. Jack was as much of a self-reinvention as was Bob! Jack was the first self-made man. Zimmerman discovered Adnopoz! No wonder he pissed himself laughing.


 * Hi stanjarin, yes, you are doing it right. You've made some interesting points, I'd like to reply but I'm v busy with work. I'll get back to you in a few days. best wishes Mick gold 08:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS If you create an account & register your Username, you can sign & date your posts with 4 tildes, as per note at top of page.

Stanjarin 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks Mick. Trying the tildes. As a personal observation, Jack was a huge influence on Bob in the early days stylistically. They hung out together and Bob absorbed Woody through Jack's interpretations. Woody was in hospital at this time. And Jack had a more mellow, almost surreal style of laconic rambling banter than Woody... Jack was a friend of the beats -- Kerouac, Ginsberg etc. Kerouac read the entire manuscript of "On The Road" to Jack over a wine-soaked three day period five years before it was published. The influence of Jack's humour is also heard in Arlo Guthrie's 'Alice's Restaurant'. But the BIG difference, and the parting of ways occurred after Bob started writing. Jack is an interpreter historian troubadour, Bob is the poet king of folk, rock and any other music that has words in the last half of the twentieth century. (Jack comes up with amazing stuff quite regularly in the course of a day, but never writes it down.) The humour of the earliest Dylan recordings is influenced by a mixture of Woody and Jack, with the surreal flavourings coming more from Jack. And while this is a page about Bob, I just realised a largely unsung aspect of Jack's life and work: the influence of his sense of humour, which is profound -- it touched Dylan, Arlo, Johnny Cash and many others and I don't think I've seen it defined as such until this very minute. Jack started as a kind of Will Rogers that eventually matured into a sort of a George Burns who occasionally slips a song into his observations of the universe.

Stanjarin 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC) I've been unable to find any *documented* primary source of the two "Son of Jack Elliott" stories either, after some effort. I still think they're true, but my belief is of no value to Wikipedia. I'm glad you got me off my butt to do some work rather than simply hand on folklore. Wish I could have brought home the bacon, but so far, no. Thanks for that, I learned something... that seeing mention of something repeatedly doesn't mean it has an actual documented primary source.


 * Hi Stanjarin. Thanks for your honesty. Without documentary corroboration we Wiki editors can’t include material. btw I agree with your interpretation of the story of Dylan rolling across the floor helpless with mirth, on learning Ramblin’ Jack Elliott was really Elliott Adnopoz. Obviously one self-invented Jewish hobo was amused to discover another. Best wishes Mick gold 17:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas and Bob Dylan
Please note that the two articles are inconsistent. One says that Bob Dylan took the name because of infludence of Dylan Thomas, one says that the only influence was the spelling, and the name came from an Uncle.


 * Quote from Chronicles in Bob Dylan article is accurate. The Dylan Thomas article is also accurate: Dylan told one story about his name in 1965. And he told a different story about his name in Chronicles. Mick gold 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

David Z.
What ever happened to David Zimmerman? Sca 01:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that he went on to produce ads and tv jingles in the twin cities. He rerecorded some tracks (can't remember on which album) that his "big" brother wasn't happy with and the last I heard, (read) he and his family built a house on the same land in Minnesota, where his Bobness has his farm. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fans
Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan: I've created a new userbox,, as well as a new category, Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan. If you're interested, check it out. Enjoy. Editor19841 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Each year Nobel Prize for Literature receives about 350 nominations for about 200 candidates. The Swedish Academy whittles this down to 5 finalists, then the winner is announced in October. The names of the 5 finalists are not released until 50 years later, so we have no idea if Dylan has ever been on the short list. Dylan has been nominated every year since 1996 by Professor Gordon Ball, of Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va. Christopher Ricks commented: "I don't think there's anybody that uses words better than he does. But I think his is an art of a mixed medium. I think the question would not be whether he deserves (the Nobel Prize) as an honor to his art. The question would be whether his art can be described as literature." Mick gold 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Upsinging?
A paragraph has appeared at end of ‘Recent live appearances and the Never Ending tour’ section:


 * Around 2000, and especially in 2001, Dylan began employing a vocal mechanism, which his fan base has dubbed 'upsinging', during sizable portions of his live show. While 'upsinging', Dylan ends a vocal phrase or phrases with a "high" note, which tends to be the root of whatever chord the progression resolves to at the end of any given measure. This unusual mannerism is unprecedented in the world of popular music. 'Upsinging' remains a part of Dylan's live show to this day. Dylanologist Doug Evans coined the term 'upsinging' after Dylan's 2002 concert at Newport, RI, which was laden with 'upsinging.'

I’m not a musicologist. My hunch is that this paragraph is bullshit, a parody of musicological analysis. I think that as Dylan’s vocal range has diminished dramatically over the last 20 years, he has developed a tendency to go ‘up’ at the end of each line. But I could be wrong. This could be an important insight by another (anonymous) Wiki editor. What do other people think? Mick gold 06:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mick, upsinging is a widely known and discussed vocal mannerism of Mr. Dylan's. It dominates his current live performances, taking up as much as a third of his overall vocal performance. Many fans find it quite bothersome and/or upsetting.

Also, Dylan's vocal range didn't significantly diminish until 2003.


 * Dear who are you? (This dialogue might be easier if you registered a Username.) I’ve been going to Dylan’s concerts for the last 30 years, I know what upsinging is. I asked Andrew Muir (author of “Razor’s Edge” – well regarded study of Never Ending Tour) his opinion on this passage. He replied:
 * I think his voice deteriorated after 1981! That was the last real year of singing for me. As for the NET it was well before 2003. The thing with upsinging is all Dylan fans know what it means – that irritating fake emotion sham of raising his voice at the end of the line. I doubt it is a professional musical term but it is shorthand for referring to the abomination!
 * Did Dylanologist Doug Evans publish his discovery of the term ‘upsinging’ anywhere? Or is it an observation he made to his friends? If the latter, it would be more difficult to attribute to Mr Evans alone. best wishes  Mick gold 14:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about diminished, but certainly changed.

Damning with faint praise?
This article, on the contrary, praises with faint damns. Dammit!

Alfista inglese 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Broadway
What about this?

Have we any news about it? (sorry for my English) :) --「Twice 28.0 &middot;  contributions  &middot; talk」 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source for this article
This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's my first time editing any wikipedia article. I just added a paragraph near the end of the 'Protest and the Other Side' section. Thanks for your forebearanceAndoDoug 08:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Added paragraph
Considering that Dylan's perceived split/feud with the folk music scene is a significant event in the history of music, something that Martin Scorcese's documentary reinforced and transmitted to a new generation raised on cultural pablum, I thought the article needed a bit more background on what all the fuss was about. This is my first time editing any wikipedia article so thanks for your forebearance. The addition consists of the last paragraph in the Protest and Another Side section (the former last sentence of the section is intact except for an added 'But as' at the beginning). Thank you. AndoDoug 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi AndoDoug. The point you make is an interesting one. Hope you don't mind if I edit it a bit. It is a bit dogmatic in tone: "The folk revival had predicated itself on the belief that life equalled art..." That's one component, emphasised by Georgina Boyes and Greil Marcus. I'm sure there were other factors at work, eg enthusiasm for a good tune. I think Dylan's "historical-traditional music" line is from Marcus rather than Alan Jacobs essay. But your Dylan quote about "roses growing out of people's brains" from Hentoff is great. best wishes Mick gold 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mick gold--it's better. The 'historical-traditional music' line is quoted in Marcus and elsewhere but couldn't trace it to a more original source. I do find the last sentence of this paragraph ("As Dylan wrote in the sleeve notes for Bringing It All Back Home, 'i accept chaos. i am not sure whether it accepts me.'") to be quite a tangential thought that doesn't really follow (it used to follow from the quote in the previous paragraph, "...But what of Bobby Dylan?... Only a non-critical audience, nourished on the watery pap of pop music could have fallen for such tenth-rate drivel." As Dylan wrote in the sleeve notes for Bringing It All Back Home, 'i accept chaos. i am not sure whether it accepts me.'" I think it's a bit too slapdash a way of wrapping up the paragraph...


 * You may be right. I've tried it after MacColl as a response. Mick gold 07:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice touch up, thanks.

Problem with Compare selected versions?
History, Compare Selected Versions seems to erroneously show content ("His couisin is very famous polish scientist and lawyer John Zimmermann") that I removed. Technical problem? DVdm 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

amphetamines?
This has probably been discussed before, but I just can't bring myself to look theough 3 archived pages. The page on "All Along the Watchtower" mentions him as using amphetamines, but I don't remember seeing that in this article. If this is true and sourced, it should probably go in this article, and if not true (or un-sourceable) I'll remove it from the Watchtower article. Natalie 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the use of the prase "amphetamine-fueled rock-poet" was meant in the retorical sense, and not intended to reflect substantiated accusations or opinions. -Notahippie76

Bootleg Listings
Being that Mr. Dylan has always been one of the most prolific songwriters, his collection of bootlegs is extensive, yet Wikipedia steers for the most part clear of any ascociation with them. The only references to Dylan bootlegs are those that speak of the Bootleg Series. I think some kind of listing of available/notable bootlegs should be put up somewhere, probably as its own article. This does not necesarily mean live bootlegs, it could also mean studio outtakes, unused sessions (like the George Harrison session from May 1, 1970), or other demo tapes (like the Minnesota Hotel Tape from December 22, 1961). Just an idea. Please consider/discuss it. -Notahippie76


 * ==== A seperate section for bootleg / live compilations? ====
 * I Agree, I think that some of his bootleg work is very importain, like the 'Great White Wonder' bootleg, only briefly referenced because it was latter partialy released as the basement tapes. I would like to see not only a listing of bootlegs under, for example a bootleg header or even a compilation and live recordings header aswell as the albums listed in the discography. I'm Happy to start working on one but I don't want to upset the people who don't like illigal and difficult to reference albums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.242.76 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Dylan bootlegs is a huge field of study (more than 40 years worth). I think it should be a separate article rather than added to this already over-long biographical article. Mick gold 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I would be happy with a separate article (by the way, if you haven't noticed, I started this particular area of discussion). I happen to know about/be in possession of a lot of Dylan bootlegs, but I am not really great at Wikimanipulation, so if someone could get the article started and e-mail me so I know about its creation, I will put some work into it. -Notahippie76

Introduction Paragraph
"Some of his songs, such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'",[1] became anthems of the anti-war and civil rights movements. Forty years later, his 2001 album "Love and Theft", reached the top five on the charts in the U.S. and the UK. His latest studio album, Modern Times, released on August 29, 2006, became his first US #1 album in thirty years, making him the oldest living person to top the charts at the age of 65."

I assume that this paragrpah was initially written before Modern Times, and then info about that album tagged on the end following it's release? If so, do we need Love & Theft in there at all? It seems the point being made is of Dylan's longevity, so we only need to reference his latest album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Infinitum (talk • contribs).

I was thinking the same thing, thanks Mick gold 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam?
I've restored links to 2 websites. Expecting Rain is updated daily & constitutes the best resource for monitoring both Dylan's own activity, and critical commentary on it. It provides links to every major Dylan event in the press, in book publishing, on radio, and TV. This updating is done by a vast & linked array of Dylan fans & scholars. Bob Links provides Dylan set lists & tour itineraries, as well as links to other specialist Dylan websites dealing with Dylan in movies, Dylan interviews, chord transcriptions of Dylan songs, the major archived Dylan features in the serious press. There are over 100 websites dealing with Dylan's lyrics, Dylan's paintings, Dylan's religious beliefs, etc. I believe these 2 sites are the best index & archive of all that Dylan scholarship, some of which is very good. Both these web sites are regarded by serious Dylan scholars as indispensable in terms of Dylan research. In my opinion, and that of every major Dylan scholar I know, they are neither spam nor commercial websites primarily geared to marketing. Mick gold 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Bob Dylans
I have merged in material from the List of people likened to Bob Dylan article so that it can be deleted as per the AFD. I haven't finished doing up the footnotes properly; I'll get to it soon, if no one else wants the thankless task. --Brianyoumans 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I am pretty much done. --Brianyoumans 02:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

From the (now merged) Talk:List of people likened to Bob Dylan page
It might be more accurate to say that Carly Simon was promoted as the "New Female Dylan." The source for Joan Baez is a newspaper article reproduced in the Bob Dylan Scrapbook, which I no longer have possession of and therefore can't pinpoint exactly.Philolexica

The main Bob Dylan article has been contentious enough without dragging in the editing dispute over how much of this article should be preserved. Keep this one or delete it, but since only one vote of 15 in the Afd thought merger was appropriate, it clearly wasn't the consensus result. Monicasdude 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I find this article to be very interesting and informative. I don't think it should be deleted. And so long as it is not merged with the main Dylan article, I don't see how it could cause much controversy. SlapAyoda 16:41, 3 May 2006 (PST)

Shelter Further Reading Link
I have reinserted the link to the article titled "Come In," She Said, "Ill Give You Shelter From The Storm" which had been wrongly removed at various times in the past. The reasons give for its removal were unfounded under the true Wiki principles, and I will address some of them as follows:

1. Some have said that it is self-serving. It actually falls under the catagory of "obscure" which is acceptable under Wiki policy.

2. Some have said that it is self promoting spam. The site it links to is not at all commercial, nor even solicates donations, as does Wiki, itself.

3. Some have said that it is original research. Yet the facts therein are not only facts of the very basics of the Hebrew language, but the premise of the femininity of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost has been long established in the Jewish Kabbalah and other Jewish writings.

Please be considerate of the true principles of a free exchange of ideas by not removing the link without a prior discussion. If it is maliciously removed, this matter will go to arbitration. Anyone7 03:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because (a) I think Dylan is of only very marginal relevance to gospel music (although this is a debatable point), and (b) the material you linked to is only marginally about Dylan; it is mostly linguistic/religious speculation unrelated to his work. Also, this is a very important Wikipedia article that is already quite long; we do not want to make it longer unnecessarily. --Brianyoumans 03:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is valid to mention gospel amongst Dylan's musical resources, since he devoted two controversial albums (in my view, one of them was brilliant) to exploring that genre: Slow Train Coming & Saved. I agree with Brianyoumans that website "Shelter From the Storm" is both very obscure & speculative. We should only link most important Dylan websites, and that is not one of them. Mick gold 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While you both are entitled to your opinions, you both are also subject to being wrong, and misusing the Wiki privileges and principles. There is a book under the Further Reading section titled "Tangled Up in the Bible: Bob Dylan and Scripture," another one called "Hard Rain: A Dylan Commentary," and another called "Bob Dylan and Philosophy." So what gives them weight to be in the article, and not the Shelter link? This is very important point, and deserves to be properly addressed. The Shelter link is inconsequential as far as the length of the article is concerned, and I see that argument as a sham (with all due respect). Brian...'s thought on the relevance of Dylan's work on Gospel music, is a mere opinion, and not based on any thing of weight. I have played his "Christian" songs before some very conservative Christians who would never have thought that Bob Dylan could have written such things, and not only did they like the songs, but loved the thoughts and music in the songs. They were not marginal in their responses, but whole heartedly appreciative of being exposed to the songs. And they were all Gospel singers themselves (about 80 of them, representing over 10 different denominations). Mick's statement that the premise of Shelter being speculative is, in itself, speculative. What evidence does he have that what is said in Shelter is untrue? Who was Bob Dylan talking about in Shelter, when he said "If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born"? Who is the subject of the song Precious Angel, and the others noted in the Shelter link. If you can't give a reasonable answer, and can't disprove what is written in the Shelter link about Hebrew thinking playing very heavily in Bob Dylan's experience and songs, then it is only fair to leave it alone, and let those who may want to investigate the matter themselves do so without obstruction from those who may not be interested in looking deeply into such things, or are already satisfied with what they think. Be fair. Wiki means "anyone," even those whom others may want to bully. I am actually amazed that nobody has removed the "Gospel" genre references I inserted at the beginning of the article. There has been such an ongoing debate in the editing of this article about Dylan religious (Christian) testimony that it took a long time for some to allow the matter to be even marginally represented. Tell me, why do either of you think that of all the editing has been done in the past has no one been honest enough to simply include Gospel as one of the genre he has performed in? Is it bigotry. Some would certainly see it as that way. I am going to reinsert the link now. If anyone feels that it should be removed, let them do it the right way by first discussing the matter. I am reasonable, and I also know by experience that some others are not. I you think you can present a reasonable excuse for suppressing the thoughts in the Shelter link, and that said argument will stand the scrutiny of candid minds, then present the thoughts before removing the link, as such is how that should be done. Anyone7 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your changes again. I went back to the link which you added and read through it. It is not about Bob Dylan. It quotes him at the beginning, it quotes him at the end and suggests an alternative reading of one verse of his.  But the main purpose of the article is to establish the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit. I would suggest that you try to add the link to a theological article instead.  As to the gospel music part: I am not opposed to that, if other editors than yourself want to add such links; I am not particularly a Bob Dylan expert, although I like much of his stuff. --Brianyoumans 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already said that I agree "Gospel" has been a significant part of Dylan's musical world. No argument. I still think the website you're trying to link is not a major Dylan website. I agree with Brianyoumans. It seems to be an argument for an interpretation of the Holy Spirit as feminine, which mentions some Dylan songs. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is going to be selective. It will not mention every book about Dylan, only the most significant ones. The books "Tangled Up In The Bible" and "Bob Dylan and Philosphy" attempt to engage with a wide part of Dylan's work from a religious & philosophical perspective. They are much broader works than the very narrow website you mention. There are over 100 websites devoted to Dylan's work. Many are about his religious point of view. Some argue for a fundamentalist Jewish interpretation of his work. Some, such as the one you attempt to link, suggest an esoteric Christian interpretation. (I think it does. I don't find the website easy to understand. I'm slightly confused about The Lamb of God and The  Red Heifer.) At the end of the day, Wikipedia proceeds by a process of consensus. Some edits stay. Some new stuff goes. You seem to be the only person arguing for one unusually obscure website.  Mick gold 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)