Talk:Bob Dylan

Please don't fuck with The Bard. He's good as goats.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 12:41, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. There must be a limit somewhere. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:11, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

We should improve this article and move it to the mainspace so he can hang with the other musicalicians. human^{be in} 19:25, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

mission doubt

An editor believes that this article may not further our mission statements: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. The original author or others are invited to either edit the article so that it meets our mission statements or comment on the talk page. "Drive-by" templating is discouraged.

Why do we need an article on this creep with green teeth? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes we could ask the same question of many of our musician articles. What happens is that someone writes about their favorite musician with some tangential reference to the mission. The existence of that article then becomes the justification for the next musician article and so on. But to answer your question I'm not sure why we have this article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While I concur that this article does seem off mission, I must ask: What the fuck is wrong with Bob Dylan? I love this man. But, yeah, that article isn't really on-mission. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with him in my opinion. The only question is why there should be an article about him here.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but if we delete it, I think the comment should read "With all due respect to the man, of course. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 16:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dylan is awesome, and while this article is not really on-mission, why is it worthy of deletion? And if it really is that bothersome due to being off-mission, we could move it to the "Fun" namespace.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fun space sounds good to me. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All concur? If so, I'm moving it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It might be a good idea to have a look at the musicians category before singling out Mr Dylan for exile. Personally I think most of then should be in fun, but you never know what sort of HCM might be involved when dealing with peoples' favourite musicians.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will do that now. I would never single out Bob Dylan. I will probably have to move most of the musician articles to the fun space, like Elvis Presley.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Respect is something that needs to be earned and maintained. I'd have thought that notion was at the core of the RW mission.

At one time I could get through the slightly crooked structure of Mr. Tambourine Man without stumbling, and was fond of listening to his other singing. I remember a fair amount of the sixties.

Mr. Zimmerman was human like the rest of us. For all his celebrity, he showed up with muddy feet once in a while, and I will not worship at them. Though I have no citation to provide, by some accounts he was not the kind of person I would want to spend time with. The times they were a-changing, and times have moved past that guy. I suppose you may call it "fun" if you like, but to me the article looks like a wall of unfun text. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All right

Before I mass move musician articles, any comments?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not adept at posting on talk-boards with software like this, so I'm not confident this will be able to be read by those to whom I'm responding...but here goes:

Apparently, a bunch of ya'll herein think my bumping up of someone's earlier sketch into a full-blown mini-bio of Dylan is at odds with the rationality theme of RationalWiki. Is that a fair summation of your collective position?

If so, this is unfortunate. For I've always considered my bedrock personal rationality--steadfast agnosticism, rejection of all belief-system silliness from crystals and past-lives to Mormonism and Scientology--to be the very basis of my appreciation of Dylan's contributions, ergo my enduring interest in him. The kind poster "Colonel Sanders" called me a "fan", but much more accurately, I'm just a longtime observer who is more frequently critical of the artist in recent decades than laudatory. In fact, I've always found most of his stage work and too much of his recording downright embarrassing, hence the employment of the word "laughable" in my conclusion. Not much of a "fan", you would agree?

Any reader will notice, however, that throughout--or at least prior to your collective redaction--I particularly focussed on behavior, quotes and other hints as to the famously-inscrutable Dylan's intellectual orientation regarding the reason-vs.-faith struggle that none of us herein are fence-sitters regarding.

Sir "Sanders" also graciously invited me to register with this Wiki, but that seems to me to be easier said than done! In any event, I'll try registering again, although I'm betting that is now pointless, given the tone I seem to have inadvertently generated.

Sorry if I annoyed you folks, although I hope you'll understand that it was wholly unintentional. I just figured other folks who deal in reason rather than emotion, who might very well have only been familiar with the standard--and profoundly simplistic-- spokesman-of-a-generation summary of this favorite-of-the-intellectuals recording artist, would probably greatly appreciate an overview from someone who had for a good while a pretty comprehensive perspective.

I am to presume I'm implicitly disinvited to further contributions on this, and for that matter, any of the other entries I might have some worthwhile information?

Thanks for reading, and may we all have a terrific 2011.

JOKERMAN [for lack of a better nom de edit]^{— Unsigned, by: 99.99.22.25 / talk / contribs}

Jokerman, you have it all wrong. It is indeed an excellent article and I will consider moving Bob Dylan back. But the reason I moved musicians to this namespace is indeed most of the musician articles are indeed written by "fans" and really are off-mission. If you really insist on this being in namespace in analysis in these contributions of Mr. Dylan (as opposed to his musical contributions, as you stated you have done in your post), I will invite a consensus of interested users. And you may continue edits to this article as you please, but if you wish to move it into namespace, it must conform to RationalWiki's namespace rules, which most musician articles do not. And you are still invited to create an account on this website by clicking on the Log in/Create an Account button on the top right hand corner on any page and upon reaching press the "Create an Account" button in the log in box and then follow the instructions, mainly so you can be attributed for your contributions. Thank you for your civility and concern.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jokerman, it seems to me like you have a thick enough skin to deal with this mob appropriately. I only hang around the edges of it, so take this with a grain of your own high-quality salt. I suppose I need to go read through the article you have made such a massive scholarly contribution to, sifting it for mission-related messages. Be well, and have a fantastic 2011! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jokerman. The thing is that all the musician articles are a bit doubtful in terms of our objectives. See here for a description of what should be in our articles.

You saw the existing article and decided to improve it. You put a lot of work into it and it was very good - it was really our fault to leave it in mainspace as an implicit invitation to be improved upon. You will see that it has not been deleted - simply moved out of the main article space.

You are absolutely most welcome to edit any articles here which fit with the mission statements on the main page. Please stick around, and if you're having any problems creating an account feel free to ask here at in the bar. Cheers.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Colonel Sanders's clarification

Dear "Colonel",

Much appreciate the good will!

First off, you need not worry about my possibly "moving" the Dylan entry to this or that other sector of RationalWiki; I wouldn't have a clue how to accomplish that, as I'm less skilled at software navigation than I am at particle physics--and I find superstring theory as difficult as divining Dylan's mindset in the wake of his Christian interlude! Indeed, I was surprised that so much of my textual enhancement of the original posters' Dylan efforts ended up looking like I intended it to.

That said, I would never have meddled herein if the overriding theme of RW was anything BUT rationality. As evidence of my own good will, I've never even attempted to edit the justifiably lengthy WikiPedia entry on Dylan, even when spotting factual errors. (I figure others will eventually do so, and in each instance I've been borne out.)

But my principal point is that, if not for my rationality, I doubt I would have ever recognized Dylan as much more than a guy with a funny nose, funnier hair and the funniest voice. (That's actually a code-phrase I developed during my lengthy professional broadcast career to be able to cite him when necessary without ever naming him, given that his influence continually pops up in the oddest corners of the culture and thus mandates mention, but I understood well any frequency greater than about one named citation per month would have contaminated my various general-interest programs over the years as those of a hopeless "Dylan freak".)

Yet I am rational to a fault--or so I'm often told--and long ago reached the seemingly preposterous conclusion Dylan has a claim on being the most original creative force ever; indeed, I e-published a monograph with that very thesis a few years ago, and it has never been lost on me that the more reason-based the crowd I'm hanging with, the more they seem to recognize that Dylan is far beyond being just another gifted aging rock star past his prime.

That's really all that was behind this, and I'm flattered you found my re-working and expansion of earlier posters' work to be well-written.

By the way, in the late '80s, in anticipation of Dylan sometime finally making good on an 1980 offer to let me interview him--while I've had quite a few conversations with the artist beginning in 1975, each has been informal--I crafted a question designed to reveal his post-Christian-period faith orientation, i.e., whether he in fact has rejected his onetime supposed born-again status. It's an imperfect question, mind you, because it is one he can easily lie in response to...but ONLY if he no longer considers himself "saved". (That he once did actually so believe sincerely seems to me to be clear; indeed, in that very 1980 conversation, a lengthy sit-down chat which was more relaxed and apparently sincere than maybe any of my other conversations with him, he inquired as to whether I myself was also saved. {Talk about insincerity: throwing caution to the wind, I actually fibbed in response, claiming I was Jewish to avoid any possible hassle, even though it would be a decade before I formally converted...and then only through the atheistic/agnostic Society for Humanistic Judaism.) Anyway, that night in October 1980 there was no hint--unlike during most Dylan chats--the artist was in one of his various BSing modes.

But again, to avoid in the future his possibly misleading me on this key question as much as I misled him on his saved-or-Jewish-or-heathen inquiry (rather limited menu of choices, eh?), I eventually worked up a question that can be hugely revealing. That is, if Dylan today REMAINS in the mental clutches of fundamental Christianity, he CAN'T reply in anything other than the affirmative. So what is this golden question, one which I've run by numerous Christian clergymen over the years to confirm its religious airtightness? Simple: "Bob, do you still recognize Christ as your personal savior?"

Alas, I no longer expect to get the chance to someday pose it, but y'know, Dylan's people claim I was nearly granted an interview during a recent leg of his now-fabled Neverending Tour, so who knows, er, when my ship comes in? Then again, even if it does come to pass, I may end up like Dylan's own lyrical (and biblical) Goliath, and I "will be conquered". But hey, one can sure do a lot worse in life than to be outsmarted by Dylan.

In the meantime, thanks for your gracious clarifications, and now let's all sit back and marvel at how 2011 unfolds! (Think there's much chance Zeus will make a Second Coming?)

Appreciatively, JOKERMAN, somewhere in Dylanology ^{— Unsigned, by: Jokerman / talk / contribs} 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. We appreciate your marvelous work to the entry. I hope to see further contributions from you, as you are very wise and rational indeed. You could be an excellent contributor. I am not positive about Zeus making a second coming, but anything is possible. Happy 2011,--Colonel Sanders (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Live Aid

Didn't Bob Geldof blast Dylan for mentioning some of the Live Aid money be given to US farmers? GooRoo (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that previously, "Roo". But if Geldolf DIDN'T, he probably should have. For however well-intentioned--and influential!--Dylan's remarks were (Rolling Stone rhapsodized, "Proof positive that when Dylan mutters, the world still listens"), it was still inappropriate for Dylan to have gone so wildly off-message, especially given the conspicuousness afforded his encore-preceding slot for a 15-odd hour affair. JOKERMAN

Bronze?

I think so.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mission.

Could someone explain to me again what this has to do with us?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

<_< >_> yeah, I got nothing. Тy^talk 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

me neither. We could at least cut out all the post-60's stuff. The only potentially missionish thing about him are his protest songs, and even that could be merged into an article about the sixties protest movement. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very mission, if you choose to make it that way. He is a symbol of the liberal movement in the US, often cited to by both the right and the left about his roll in society. Besides that, if well written, some articles are here cause we just like the subject. and there's nothing wrong with that. *if well written*. This one has a long way to go.

and this, right here "Dylan is often credited, along with The Beatles, as being one of the major forces propelling rock-and-roll, and popular music generally, into territory where it could explore complex ideas about life, poetry, politics, religion and philosophy." is exactly why it's on mission. He's a thinker, a philosopher - he'd be a Rational Wikian, if he gave a shit about the internet. GodotGrow a vagina 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On this bases we can have articles on the Spice Girls, Enrico Caruso and George Formby as you can always find something vaguely on-mission.

It will probably get a bit repetitive with musicians as well, as we will probably end up saying generally similar things about all the protest song writes of the 60's for example.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The fighting over "what is mission" is really quite tiring, I think. Let the articles speak for themselves. Why shouldn't we have an article on Spice Girls, we have articles on every single right wing nutjob from here to Nantucket. To me, the issue should always be how the author presents the material, and if when you read it, it adds something to your knowledge about anything "Rational Wiki" which has long outgrown the idea that we just refute bad science. The Right holding these guys up as horrors, because they have opinions the Right disagrees with (while at the same time fawning over Toby Keith) is something that should be addressed. GodotGrow a vagina 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And i still say, by the way, if someone wants to write a rational wiki article about manilla folders, and really shows why they should matter to us, that's a RW article. Hard lines are not nearly as important as really looking at what makes our society see some people (Or things) one way, and others in a different light - and that's very RWish. GodotGrow a vagina 20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)