Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Bob Dylan's Name Anagram

It is a remarkable and poignant fact that the letters of Bob Dylan's name form the anagram of his wife and Muse, Sara Dylan, formerly Sara Lownds:-

"BOB DYLAN" = "B. on B. Lady"

The "Blonde on Blonde Lady" is Sara Lownds, who Bob Dylan wrote the song "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" for, recorded on his most acclaimed (double) album, "Blonde on Blonde". Stranger still is the further fact that the title of this song is itself intended as a coded name-anagram of Sara Lownds' name:-

"SAd eyed lAdy of the LOWlaNDS"

(Though the "R" in "Sara" is missing, "LOWLANDS" is clearly a play on words of Sara Lownds' last name, as it was before she married Bob Dylan and became Sara Dylan.)

As stated in the song article, Bob Dylan has never performed this song live. Sara was his inspiration, the love of his life, and his Muse, as is evident from the songs that Dylan wrote for her and with her and which made literary references to her. It is therefore poignant that the woman in the background who means so much to Dylan, and through the music inspired by her, to the world, is inscribed and enshrined in his name.

---

I HAVE WRITTEN THE ABOVE COMMENT FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE MAIN TEXT, BUT I SUGGEST THAT OTHERS DEBATE THE FINAL TEXT TO BE INCLUDED BELOW, AS I AM QUITE HAPPY FOR THOSE WHO MAY WISH TO OBJECT THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE USED IS POV (Point of View), OR UNNECESSARILY REITERATES OR HAS SOME OTHER DEFICIENCY, TO PROVIDE THEIR SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS ON HOW TO TIDY THIS TEXT UP (OR TO INCLUDE OTHER APPROPRIATE COMMENTS OR POINTS OF CRITICISM) BELOW:- --Elizabeth Jane 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am a party pooper, but I don't find it particularly poignant or even interesting that you can rearrange "Bob Dylan" to form some obscure reference to Sara Lownds. The letters also form "Dy l nabob", or "Die Liberal Nabob", a reference to something or other, and lots of other things as well. The bit about "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" is more interesting. Are there any references saying that Dylan actually had that interpretation in mind? --Brianyoumans 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of people have commented on the similarity between Lownds and Lowlands. In the song 'Sara' (on Desire) Dylan wrote:

Stayin' up for days in the Chelsea Hotel,

Writin' "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" for you.

This reference is already noted in the Wikipedia article on the song Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands. Mick gold 16:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re Brianyoumans I fail to see how that is true:

::The letters also form "Dy l nabob", or "Die Liberal Nabob", a reference to something or other, and lots of other things as well.

Both untrue and meaningless commentary. You will have to do better than that. Please provide intelligent comments, if you will, but conversely, please refrain from making meaningless derogatory snipes such as these.
(BTW ...I believe, but do please correct me if I am in error, that you are the person who is trying unsuccessfully to obtain recognition for your derogatory anagram of an obscure British Liberal Party member of parliament against whom you have some personal disagreement. Do you have a gripe against me also?)--Elizabeth Jane 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I apologize; I shouldn't have made a little joke. I am not the other person you refer to. I do not in fact put much stock in anagrams, and my silly little example was merely meant to show that while "Bob Dylan" could form "B. on B. Lady", the letters of his name could also form many other things, such as "Dy l nabob". I doubt that Dylan chose his name with this anagram in mind, and, not being of a spiritual or mystical turn of mind, I don't think that the fact it can be rearranged that way means anything. Chalk me up as an unbeliever! On the other hand, your other comment is valid, except that, as Mick gold points out, that is already covered in the article on the song. If you want to continue this discussion, I would suggest posting further comments to my talk page, as a courtesy to the folks here. --Brianyoumans 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, apology accepted! On whether this fascinating and remarkable correspondence (which I think it is) was intentional on Bob Dylan's part, while I was not claiming this to be the case, there is strong evidence that he did intentionally interweave his name with that of the person with whom he was enamoured. "Blonde On Blonde" has the acronym "BOB" - his name, while the remainder of "Blonde" is "LO[W]NDe[S]" - her name! The song/poem "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" could therefore be described as Bob Dylan on Sara Lownds (in the "interpretation of the subject" sense, of course). Either it was the poet or fate that chose all of these correspondences - take your pick - but I find these meaningful anagrams fascinating either way. However, everyone is different, and it appeals more to the poetic mind than it does to the strictly rational mind, which prosaically exclaims: "So what!". But "Wiki" means "for anyone", so we should reasonably allow for both kinds of people or attitudes. I note that Bob Dylan, himself, is someone who belongs to the former category, rather than the latter, and who has employed the meaningful name-anagram (as cited) as a form of literary and poetic expression - I wonder how he would fare if interpreted from an exclusively prosaic and literal perspective? He would be misinterpreted, I think! --Elizabeth Jane 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lowlands" has nothing to do with the name Lownds, just take a look at the geographical locations of New York and Delaware. Look at the picture of his passport in the book that comes with the Bootleg Series Vol 1 - 3. His height is incorrect, his date of birth is incorrect. Is it a genuine passport? No, it's one of the many jokes Dylan likes to play, including acting out his song titles in photographs. "Low - lands". Worked it out yet? BTW, this is a very good article.

The Gaslight tapes

I happen to own a copy of this cd but i can't find information about it anywhere. does anyone know anything about it? I can upload a scan of the CD cover if it helps. Ore4444 10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Recorded in October 1962, they exist in numerous bootleg variations & as official Dylan album. There's a Wikipedia article about it: Live at The Gaslight 1962 Mick gold 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone seen the 1980s ?

This article used to have a section on the 1980s. It's vanished! The article now goes straight from Saved to Under the Red Sky. Where did the 1980s go? Mick gold 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it. SECProto 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Mick gold 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob the Vegan....

Is there actual proof that Dylan is indeed a vegetarian? I've read in some places that he is and I've also read that he just likes to get vegetables a lot but he really isn't a vegetarian. The reason I'm asking is because at the bottom of the page it lists him as a vegetarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.60.81.248 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Odetta and Marvin Karlins

A Wikipedia editor has added the information that Dylan first learnt his folk style of guitar playing from Marvin Karlins at University of Minnesota. I can find no reference to Marvin Karlins in any of the major Dylan biographies or reference books. I thought it worth adding that Dylan has always credited Odetta with turning him onto folk music, after youthful interest in rock'n'roll, and have left in a short reference to Karlins. Mick gold 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

check this out

pathetic: http://negativland.com/pastor/layladylay.html

preacher thinks its funny to mangle the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.58.14 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Dylan & Gospel

I think it's valid to include Gospel in Dylan's genres, since he made 2 Gospel album, Slow Train Coming & Saved, as well as many other songs that could be included in the Gospel tradition, eg Every Grain of Sand, Groom's Still Waiting at the Altar. Album of cover versions of Dylan's Gospel compositions by distinguished Gospel singers has been released: Gotta Serve Somebody.

Article states:

Dylan's work in the late 1970s and early 1980s was dominated by his becoming, in 1979, a born-again Christian. He released two albums of exclusively religious material, exploring his own version of Gospel music. Slow Train Coming (1979), is generally regarded as the more accomplished of these albums, winning him the Grammy Award as "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody". The second album, Saved (1980), was not so well-received. When touring from the fall of 1979 through the spring of 1980 Dylan refused to play secular music.

Mick gold 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Two albums of non-secular music is not substantial or sufficient enough to make Gospel a main genre of Dylan's; the other genres represented (Folk, Rock, Blues, Country) are genres that have been enormously prevalent in his prolific career. If Gospel is mentioned, why not throw in Jazz, Showtunes, Pop, Singer-Songwriter, etc. etc. etc. etc., & anything & everything else he touched base on? He made two albums of non-secular music -- which is in & of itself a stretch to call Gospel music just because it's religious -- that doesn't mean the genre has a place beside the genres that Dylan has helped to reinvent over the years. It should definitely be mentioned in the article, but it's bordering on ridiculous to place it beside the others. ————Anthonylombardi 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. You state (twice) that "Dylan made two albums of secular music." Surely the opposite is true. He made two album of sacred music (i.e. music dedicated to belief in Jesus) which is the opposite of secular. Mick gold 10:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant non-secular; I even edited it to fix it, but somehow it reverted back, though I'm not sure how. I just fixed it again. However, my point was obvious & it stands. ————Anthonylombardi 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I could argue that Dylan did not devote 2 albums to Jazz or Showtunes, but I accept your overall point. It's probably ludicrous to argue about genres and categories when it comes to an artist as inclusive as Dylan. I recently heard him say on Theme Time Radio, "Personally, I never understood any kind of border patrol when it comes to music." Mick gold 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Bob Dylan is not the stage name of Robert Allen Zimmerman. It's his name. He changed his name to Bob Dylan on 2 August 1962 in New York Supreme Court. It's the name on his passport, on all his albums, all legal documents, and on all his song copyrights. Wording is consistent with Wikipedia entries on Elton John and David Bowie, artists who also changed their names legally. Mick gold 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

168.103.58.13 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Mick Gold?Like Mick Jagger?SWEET! I totally agree with you.Its his legal name,not just a stage name.168.103.58.13 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Article Photo

Am I the only one who feels that this picture of Bob Dylan is not the best... i.e. it does not really look like Bob Dylan. If I was reading this article for the first time, I would have no real idea of what he looks like. I feel a better, clearer picture is in order

Cdmstewart 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. But every time someone tries to introduce a better photo of Dylan, it gets reverted for copyright reasons. Mick gold 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good with the 'Blonde on Blonde' cover as the main photo Cdmstewart 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Upsinging

Upsinging is not a "point of view". It's a well-known aspect of Bob Dylan's current live show. Why are passages about upsinging deleted, while similarly obscure passages about his keyboard playing are not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.124.88 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

• Has it been discussed in published reviews of his concerts? --Brianyoumans 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's mentioned here in Mike Doherty's article for the National Post: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=d423c09c-a659-4fb5-a0c7-e3ede7c4ca45 Is there any way we could reinstate the bit about upsinging and include this reference?

Done it. Mick gold 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed again. Why is this? A proper reference was given.

check out willie

if anyone cares to check out willie nelsons wiki page, it has a discography near the bottom of the page, with pictures. easy to read. Something like this should be considered for dylan's page, i like the concept. pibwiki 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bob Dylan discography has its own page because of its length. THat page has the albu, covers on it much like the Willie Nelson page. - Akamad 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"He was a friend of mine" in Brokeback Mountain

In the 2005 film "Brokeback Mountain", a cover of "He Was A Friend of Mine" is sung by Willie Nelson and credited to Dylan (see IMDB). The song, however, was not written by Dylan, as can be read in www.bobdylan.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.37.244.60 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Dylan's "He Was A Friend of Mine" was recorded in 1962 for his first album. It was not released until 1991's "The Bootleg Series, Vol. 1-3" where it bore the credit "Trad. adapted and arranged by Bob Dylan" - hence the credit on Willie Nelson's recording. Mick gold 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprechgesang?

If "Dylan was not trying to perform sprechgesang (nor was it likely Dylan was aware of the obscure song form)" then why mention this 'obscure song form' at all? We might as well say Woody Guthrie's and Dave Van Ronk's recordings were reminiscent of sprechgesang even though they were not trying to perform it, and had probably never heard of it. The reference to Baez does follow better from the phrase 'more immediately palatable'. Mick gold 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dreamed I saw St. Augustine

I have been asking, "How should this article about Dylan present his evolving religious identity?" He hasn't really addressed the subject himself. I think the answer is that there is complex religious iconography in his poetry and music throughout his career, and that he is always engaged in dialog with what he reads, with the people he listens too, with his listeners, and with his own evolving beliefs. I am disturbed when people actually claim Dylan in some way, yet I think he has had a quiet presence as a Jew over the last 20 years. I am writing this section below to show the complexity of interpreting his songs in any period. How do his songs fit into periods of his life?

If I may, this is a good place to speculate on what it was that Dylan was saying in I dreamed I saw St. Augustine. The song dates from John Wesley Harding (1967), a full decade before his brief career as a gospel singer. Mack Gold brings it up above, in the discussion of Dylan and Judaism. My question is, what was Bob Dylan's own position in this song? What could it be that he was reading in 1967-68, and why does he identify in the song with the ones who put Augustine to death? I examined the song, and I find two very contradictory interpretations are possible. One would see it clearly as a forerunner to Dylan's later "gospel" period. The other interpretation is a "historical" view of the song in 1967-68, and it makes Dylan not one of the Jews that Augustinian theology addresses, but rather one of the Vandals that performed the actual murder.

Augustine of Hippo was a late Roman theologian who comments on the Jews. (There is a section in the current English Wikipedia on St. Augustine and the Jews). Augustine is one who takes a relatively tolerant position towards Jews, at a time when Christianity is trying to stamp out the remnants of paganism, as well as a number of heresies, such as gnosticism and Manicheism. Augustine lives at a time when Christianity has become the imperial religion (except for a brief period in his boyhood when the apostate emperor Julian tries to restore paganism.) In his own life, Augustine was a Manicheian for a time before he became a Christian.

While the late Roman Christians are consolidating their position, Augustine actually opposes the forcible conversion of the Jews. The current Wikipedia article seems to cast Augustine's views on Jews negatively, but in fact his position in his own time was that they should have a special inferior status, different from that of pagans or heretics. The Wikipedia entry is actually correct, it just lacks context. To Augustine, the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus and they were witnesses to the death of Jesus, but they were not to be punished for it by the church or forced to convert to Christianity. Rather, they were to be left alone, for they had a special status as witnesses, and Christ alone could remove the blinders from their eyes. In the English Book of Common Prayer, an early Protestant prayerbook that becomes a core text for Anglican and Episcopalian theology, there is a prayer for the Jews, that the veil may be lifted from their eyes. This phrase survived in Anglican/Episcopalian liturgy until late in the 20th century.

Although this language is seen as demeaning to Jews today, in the early 5th century, when Augustine was around, it was relatively tolerant compared to some of Augustine's contemporaries. Although there are terrible crusades, pogroms, libels and such against Jews from the late Middle Ages down to the 20th century, Augustinian theology clearly opposed this. Augustine believed that the Jews had lost the Temple and had been exiled as punishment, but he wasn't for the Church punishing them any further. Augustine was actually the basis for toleration of the Jews in Europe when all other peoples in western Europe were being forced to convert to Christianity, and to a Roman version of Christianity at that. Although Augustine advocated toleration of Jews, he clearly echoed Christian negativity about the Jews. Augustine saw the Jews as having killed the messenger, perhaps so they could ultimately accept him.

The "historical interpretation" would be that Dylan is imagining the real death of Augustine in 430 CE, at the age of roughly 75. Augustine is said to have died as the Vandals storm the city of Hippo. The Vandals were a barbarian tribe that penetrated through Gaul and Spain to cross the strait and conquer North Africa. If this is the vision of Dylan, then he is identifying with the barbarians that storm the city. Such an interpretation could have parallels with 1967-1968 (when the song is written), when across both Europe and the United States, old learning is under assault as students take over Universities, especially in France. So Dylan's position may have nothing to do with his own spiritual journey as a Jew who later went through a Christian period in his life.

I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,

Alive as you or me,

Tearing through these quarters

In the utmost misery,

With a blanket underneath his arm

And a coat of solid gold,

Searching for the very souls

Whom already have been sold.

The "Christian interpretation" would be that Dylan is beginning to see himself as one of those Augustinian Jews who wander, not accepting Jesus. Dylan's vision here of Augustine reminds me of a Christian view of the "Old Testament" prophets, that later Jewish prophets such as Isaiah were forerunners of Jesus, just as the early prophets in Judaism were forerunners of the destruction of the First Temple and the exile of Israel and Judah. Yet Dylan's vision of a wandering Augustine as a beggar also reminds me of the Jewish tradition that Elijah never died, that he wanders the Earth and shows up at people's Passover seders to drink a cup of wine, which is always left out for him. (I believe that Bob Dylan's St. Augustine, who is "alive as you or me," precedes Joan Baez's Joe Hill "Alive as you or me" by at last a year or more, that Baez is quoting Dylan rather than the other way around.)

"Arise, arise," he cried so loud,

In a voice without restraint,

"Come out, ye gifted kings and queens

And hear my sad complaint.

No martyr is among ye now

Whom you can call your own,

So go on your way accordingly

But know you're not alone."

Could Dylan be taking an Augustinian view of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, with the added detail that Augustine himself is now the servant who goes to the husbandman? (In the Christian text, the planter is clearly God the father, the servants are the Jewish prophets, and the husbandman who kills servant after servant is the Jews.) According to the current Wikipedia text, the term husbandman is translated as tenant or farmer in the New International Version and as vine-grower in the New American Standard Bible. Workers often tended absentee estates and if the owner had no heirs the workers would have the first right to the land.

I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,

Alive with fiery breath,

And I dreamed I was amongst the ones

That put him out to death.

Oh, I awoke in anger,

So alone and terrified,

I put my fingers against the glass

And bowed my head and cried.

Do Dylan's words, "I dreamed I was amongst the ones, that put him out to death" echo the Christian Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, which is a Christian retelling of Isaiah 5 in order to make it reflect a Christian world view. Does Dylan see himself as the husbandman. Mark 12 says, What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

So there are two very contradictory interpretations of Dylan's song. The "Christian interpretation" suggests that Dylan has turned Augustine into a composite of Isaiah and Elijah and Jesus, that this song is a forerunner to his eventual Christian gospel period. I don't think there's any historical or theological basis for an Augustian beggar that wanders the Earth, so this interpretation makes Augustine a composite and a representative of several Jewish and Christian iconographic figures.

The "historical interpretation" really reads much less into the dream, and makes a lot of sense for the years 1967-1968. It recalls that the real Augustine died in the siege of Hippo, as Vandals were tearing down the city's walls. Is Dylan simply asking whether he is one of the Vandals of his own time, like students of 1967-1968 who stormed universities in France, the United States, and elsewhere, bringing down the Augustines of their time? Or perhaps Dylan is reflecting on those who follow him, or ask him to lead, and he is frightened of what they are asking him to do? --Metzenberg 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Piano or Keyboard?

This might seem a little trivial, but in the list of instruments that Dylans plays it lists "Keyboard", given that Dylan's most popular music was released in the 60's is it not more correct to change this to "Piano"?, or indeed to have both? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Jewish-American?

I would argue American rather than Jewish-American Jewish in first para. This article properly states that Dylan was born to Jewish parents who were part of a close-knit Jewish community in Duluth & Hibbing. His Jewish ancestors are listed as per Chronicles. But I think it’s clear that the artists who inspired Dylan – Woody Guthrie, Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley – are part of a very broad canvas of American musical culture, rather than a Jewish-American tradition. Would you also like to list Ramblin' Jack Elliott as a Jewish-American artist? Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow and Philip Roth have explored Jewish-American themes in their work, yet in Wikipedia they are (properly, in my view) listed as American novelists, not Jewish-American. Dylan uses Old Testament references. He uses New Testament references. He also references Egyptian & Greek mythology, Shakespeare & romantic poetry in his songs. Above all, he’s steeped in rock, blues, country music, & popular music of all shades. I think it’s false to characterise Dylan as a Jewish-American artist. That limits him. That’s my opinion. Mick gold 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The artists who inspired him? Religion is not determined by the artists who inspire us. His "references" in his art couldn't be more irrelevant. Religion is not determined by the "references" one uses in one's art. Nor does it matter that "he’s steeped in rock, blues, country music, & popular music of all shades." That couldn't be more irrelevant. Religion is not determined by what genres of music one works in. Bus stop 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See Jewish-American, and Who is a Jew. Bus stop 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While he may be Jewish-American, he is not a Jewish-American musician. All of those things you dismiss as "irrelevent" are in fact, quite relevant. Also, his religion is, to some extent, disputed (at least in this article), whereas the fact that he is american is not. SECProto 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A musician is a person. He is a Jewish-American person, therefore he is a Jewish-American musician. Bus stop 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute about his religion. Curious people explore all sorts of things. He hasn't practiced Christianity since 1979. There is no evidence that he practices any religion. The salient point is that he was born Jewish. Bus stop 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If he practises no religion now, shouldn't we put him down as "ex-Jewish, ex-Christian, agnostic American musician"? Of course not. The fact that he once practised Judaism is no more important than the fact that he once practised Christianity. Both should go in personal history, neither should go in the lead paragraph. Nick 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that he "once practiced Judaism." I said that he was born Jewish. Bus stop 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, He may be jewish he may not be, he may or may not once have been christian, the fact is he is a musician, from the USA, other things are debatable, and should not go in the lead paragraph. mick and nick have got it. same name huh? SECProto 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no debate about his being Jewish. It is pointless to assert that he is not Jewish. He was born Jewish. He has not lived a life of a Christian. He has not "gotten into" Christianity. His curiosity which led him to probe into the identity of Christianity, briefly, in 1979, doesn't cause his "Jewishness" to evaporate forevermore. Bus stop 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that a couple years there didnt exist. fine. but is his "being jewish" really a key aspect to him? not at all. He has not publically stated his religion, and it is mentioned within the article that he is born to jewish parents. It's debatable whether he considers himself Jewish (don't use what he does as axamples of his jewishness - people can go to a church but not consider themselves christian). He is of jewish heritage (which is stated under his background) but he has never said he believes in judaism, and until you can find a source that does say, i don't think it belongs in the intro. SECProto 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Dylan is as Jewish as any Jew is Jewish. He was born Jewish, and he has dabbled in practices of the Jewish religion as much (or more) than he has dabbled in practices of the Christian religion. But all of this is largely irrelevant. The abiding fact is that he was born Jewish. That, by almost anyone's understanding, makes him Jewish. No one said he was pious or punctilious in all aspects of practicing the Jewish faith. But the basic fact of being born Jewish is the common way the term is applied to people. I think in the vast majority of cases in which someone is said to be Jewish, it is for the simple and uncomplicated reason that they were born Jewish. Check the sources here and here. Bus stop 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So anyone who is born jewish is jewish forever, even if they express belief in other religions, other gods? SECProto 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, we are talking about the usage of the term. We are not discussing God. Again: the most common and basic usage of the term "Jewish" as concerns identity refers to status at birth. Again: Bob Dylan dabbled in many things. His brief flirtation with Christian identity does not erase the Jewish component of his identity. He is not basically a religious person, at least as concerns these organized religions that we are talking about. He has not become devout in adherence to any religion. He is a secular person who has tried many experiences in life. No doubt he was curious about experiencing the identity of a Christian. But he has not become involved with Christianity. The term Jewish still applies because that was his identity at birth. His mother and father were Jewish. His early learnings were in a Jewish home. That is what the term commonly refers to. In point of fact Bob Dylan is no less Jewish than any other Jewish person. By arguing for the removal of "Jewish-American" all you are doing is arguing for the removal of relevant information from the article. Countless Jewish-Americans live entirely secular, non-religious lives. In America Jews and Christians live side by side and mix freely. Many Jewish people accompany their Christian friends to Church and even may participate in Christian religious rituals. In most cases that does not change their status from Jewish to Christian. He is no less Jewish than any other Jewish person, especially any other Jewish, non-religious person. Bus stop 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position now - I thought we were talking about jewish-americans as pertains to religious belief, not as an ethnic group. I agree, he does belong to the jewish ethnic group. However, the term "jewish-american" has religious connotations - as evidenced in the opening paragraph of the article Jewish-American, which you referenced earlier. It states "most surveys, the majority of which treat "Jewish" as a religious group". This suggests that Jewish-American is more recognized as being americans as members of the Jewish religion. As such, I feel that it would be unwise to include the term "jewish-american" in the intro to the article, however, I feel that it would fit quite well elsewhere in it, relating to his heritage, ethnicity or what have you. SECProto 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that you do see where I'm coming from. Jewish-American means many things. We are not here to sort through all those shades of meaning. Again: he is Jewish-American. Why? Because he was born Jewish-American. You are stirring up complexities where they largely don't exist. His flirtation with Christianity was a fleeting passage in his life with little to no significance. He remains a Jewish-American, whether a religious Jewish-American or not. Bus stop 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the last post, Jewish-American has much larger religious connotations than it does ethnicity connotations. and so, the opening paragraph should not state his jewish-american ethnicity in case it becomes confused with jewish-american religion. its really a very minor point. SECProto 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a minor point. And as in so many other articles in which the subject of the article is Jewish-American, it is normal to point out that the subject of the article is Jewish-American. To leave it out is to suppress relevant information. Bus stop 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We all agree Dylan was born to Jewish parents. The issue under discussion here is how to describe him in the lead paragraph of a featured Wikipedia article. By the criteria advanced by Bus stop, Ramblin' Jack Elliott should be described as a Jewish-American folk performer, Lenny Bruce should be described as a Jewish-American comedian, Arthur Miller should be described as a Jewish-American playwright, and Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow and Philip Roth should be described as Jewish-American novelists. All these artists are currently described in Wikipedia as American. (The fact they are from Jewish-American backgrounds is mentioned in their articles.) To embark on this Jewish-American labelling would, I think, be opposed by the majority of Wikipedia editors. I’ve restored the word American to the Dylan article, because Dylan has many times stated that he is playing American music. Mick gold 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Dylan's religion is properly discussed in the body of the article. There is no reason for it to be in the lead. --JJay 13:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not discussion of Dylan's religion; it could not be more briefly referenced. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to provide an abbreviated version of the article that follows. This is for the purpose of providing a reader who may not wish to read the whole article with a very brief summation. Bus stop 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BusStop: Please stop simply reverting people, a fairly large number of decent edits have disappeared in the past day or two, because of your... vendetta on this religion topic. It would be nice that, if you really feel the need to continue changing the sections on his religion, you did not simply revert, becasue you have removed whole cited paragraphs, citations, etc. I will try to sort through it but it is annoying. SECProto 14:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with earlier comments that "Jewish-American" is a term that applies to religion and not ethnicity -- the reality is actually the reverse as far as I know. Compare to other groups that are clearly one or the other: I hear about German-Americans, African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and so on all the time, but I don't remember ever hearing "Christian-Americans" or "Muslim-Americans". Obviously there are many Christian Americans, or Americans who are Christian, but the HYPHENATION in Jewish-American is a dead giveaway to me that the author refers to the culture/ethnicity of Dylan and NOT HIS RELIGION. To restate in brief: "Jewish-Americans" = the people, "Jewish Americans" = the believers.

I don't take any strong position on whether he can more appropriately called Jewish-American or simply American, except in that I believe that it should be dictated by how strongly that heritage influences his life. Perhaps we should ask "Mick gold", who seems to be something of an expert. 24.118.231.95 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Musical Influences??

I'd simply be interested in what musical influences have affected Dylan's music, past and present.

Gautam ^Discuss 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of conversion?

Bus stop asserts there is no evidence that Dylan converted to Christianity. I think there is evidence that Dylan converted to Christianity. Dylan recorded three albums devoted to an exploration of the Christian faith: Slow Train Coming, Saved, most of Shot of Love (e.g. the song ‘Property of Jesus’). Between 1978 and 1980, Dylan gave 62 mini-sermons from the stage, while performing. These have been published as a book: “Saved! The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan” ed. Clinton Heylin, Hanuman Books, New York, 1990, ISBN 0-938715-38-1. Typical extract: “I know a lot of you have never heard of Jesus before. I know I hadn’t until a couple of years ago. Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” (Page 9, Dylan on stage Syracuse, May 1980.) I think there have been songs exploring the Christian faith since then. What does Bus stop think the song ‘ Ring Them Bells’ on Oh Mercy is about? Whether Dylan still believes in Christ is, of course, a question only he knows the answer to, but I think there is no doubt he once proselytised on behalf of the Christian faith. Mick gold 07:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly not conversion. Find a source asserting conversion or leave that interpretive accounting of events out of the article. Dylan has assumed personas all his life. Other artists, other people, do too. Conversion has an entirely different meaning. And you are demeaning Christianity. Christianity is not the result of album lyrics. A person is not a Christian as a result of mouthing some entertaining lines during a break in a concert. Jesus was prop utilized by Dylan for entertainment purposes, though Dylan is one of the best entertainers of our time. Please do not equate entertainment with religion. That is entirely misconstruing the work of an artist, and that is reducing Christianity almost to meaninglessness. Bus stop 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not alone in describing Dylan as a born-again Christian between 1978 and 1980. Every major Dylan biography (Clinton Heylin, Howard Sounes, etc) describes in detail the Christian phase of Dylan’s career. By writing: “Dylan assumed the persona of a Christian in work done in the late 1970s and early 1980s.” you are engaging in original research, elevating your interpretation of Dylan above the best-known and standard biographies. I don’t accept that when Dylan said: “Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” – he was speaking through a persona, and neither do the major Dylan biographers. I have added relevant references to article. Mick gold 14:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is an act. It is a stage persona. And that is not original research on my part. Original research is the assertion that a performer entertaining people from a stage is simultaneously converting to another religion. Look at Conversion to Christianity Conversion "is generally understood to be undertaken by a person who explicitly chooses to convert." And I am not even mentioning Baptism, understood by many to accompany most conversions. Sincerity is a key ingredient in conversion -- to any religion. Dylan was performing on stage. That is acting. Are actors always expressing their true feelings? Or, are they assuming the persona that the particular role calls for? Bus stop 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dylan told Australian journalist Karen Hughes in an interview in August 1980: "Christianity is making Christ the Lord of your life. You're talking about your life now, you're not just talking about part of it, you're not talking about a certain hour every day. You're talking about making Christ the Lord and master of your life, the King of your life. And you're also talking about Christ, the resurrected Christ. You're not talking about some dead man who had some good ideas and was nailed to a tree." (Heylin, p 525) Dylan was not on stage, he was talking to Hughes in what she described as "a very intense interview". Mick gold 14:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The above is not conversion. Bus stop 15:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "conversion" is the problem here. If we don't have a reliable source saying that he underwent a formal conversion to a new faith, we might want to avoid that word and talk about it in more general terms. We know about his lyrics and his promotion of Christian ideas for a time - we don't know if it was a formal conversion, but clearly was an embracing of Christianity. So why not try something like that? Tvoz |talk

Bus stop your argument was that Dylan's Christianity was 'an act', 'a persona'. You said: "Dylan was performing on stage. That is acting." Clearly in Armstrong's interview he was not on stage, he convinced her he was articulating his religious faith. Who are you to deny it? Are you in denial about something? Mick gold 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dylan is a performer -- onstage or off. You need to find sources for actual conversion. Or leave that assertion out of the article. Since no one has shown a shred of evidence of actual conversion to Christianity, I don't see how this has stayed in the article as long as it has. I assumed there was some conversion process that had taken place. Until I started looking into it I assumed that Dylan had actually converted to Christianity. Now I see that that is not true at all. And furthermore -- please don't tell me I am in denial about anything. I am trying to write a truthful article. Bus stop 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We have sources saying he was a born again christian - where are your sources saying he was just acting as a christian to create entertainment? i see some hypocrisy here. SECProto 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am not saying that he was just acting as a Christian to create entertainment, or at least that is not primarily what I am saying. My primary point is that there was no act of conversion. There is only the assumption of the act of conversion. And I am saying that assumption is not good enough. The article has referred to his conversion. That is patently false, because there was no conversion. Does anyone have a source indicating that Dylan ever converted to Christianity? And please don't start with the name-calling. Bus stop 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Type in the key words dylan, conversion, and christianity into google. It comes up with 600,000 results, and although most probably arent relevent, the first ten are. A page on bobdylan.com also mentions bob dylan's conversion - see http://www.bobdylan.com/etc/ajacobs.html . If you are wondering whether he was ever baptised into christianity? because if he was, it would certainly have been a private affair. And as I said before, find me one source which says "dylan never converted to christianity" - i doubt you will find a single one. As I said, you are being hypocritical in that you are expecting us to provide proof, while providing none yourself that shows the contrary. SECProto 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to respect Christianity a little bit

Dylan, the chameleon went through his Christian stage. Dylan, the actor, played the role of the born again Christian. Please stop reducing Christianity to the pantomimes of an actor onstage. Or, and actor offstage, for that matter. Dylan never underwent any conversion process to Christianity. It is nonsense to assert that. You can assert that there were some nonsense publications out there that picked up on this persona that Dylan assumed, and tried to portray it as a legitimate conversion. But you should also point out the numerous ways in which it falls short of actual conversion. Christianity is not a lighthearted dalliance. Christianity is a significant religion. It has consequence. It should not be reduced to superficialities such as this artist's momentary and passing persona. Bus stop 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend no disrespect but I'm afraid I can't follow your argument. You seem to interpret Dylan's relationship with Christianity in a way that has eluded journalist who have interviewed Dylan, and biographers who have researched and written about Dylan. Are you describing the major biographies of Dylan as "nonsense publications"? If so, I think you are on your own. Mick gold 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those publications are certainly entitled to put forth their point of view. But if they are to be cited in the article, their contentions have to be placed in proper context and perspective. Undue weight cannot be given to flimsy assertions, no matter how "major" those biographies may be. Language is tossed around carelessly by people, even in major biographies. It is not uncommon to use terms figuratively, and metaphorically. Just because they may have referred to Dylan as a born again Christian does not mean it is actually so. Responsible writing does not use terms carelessly. If you find a need to reference those publications -- fine. But then you should also insert language that balances out the omissions in the writing in those publications. Most notably: Dylan did not ever actually convert to Christianity. To leave in the implication of that is a misrepresentation of the facts. Bus stop 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, you write “You need to find sources for actual conversion.” What does that mean? Conversion is an interior process. You won’t find a photo of it or a signed affidavit. We have Dylan’s accounts, both in interviews and in songs, of how Jesus came into his life. This is Dylan describing a night in a Tucson hotel room in 1979: “There was a presence in the room that couldn’t have been anybody but Jesus. Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up.” Dylan then spent three months studying at the Vineyard School of Discipleship. One of the Vineyard pastors, Larry Myers, has recalled: “Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah. After yet more time and further serious deliberation, Bob was baptized." See Wikipedia article Association of Vineyard Churches See interview with Pastor Ken Gulliksen: [[1]] Mick gold 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, conversion is not solely an interior process. A true conversion is accompanied by a formal public declaraton. Many jews recognize Jesus as a prophet, complete acceptance of him as the Messiah accompanied by a baptism is a legitimate conversion. Your source claims that is the case. However, your source strikes me as very sketchy - looks like a blog. I'm inclined to agree with Bus stop. If this is true there must be more legitimate sources available. Cleo123 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. Protestant Christianity is no monolithic, and many of these Christians consider themselves 'Non-denominational'. These believers sometimes reject the necessity of going to church at all. There is a much looser view of 'What makes someone into a Christian'. While I am, in my beliefs, no longer Protestant, I have never been baptized. No one has ever asked it from me beside s my parents; no one has doubted my sincerity in faith simply because I had never made an official statement to proclaim my conversion to Christianity from agnosticism. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are a different story, but no one I've met questions my faith simply because I've never undergone a formal ritual. --C.Logan 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would simply point out that some well-recognized and -regarded Christian denominations, including the Salvation Army, have categorically rejected the use of any sacraments. Within that particular church, there isn't really any venue in which "formal public declarations" can even be made. To therefore insist that such public declarations are a requirement of entry into Christianity is to discount the Salvation Army as a Christian denomination, which is I believe placing onself on very shaky ground. John Carter 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the hard copies, but there should be some sources available in the Highway or "Dylan Redeemed", although I'm sceptical of the second book. Summaries of both mention his "religious conversion", as do reviews of the book. Also, I have an exam to get to, but [2] is a more formal link about the same thing as mick gold's earlier source, the pastor. I will look into it a bit later. SECProto 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123 Clinton Heylin's and Howard Sounes's biographies of Dylan (regarded as the standard works) contain interviews with Ken Gulliksen and Bill Dwyer, two of the Pastors at the Vineyard School of Discipleship who oversaw Dylan's three months course of study and his baptism. If I quote from their interviews in these books, will you regard that as a valid source? [I have already supplied the relevant page numbers from their books in my 2 footnotes in this section.] Michael Gray's 'The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia' (which was favourably reviewed in both British and US journals when it was published in 2006, see[[3]]) has a 5 page entry on "The 'Born Again' period" (pp 76-80) which contain a detailed account of Dylan's conversion to Christianity and his baptism by Pastor Larry Myers. Gray's Encyclopedia also has an entry on "The Vineyard Christian Fellowship" (pp 685-686) which begins with this sentence: "The Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Churches was the outfit that formalised Dylan's conversion to Christianity, receiving him into its congregation and providing Bible-study classes." Would you accept this as a legitimate work of reference? (I don't regard the Expecting Rain reference as a blog. It is a newspaper article about Ken Gulliksen which Expecting Rain has posted.) Pastor Larry Myers' account of Dylan's conversion can be found here [4]. Mick gold 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No actual conversion process took place - I think we need to strike at least this line, as it is clearly editorializing . Unless Dylan said "Nah, I was just pulling your leg", all we need to do is state the actions and facts as they occurred and the reaction of the public. We can not say where his heart was at the time. --Knulclunk 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written the 'Born Again' section with page references to Heylin, Sounes, and Gray's Encyclopedia. For anyone to assert that No actual conversion process took place in the face of the 3 most authoritative biographical accounts of Dylan seems, to me, absurd. Both Dylan and the Vineyard Fellowship have spoken about these events numerous times. What do others think? Mick gold 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wrote. There is an authoritative ref for every sentence. Bus stop keeps deleting it:

Dylan's work in the late 1970s and early 1980s was dominated by his becoming a born-again Christian. From January to April 1979, Dylan participated in Bible study classes at the Vineyard School of Discipleship in Reseda, Southern California. Pastor Kenn Gulliksen recalled: “Larry Myers and Paul Emond went over to Bob’s house and ministered to him. He responded by saying, Yes he did in fact want Christ in His life. And he prayed that day and received the Lord.” He was baptized by Pastor Larry Myers. Dylan released two albums of exclusively religious material, exploring his own version of Gospel music. Slow Train Coming (1979), is generally regarded as the more accomplished of these albums, winning him the Grammy Award as "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody". The second album, Saved (1980), was not so well-received. When touring from the fall of 1979 through the spring of 1980 Dylan refused to play secular music and delivered what some describe as "sermonettes" on stage, such as:

Assuming the references all check out, the above is fine with me. Either way, this constant reversing of each other's edits is starting to get annoying. Hopefully a consensus can be reached here soon, and until then it would be nice if everyone could simply refrain from editing that particular section. Adam McMaster 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't assert beyond what is known. We don't have a reliable source for Baptism, for instance. All we have is a source that is clearly speaking from a Christian point of view. We do not have a source that is neutral saying that there was, for instance, Baptism. Conversion is not a meaningless process. If it is to be understood as something meaningful, it has to be understood in reality oriented terms. Bus stop 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Heylin and Howard Sounes have written the 2 most authoritative biographies of Dylan. People have questioned their literary style, but no-one has questioned their accuracy. In their biographies, they interviewed Pastor Kenn Gulliksen and Pastor Larry Myers of the Vineyard School of Discipleship. Gulliksen is quoted as saying: “Larry Myers and Paul Emond went over to Bob’s house and ministered to him. He responded by saying, Yes he did in fact want Christ in His life. And he prayed that day and received the Lord.”

Larry Myers is quoted as saying: “I was one of two pastors (Paul Emond, not Esmond, the other) who went to see Dylan in Brentwood, not Malibu, in the very early 1979, at the request of Bob Dylan who extended the request through Mary Alice Artes. There we met a man who was very interested in learning what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. To the best of my ability I started at the beginning in Genesis and walked through the Old Testament and the New Testament and ended in Revelation. I tried to clearly express what is the historical, orthodox understanding of who Jesus is. It was a quiet, intelligent conversation with a man who was seriously intent on understanding the Bible. There was no attempt to convince, manipulate or pressure this man into anything. But in my view God spoke through His Word, the Bible, to a man who had been seeking for many years. Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah. After yet more time and further serious deliberation, Bob was baptized.”

Are you claiming that they invented all this? Shortly afterwards, Dylan told Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times “I truly had a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It’s an overused term but it’s something people can relate to.” (Sounes, p 326). David Mansfield, a musician in Dylan’s band and close friend of Dylan, said to Heylin: “His conversion wasn’t one of those things that happen when an alcoholic goes to A.A. The simplest explanation is that he had a very personal experience which answered lifelong issues for him.” (Heylin, p 490) Do you think all these people are lying? Kenn Gulliksen? Larry Myers? David Mansfield? Robert Hilburn? Heylin? Sounes? Bob Dylan? I think that to assert that “no conversion took place” in the face of these statements is absurd. I take this Dylan article seriously because I’ve added more than 100 footnotes/references which have helped to elevate it to Featured Article status. The above info is as substantive as the rest of the article. It is not hearsay or speculative. I would be interested in the opinion of other editors. Mick gold 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Yes, there should be a section like this, one that has well-referenced criticisms (of his politics, his lyrics, his singing style, his music, his whatever); however, it's weird to have just a long quote from Noam Chomsky calling Dylan a spokesman for "capitalism". Maybe that could be briefly referenced (and linked to) as a criticism of Dylan's conservative/"reactionary" politics, but it should not take up so much space, and there should be lots of other stuff under Criticism of Bob Dylan. Tix 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not the most cutting or widely relevant criticism if it's coming from an anarchist (is Chomsky really an anarchist, I don't know). For an anarchist to say that Dylan is too pro-status quo is like if Hitler said that Dylan is too pro-Jew. Tix 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think the Chomsky criticism is great, but it seems extremely out of place all alone.  I'd say that either more criticisms of a        
    similar spirit should accompany it, or that section should be taken out all together.  Perhaps Chomsky's opinions would be less 
    out of place if they were integrated into the article, rather than standing alone and awkward? --155.97.203.74 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Noam Chomsky's opinion on Dylan is relevant. Find some criticism from a fellow musician or a musical critic. Chomsky is not an authority on Dylan. How weird would it be if Chomsky's article cited Dylan criticizing generative grammar??

Without reliable sources

In response to Mick gold above: That's pure subjectivity. What does it mean that: "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah." According to who? According to "Pastor Kenn Gulliksen and Pastor Larry Myers of the Association of Vineyard Churches?" We need a reliable source if we are going to say a Jew converted to Christianity. Proselytizing and winning converts is important to Christianity. Why are there no other, independent sources for this? And: "After yet more time and further serious deliberation, Bob was baptized." Where? When? Who witnessed this? Are there any corroborating sources? Has this been confirmed? You say that: "Shortly afterwards, Dylan told Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times “I truly had a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It’s an overused term but it’s something people can relate to.” Here Dylan is referring to an "experience." An experience of what? An "experience" confirms conversion? He obviously had an "experience" sitting down with religious Christians and learning about Christianity. But that is not any indication of conversion to Christianity. That is just as likely the result of curiosity and exploration, not to mention professional research. Did he not shortly thereafter utilize what he learned in his song-writing and stage performing? Dylan has been known to assume a variety of personas throughout his career. In writing an article about Dylan, a Jew, one doesn't assert that he was a Christian in the years 1979 and 1980 unless that is clearly verifiable. We know he went through his "Christian stage." We don't know he converted to Christianity. You are going beyond what sources support to blithely refer to his "conversion." It is not a minor and unimportant thing for a Jew to convert to Christianity. Stage performances, song lyrics, and even sitting down for a talk with a priest, in and of themselves, do not constitute "conversion." Baptism is generally a public ritual. And a convert generally follows through with concrete acts and/or statements confirming this important change. This is simply the norm. Where is the life lived as a Christian that one would reasonably expect of a sincere convert to Christianity? Gospel songs? That is the evolution of a professional. Dylan is successful because of his authenticity. He immerses himself in a persona and derives material for his music from those experiences. I am not saying write that in the article, because that would be original research. But I am opposed to cavalierly tossing about terms that imply that a Jew converted to Christianity, without reliable sources. Bus stop 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bus stop. You write that: "a convert generally follows through with concrete acts and/or statements confirming this important change. This is simply the norm. Where is the life lived as a Christian that one would reasonably expect of a sincere convert to Christianity?"

I have already pointed out that between 1978 and 1980, Dylan gave 62 mini-sermons from the stage, while performing. These have been published as a book: “Saved! The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan” ed. Clinton Heylin, Hanuman Books, New York, 1990, ISBN 0-938715-38-1. Typical extract: “I know a lot of you have never heard of Jesus before. I know I hadn’t until a couple of years ago. Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” (Page 9, Dylan on stage Syracuse, May 1980.) You ask for evidence of "concrete acts and/or statements confirming this important change" - and yet you dismiss every single statement made by Bob Dylan, either on stage or in interviews. Mick gold 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that without a printed source to verify the specifics of Mick gold's addition, the comment "Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah" should be removed and substituted with something which makes statements which can be verified, barring addition of reliable sources which substantiate both those stated points. To some degree, I think the standards WP:LGBT use regarding allegations of homosexuality could be applied here. I don't think we should include any statements which say anything beyond what the subject himself has stated either publicly or is recorded as making in creditable print sources. Now, I do see Dylan's statements, as referenced above, indicating that he has at least accepted that Jesus (in some way) is a spiritual role model/religious inspiration/whatever for him. However, Christianity includes a lot of different beliefs, including several which do not see Jesus as being divine or even (so far as I know) necessarily the Messiah, so to use phrasing indicating things which might not be specifically supported by the sources should be avoided. Regarding the sources used, it is certainly possible that the ministers mentioned were aware of the conversion, but I would like to see reference to a specific printed source confirming their statement. Regarding Bus stop's points regarding the perceived absence of evidence of conversion, I find them completely unconvincing. Not every sincere convert is necessarily going to become a 24-7 evangelist. In fact, many won't, as they aren't really qualified to be effective at it. Again, the subject's own words, preferably quoted in full, are probably the best source to use here. Bus stop is him/herself also using conclusions which are not specifically supported by the evidence ("evolution of a professional", etc.) to justify his/her position. Granted, I don't want to see the article become unbalanced in representation of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I can certainly see adding a few of the most defining and revealing quotes from the book referenced above, or other publicly available sources, as it is generally accepted that the subject himself is counted as among the most reliable sources. John Carter 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A difference between LGBT and organized religion is that organized religion often specifies rituals for entrance. LGBT of course is an identity that one simply states. Bus stop 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The key word in what you said, I believe, being "often", not "always". John Carter 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the means to look in a print source for references to dylan's christianity - I simply do not own the books, nor have access to them. I will, however, search for reliable online resources speaking of it. I personally am not sure about dylan's conversion - he definitely went through a major christian phase. The major thing holding together different christian denominations is represented by this sentence from the wiki's article on christianity: "Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament." That is self evident from the name. I will see if i can find information about him converting" to one specific christian denominations, or, becoming a member of any christian church. Because not all christian churches necessitate baptism. Anyway, i'll look. SECProto 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry, didn't check my own reference there. Thanks for catching that. "Son of God", however, can be taken any number of ways. Some groups see him as being the Archangel Michael incarnate, a human being, etc. I do think some of the Gnostics questioned the "Messiah" aspect, as well. And, certainly, (NOT asserting this as fact), it could even have been that Dylan converted to Islam, or a new religious movement, taking his particular "model" the prophet Jesus, but coming short of worshiping him. And thanks for taking the effort to check, as you indicated. John Carter 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the absence of clarity on what Christianity requires for conversion, do we assume conversion? Or do we assume investigation, curiosity, exploration? Bus stop 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

From the quote above, about the "born-again" experience, I think we can assume some sort of conversion, particularly given the other material available. And, in this case, his apparent(?) failure to refer to any other figures, including other Jewish religious leaders, I think makes it safe to assume that he at least somewhat "converted" from his previous Judaism to something else. And, considering that the name he mentioned was that of Jesus, barring other data coming forward, I think it is reasonable to assume he converted to something which could be called Christian. Certainly, that is what the statements he made led people to believe, and I think he knew that, so it reasonable to assume that he intended to give people that impression. John Carter 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think we say he's converted. I don't think we refer to him as "born again." Not without nuanced language we don't, anyway. We refer to his exploration into Christianity, we say he explored Christianity, we say he used imagery clearly derived from and relating to Christianity, we say he performed onstage in the persona of a Christian, and we say that he went through the actual steps in educating himself in authentic Christian thought. We relate his meetings with priest(s), if that is sourced. We quote language that he used, if it is sourced. But I don't think we jump to conclusions about a Jew having converted to Christianity, if that is not well founded in reliable sources. Bus stop 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He "performed onstage in the persona of a Christian"?! You could say similar things about anyone doing anything! i.e., "The Pope taught in the persona of someone who believes in God" (clearly implying that he might not have actually believed in God). Dylan's religious speeches at concerts, his exclusive playing (for a certain time period at least) of gospel songs, and last not but least his personal confession that he was now a Christian to anyone willing to listen: these things are all very strong and reliable evidence for a real conversion, and lacking any opposing evidence (that he was just in it for the musical genre or something) we are forced to say that for at least a limited time period, he became a believing Christian. And the LGBT comparison thing seems fair; if he claimed to be a Christian, how can you say he wasn't? If there were prominent Christians who publicly doubted the authenticity of Dylan's conversion, then quote them here, but otherwise I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt (if there's really any doubt). Tix 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we are making value judgments here. I think what our aim should be is to avoid point of view pushing. Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity. Judaism does not proselytize, but Christianity does. See Religious conversion, in which we read: "Christianity and Islam are major religions which emphasize the desirability of conversion," and: "According to most branches of Christianity, sharing the message or Good News of Jesus Christ and his gospel is a responsibility of all followers of Jesus." I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion). We can quite responsibly report the facts of this passage in Dylan's career without comparing him to the Pope. Bus stop 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem is here. Wikipedia is nothing to do with things like "Christianity has won a victory over a Jew". Wikipedia should focus on the documented facts which (as Mick Gold has shown) clearly show that Dylan converted to Christianity at this time. There is nothing controversial here, it's been well documented, it's NPOV. If there is an authoritative article or book which claims otherwise, these could be mentioned as "Some have claimed...^REF". Walkerma 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• All you are saying is that Dylan has converted to an entity that is based on a stage performance. Isn't Christianity something else? Isn't it a religion? Doesn't it have a definition? Is it defined in any way anyone chooses to define it? What sources do you have for any real conversion to Christianity? And what evidence do you have, after that supposed conversion, that a person who is a Christian, existed? It is all missing. Please find a source for conversion or leave it out of the article. Bus stop 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have his quotes as indicated above. John Carter 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Or put it in the article using qualifying language. That is, language that is nuanced so as to differentiate between the conversion that some like to assume, and conversion based on proper procedure according to the Church. Bus stop 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making the inherently faulty assumption that we necessarily know which particular denomination (if any) Dylan converted to, which would be required if we were to know the proper procedure used by that church. We do not. Also, there are a number of non-denominational Christian groups which do not espouse any particular "litmus test" procedure to define someone as a Christian. One of your statements above, "All you are saying is that Dylan has converted to an entity that is based on a stage performance" is one I frankly cannot understand, as I am not sure specifically what is being referred to as being "based on a stage performance", the entity or Dylan himself. We now have contemporaneous documents added to the text as references, almost certainly published with Dylan's prior knowledge and consent, which refer to Dylan as having undergone some kind of Christian conversion. I belive that can be seen as being an at least passive admission on the part of Dylan that he viewed the language "Christian convert" or its variations as acceptable. At this point, as stated by Walkerma above, I think the burden of proof lies on those who wish to exclude the content to provide reliable sources which would argue to the contrary. John Carter 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many christians would say that you do not need to be a member of any church to be a christian - you simply need to make a commitment to God. I personally became a christian one year before I set foot in any church, but I have never had anyone question my conversion. Walkerma 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Dylan from List of converts to Christianity

Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing. Conversion is not accomplished by record albums and momentary and private conversations with a priest. Most importantly we have no public formal ritual or ceremony. We do not have any accounting of an actual occasion marking the conversion by an unbiased commentator. Bob Dylan's own very often used imagery involving Jesus and Christianity is not evidence of conversion. Conversion should be understood to involve something concrete, otherwise conversion is meaningless, and anyone, under any circumstances, can be said to have converted. He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily. Not the fact that somebody said something in an offhand sort of way or that Gospel music was his passion during this time. Furthermore the period in question did not last very long. He was shortly into other musical styles. There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time. And since that time he has moved on stylistically from Gospel music to other compositional styles, metamorphosing correspondingly into other personas. There is really no concrete evidence of conversion -- nothing even close. Bob Dylan is a superstar. Tons of ink are spilled constantly. Metaphors get interpreted as facts, and that is how you have misinformation. Weigh in with your opinion at List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can’t believe you seriously want to go through all this, all over again. We have numerous comments from Dylan on stage, eg “I know a lot of you have never heard of Jesus before. I know I hadn’t until a couple of years ago. Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” We have numerous comments from Dylan off stage and in interviews, eg “There was a presence in the room that couldn’t have been anybody but Jesus. Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up.” And "Christianity is making Christ the Lord of your life. You're talking about your life now, you're not just talking about part of it, you're not talking about a certain hour every day. You're talking about making Christ the Lord and master of your life, the King of your life. And you're also talking about Christ, the resurrected Christ. You're not talking about some dead man who had some good ideas and was nailed to a tree." All these quotations can be found in the section above, with references telling you where they come from. They constitute evidence that Dylan underwent some form of Christian conversion. Mick gold 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mick gold -- They don't constitute that Dylan underwent some form of Christian conversion. They constitute nothing. Your argument is a bogus one. You say that anything constitutes conversion. Conversion would be where a Jew underwent a formal process of relinquishing his old religion and adopting a new religion. It would be public and formalized. In keeping with the nature of religion it would involve ritual. All of those factors are absent from your conveniently vague standards for conversion to Christianity. His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979. Bus stop 08:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bus stop seems to be seeking to apply an arbitrary definition of "conversion", specifically a formal, ritualized process. There are an abundant number of non-sectarian Christian churches which have no public, formal rituals, so that definition is not always applicable. IF we were told that Dylan converted to, for instance, Roman Catholicism, I would grant the point. However, the terms from the popular press, which generally serve at least in part as the publicity arm of a given subject, describe it as a "Christian" conversion, so there is no good cause to believe that the specific brand of Christianity he may have embraced had such rituals. Also, in response to the above claim that "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", no one said otherwise. Certainly, Dylan still remains in three "Jewish" categories, and only one "Christian" category when it is allowed to remain (it is not currently in place), so I personally find that specific argument absurd on the face of it. John Carter 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• John Carter -- I am applying a definition to conversion but arbitrary it is not. We, here at Wikipedia, should not be concerned with non definitions. A definition that is meaningless applies in every situation. We do not assume a Jew converts to Christianity. We assume the opposite. We are only swayed to accept that a Jew has converted to Christianity when standards of conversion have been met. Not the extremely low standards that you propose, but reasonable standards. A conversion to a religion other than one's own can reasonably be expected to contain ritual. Ceremonies are commonly public. Religious rituals are generally formalized, to some extent. Nothing formalized is cited as evidence for conversion. On the contrary what is cited are generally casual events -- hardly the stuff of what would be considered real conversion. Jews have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to Christianity, historically. Therefore our assumption has to be that conversion has not taken place, unless reasonably convincing evidence to the contrary can be brought to the table. Bus stop 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we do not work arbitrarily. However, you have yourself acted arbitrarily, in my eyes, as you have specifically chosen a definition of "conversion", which, as I demonstrated above, is not applicable in all, or even the majority of, "conversions" which are reported by the individuals involved as having taken place, as has been indicated by others above. Also, you seem to ignore the at least tacit acknowledgement of the veracity of the claim by Dylan himself, through his allowing the articles referenced to be printed without, so far as has been evidenced, any objection from him. On that basis, I can, I believe fairly say that the one who has, to date, supplied no evidence for his/her own claim is yourself. Please allow the discussion you have formally requested to continue without further attempts to belittle or demean those who can have honest disagreements with you. However, certainly, if you could provide any evidence to support your own contention, I would clearly examine it as much as any other claim. John Carter 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• John Carter -- You need to find the sources for conversion. I do not have to find sources that conversion did not take place. I do not have to prove a negative. I do not have to prove that a Jew did not convert to Christianity. Our starting premise should be that Jews do not convert to Christianity. When exceptions come to light, we of course accept them. But without reasonable sources, we do not make the assumption that a Jew converted to Christianity. The burden is not on me to find evidence that conversion did not take place. Bus stop 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you had actually read the information that was included in the article yesterday, which does provide references and citations. On that basis, I assumed that you were arguing against the inclusion of the category since that evidence came forward. Evidently, you have not. However, to repeat myself, since that information has been added, and is referenced, I believe that the burden of proof, specifically in locating creditable sources to the contrary, to support the removal of the category since that evidence was added now lies on you. John Carter 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• John Carter -- Yes, I read it. No they are not valid sources. Please provide valid sources. Bus stop 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the "New York Times" which is the source of the content added here, is almost universally considered to be a reliable source. Please indicate to me specifically why you believe it is not. John Carter 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. There is also this quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows."

• See and raise one - Not only should we remove Dylan from the List of converts to Christianity, we should abolish the category altogether. Any Anabaptist will tell you that becoming a Christian is a serious process requiring adult Baptism. Likewise, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris will tell you that no one is born believing that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore all Christians are converts (even if only from agnosticism). QED. Likewise, Bus stop is quite correct in saying that what people claim doesn't always reflect their true beliefs. For this reason I propose that we abolish the category List of Christians and replace it with List of alleged Christians. We will then add Dylan to this list or, better still, the List of alleged ex-Christians. This should solve all future problems. Nick 17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Response - I would agree if Anabaptists were the sole parties able to determine who does and does not have the right to call themselves and be called by others "Christians". I do not believe that is the case however. John Carter 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• John Carter -- The New York Times link does not work. It only links back to Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica article does not provide even one detail indicating conversion. All we see are the same empty references to a supposed conversion, but not a shred of hard evidence that any real conversion process ever took place. We are not talking about vague allusions to conversion. We need to see reference to something indicative of the acts that indicate conversion. He is a Jew. He doesn't lightly convert to Christianity. If he does so, he does so for a reason. What followthrough can you find for his supposed conversion? Did he conduct his life in any way different after conversion? If not, that's another indication that no conversion transpired. Look at the life of Keith Green. He is referenced in the Dylan article. He is described in the Dylan article as being a Christian singer. What you will find is a Christian life lived. Can you find anything vaguely corresponding in Dylan's life after this supposed conversion? Conversion is clearly just a lightly tossed around word, with no reality in the instance of Bob Dylan. And if you think there was any real conversion, I think the burden is clearly still on you to come up with a source, not the pop-religion that results from imprecise use of language. All of what I am saying here is primarily related to removing Dylan's name from the list of converts to Christianity. I am less concerned with similar language used in the article on Bob Dylan. That is an article and language can be formulated to present more than one existing point of view. But the list is a black and white situation. It is an either/or situation. The name is either on the list or it is not on the list. I see it as an egregious misrepresentation to have his name on that list, because clearly no one can come up with any evidence for a conversion process having taken place. Bus stop 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bus stop's proposal seems to be supported by emotionalism and subjective opinion rather than facts or references. Hence, I have to discount pretty much everything he has said on this page and elsewhere. What is much harder to discount are the many sources documenting Dylan's born-again phase or religious conversion. Call it what you will, Dylan went through a profound spiritual change in the late 70s. One of the most important pieces of evidence, in my opinion, is the 1980 Hughes interview, where Dylan makes an undeniable profession of faith:

"Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up. Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups.

Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know. I guess He's always been calling me", Dylan said gently. "Of course, how would I have ever known that? That it was Jesus calling me. I always thought it was some voice that would be more identifiable. But Christ is calling everybody."

• Dylan here is describing a very real, physical, "concrete" spiritual experience. He talks of being re-born, conversion and encountering Christ. The interview further states that: Dylan worships whenever he can at the Assembly of God, a fundamentalist, pentecostal, evangelical denomination. Barring serious contradictory evidence (of which Bus stop has provided none), I have to take the man at his own word. --JJay 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• JJay -- Experiences don't constitute conversion, not the ones you've cited, anyway. We are not really talking about "experiences," anyway. We are talking about change of religious status. Change of religious status is expected to be evidenced by a formalized ritual (This is religion, don't forget. Ritual is usually of an arcane nature, unlike an experience at the Motor Vehicle Bureau.), probably public, probably quite explicit (this would probably involve renunciation of old religion and/or assumption of the responsibilities of the new religion). There is a lack of evidence for any of this. Therefore conversion is ruled out (at least until some further evidence is forthcoming). What we hear in what you've posted above are clearly religious imagery of a Christian nature. Anyone can do that. It isn't evidence of anything much at all. It certainly doesn't constitute conversion, not for Wikipedia's purposes. We try to deal in facts. We try not to make assumptions. Bus stop 17:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Considering every statement you have made on this page or elsewhere is based on your subjective opinion, emotional interpretation of events and an apparent personal agenda regarding Jews and Christianity, you are extremely poorly placed to use words such as "evidence" or phrases such as "wikipedia's purpose". We build articles here based on references. There are many pointing to Dylan's conversion including the Encyclopedia Britanica. Until you can indicate contradictory "evidence", i.e. printed sources, stop wasting our time. --JJay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- I do not have to prove that Dylan did not convert. Your above "experiences" are irrelevant as concerns indications of conversion to Christianity on the part of Bob Dylan. Do you have any other indications that anything along the lines of a valid conversion ever transpired? Otherwise it is long overdue that Dylan's name be removed from the List of converts to Christianity. There is clear insubstantiality in the notion that conversion ever took place. Dylan went through his Christian phase, we know that. Figuratively speaking, there are plenty of references to "conversion" and Dylan's "born again" status. But do you not find it just a little bit curious that no literal account of any such event that can be called conversion can be found? (That is not a rhetorical question.) We do not jump to conclusions here at Wikipedia. We deliberate slowly (sometimes too slowly) looking for hard evidence for anything we assert. The clear picture emerging is one absent of conversion. It may come as a surprise, but we have no indication of conversion ever having taken place. Therefore placement in a List of converts to Christianity constitutes a false assertion. There is no evidence to back it up. Bus stop 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you accuse us of making assumptions, when you still haven't provided any sources which argue your viewpoint? It's ridiculous that you refuse to do so, because it would really help your argument quite a bit. We're not 'making assumptions' from the text. We're taking from a secondary source. It's in the text itself. While sincerity is questionable, I believe that the current phrasing of his listing on List of converts to Christianity is a sufficient compromise. Notice that we've provided sources, which include internet sources, published biography and documentary. Despite what doubts we may have, phrases like these lend support to the 'conversion'- and therefore, he should not be removed from the list. How can you honestly say this without providing any sources? You actually claim we are making assumptions from the sources, and yet the sources are very clear at points:

"I was a studio manager and producer in Atlanta, and he came to tour [November 15-16, 1981]. He had just converted to Christianity, and I called up and got passes for the show, but to be honest, I had problems with his confusion and I just couldn't bring myself to go. It led to my own confusion."

"In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979."

"Myers added, "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah. After yet more time and further serious deliberation, Bob was baptized.""

"Another interesting visit during the film is to the Vinyard Church in Los Angeles, where Dylan converted to Christianity (before converting back to Judaism)."

"Not only was Dylan the height of the cult of the celebrity convert, his conversion occurred whilst he was under the auspices of the Vineyard movement."

We're simply relaying what the text itself says. It seems that you are the one drawing things out of the text, and I agree with you about the ambiguity of some sources' statements. That's why I added the note by his listing. But it is absurd to remove him from the list: the current state of his listing is as true as it will ever be... many think he actually converted, and many dispute the sincerity/factuality of it. His conversion is disputed. That is undeniably a fact, and it alerts any one using the list for research purposes that his conversion is called into question by some. Now, I suppose I'll take a closer look at the aforementioned written sources and see if I can contribute anything else of value. --C.Logan 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

There has been discussion at both this page and Talk:List of converts to Christianity for some time now, as evidenced by the discussion above and there, whether or not the published sources which have been cited on both pages are sufficient to describe and/or categorize the subject, Bob Dylan, as a Christian convert. John Carter 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments by Bus stop above, I believe it may be appropriate to centralize the discussion on that page. Please go to Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for comment to comment there so all the discussion can be centralized. Thank you. John Carter 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some important points

• I think some people are missing an important point in all this. We are not in the business of allocating parts of Dylan to various categories with the aim of making everybody happy. We are aiming for accuracy in writing an encyclopedia article. If Dylan never converted, as is clearly emerging to be the case, then he simply does not belong in the "Converts to Christianity" category, whether it makes a particular group of people happy or not. And if he is in three Jewish categories, that is for the unsurprising reason that he is Jewish.
• WP:NOT#SOAPBOX specifically cautions against using Wikipedia for the purposes of advocacy. Insisting that Dylan is a convert to Christianity without any evidence of any actual conversion I think might be considered advocacy, and a violation of Wikipedia policy.
• A list and an article are different in an important way. An article can present multiple points of views. A list is an either/or situation. A name is either on it, or it is not on it. For an article we merely need a reliable source for attribution. But for a list we have to aim for truth, to the best of our ability. "Converts to Christianity" is a list. It is an egregious error to have Dylan on the "Converts to Christianity" list, because it is very apparent that no evidence for conversion has emerged in all these discussions spanning several days now. Dylan should be removed from the "Converts to Christianity" list immediately. I have been threatened with a block for violating the three revert rule or I would remove Dylan from that list now. Bus stop 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Bus stop:

(1) It is accurate in the eyes of most people to say that a person who has released two albums which have been described as being overtly Christian in tone, and has had a book of his seemingly Christian comments from the stage published, to be classified as Christian. Neither of those falls within the area of expanding his repertoire or whatever phrase one might wish to use.

(2) No one, with the possible exception of the above user, is trying to use the article for advocacy. It is simply reasonable to categorize and otherwise describe an individual by characteristics he has exhibited, and, as has been demonstrated above, Dylan by his actions has acted in such a way that even the Central Conference of American Rabbis would classify him as a Christian. If that category and content is to be removed, then I also strongly request that his classification in the Jewish categories also be eliminated, barring clear and explicit evidence of his bar mitzvah or similar ceremony, which the article does not yet contain. Given the extremely ambiguous meaning nature of the phrase "Jewish American", which is used in the categories' names, it is impossible to know whether what is indicated is ethnic or religious Judaism or both, and they are as such even less useful and meaningful than the Christian categories, which are at least clearly used to describe people who espouse Christianity, and cannot be used at all as a simply ethnic description. To continue to allow those categories to be used is also a clear violation of NPOV, in my opinion, particularly considering that they are even more ambiguous than the "Christian" categories are.

(3) Sources have been found which have identified him as a Christian, and those sources are among the sources most generally found as being "acceptable" by wikipedia. Also, the above user has himself/herself yet to find a single source of any kind to substantiate his/her own opinion, and has instead seemed to rely on what seems to be ill-informed insinuatain and innuendo regarding the lack of a "formal ceremony". Bus stop's own capitalization of "Church" leads at least me to think that he possibly mistakes Christianity for Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the more sacramental forms of Protestanism. Specifically, s/he seems to be relying upon documentation of a baptism. Baptism is a far from universally standard practice in Christianity. Some denominations practice infant baptism, some do not, some like the Salvation Army to not practice baptism at all, and at least one, Catharism, generally required a recently-baptized person to either be smothered to death or begin to starve themselves immediately upon baptism. To insist upon documentation of something which is often not documented, and sometimes not practiced at all, within the Christian community is I believe raising an unrealistic demand for evidence which may very well not exist in the first place. In this case, I believe we are more than justified to describe him in a way which he has already repeatedly been described in reliable sources. Personally, I can and do question whether any of these "Occupation by religion" catgories and similar should exist at all, unless they are clearly indicated in the content of the article. However, that discussion has already yielded "no consensus", so it is a moot point. Specifically, regarding his inclusion in the List of converts to Christianity page, documentation exists on the talk page such that even Jewish rabbis would now call him a Christian. Also, I believe the likelihood of anyone going to that list to seek to find perjorative information on any subject, including Dylan, is all but nonexistent. One finds him included on the List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians on the third page of 500 "links" to this page as indicated here. The particular list in question does not itself appear until two pages of 500 links later. To my eyes, this whole discussion is unnecessary and pointless. By his actions, Jews themselves would now describe Dylan as a Christian, as per elsewhere. The single reference from one reviewer to the effect that he had simply "shifted focus" is I believe negated by the statement of Central Conference of American Rabbis referenced above, as I believe they have a much clearer and authoritative opinion on what even Jews think of as Christian than one Rolling Stone editor does. John Carter 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think John Carter needs to realise that Rabbis are not the authority on who is Christian, so they can't tell us whether or not to put Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity. But the opinions of Rabbis are sufficient to remove Dylan from the categories of Jewish American musicians, Jewish American singers and Jewish American writers. I'm sure Bus stop won't mind us removing him from those categories until incontrovertible evidence is found that Dylan returned to Judaism after his flirt with Christianity. Of course Bus Stop's standards of evidence are so high that he certainly won't ask us to accept something like the lyrics of "Neighbourhood Bully" or anything that could be interpreted as a mere stage persona. I'm sure Bus Stop will happily provide us with much better evidence of Dylan's return to Judaism than anyone has so far shown for his initial conversion to Christianity. Nick 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't accept the word of rabbis on the subject inherently, I was simply pointing out that even the leaders of the group which Bus stop seems to see as being Dylan's primary "grouping", Judaism, don't see Dylan as a Jew anymore. And I, to, await any evidence of Dylan's return to, or even any evidence of his having ever espoused, Judaism than we have seen to date. John Carter 18:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the actions of at least one side in this party are getting rather out of hand. Specifically, around half an hour after I posted information indicating that the church to which Dylan is referenced in sources to have become involved with does not have a policy of keeping records of membership or even baptisms on one of the two threads here, that party posted on the other thread a comment to the effect that what he sought was evidence of a baptism, perhaps in the form of a baptismal record. I repeat, this is half an hour after I had posted a reference to one of our own articles to the effect that this body does not keep such records. Also, he seems to believe that the number of speeches Dylan, whom he apparently sees as being purely a Jew, could deliver enough speeches on Jesus from stage to be collected into a stand-alone book as being adopting a musical persona. Lastly, he also disputes the clear language of many of the sources, many of which have even stricter "libel" and such policies than we do, as not being enough evidence to keep us from being considered for libel for simply repeating and/or referencing published statements from these other entities with generally stricter policies on unsubstantiated material. Lastly, he has demonstrated a rather interesting command of the facts of this discussion.

I should make it clear that my own interest in this discussion is in trying to ensure that we do not now have placed on us such absurdly difficult standards of proof, generally beyond those that the majority of other, often publicly more reliable, sources of information have in place, that it would be all but impossible to have any content relating to living persons. Personally, I regret to say that I have no particular fondness for Mr. Dylan, and didn't even know about articles like this one until I got a message about this discussion on my talk page. Having seen the discussion, I do think that there are a few relevant issues involved which could and should be addressed. These include whether a apparently only three or so year conversion (I would still like to see evidence of a reconversion; I don't think I have) would qualify someone for unqualified inclusion on this list. I have also raised earlier what I think is the reasonable question as to whether we might have separate content on reverts or people who have engaged in multiple conversions. I am happy to see that some of these matters have been addressed earlier today. However, so far as I can see, the other party in this discussion is only interested in the unqualified, absolute removal of this content in its entirety, for what are pretty much, at least in my eyes, poor reasoning.
Returning to the point, I notice that the other editor had identified earlier another "convert" who engaged in what may have been more activity demonstrating his conversion than simply annoying his audience with Jesus lectures, which seems to have been the sum of Dylan's activity. Again, this party appears to think that it is reasonable to think a Jew would preach about Jesus from the stage to his audience as part of a "stage persona." Right. Anyway, this other party he had mentioned on the Bob Dylan talk page, Keith Green, was also a convert to the Association of Vineyard Churches, the entity which is described as being involved in Dylan's own conversion. If the other party knew of Dylan's own involvement with this body, then he would also know that they do not keep the sort of records that he has been demanding. On that basis, I regret to say that, as an individual, I am beginning to find it increasingly difficult to unreservedly assume good faith on this party's behalf. John Carter 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources denying that Dylan converted

“ Mr. Dylan showed that neither age (he's now 40) nor his much-publicized conversion to born-again Christianity has altered his essentially iconolastic temperament ”

Holden, Stephen (1981-10-29). "Rock: Dylan, in Jersey, Revises Old Standbys". New York Times. p. c19.

Did the New York Times get it wrong in 1981? Let's see the verifiable and reliable sources refuting it. That's all I'm asking. patsw 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• patsw -- That reference is more than adequate for, for instance, supporting an assertion made in, for instance, the Bob Dylan article. That is because it is an article. It can support more than one point of view. It can present nuance, and shades of grey. A list is different. A list calls for a higher standard of verifiability. Concerning a list, we have two states: on the list, and not on the list. A mere figurative allusion to "conversion" or "born again" may not be good enough. And the further research that has been done here in the past few days has not turned up a source asserting actual conversion. Since we can not, so far, come up with a source indicating that any conversion to Christianity took place, why should we put Dylan on our List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, by definition lists are also counted as articles. Please indicate to me the policy or guideline you are citing which indicates that content in one wikipedia article has to be treated differently than content in another article. John Carter 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited do not "figuratively allude" to his conversion. They state that "he converted", they speak of "his conversion to Christianity". This is what the sources state.

Additionally, your argument for his removal from the list is insufficient. We have sources which actually state that he converted to Christianity- they do not allude to a 'conversion'.

I have given your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, and I have changed the listing so that it might permanently reflect reality: that some sources state that he converted, and that other (mysteriously absent) sources state that he did not. --C.Logan 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added a link [[5]] to the Karen Hughes interview (May 21, 1980, Dayton, Ohio) to the Bob Dylan article. Dylan says:

"It would have been easier if I had become a Buddhist, or a Scientologist or if I had gone to Sing Sing"

"Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups".

"Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know".

The Clinton Heylin biography “Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Take Two”, Viking, 2000, quotes from an interview with Pastor Kenn Gulliksen of the Vineyard School of Discipleship: “Larry Myers and Paul Emond went over to Bob’s house and ministered to him. He responded by saying, Yes he did in fact want Christ in His life. And he prayed that day and received the Lord.” (page 494). Dylan has acknowledged attending classes at the Vineyard School of Discipleship for three months:

“At first I said, ‘There’s no way I can devote three months to this, I’ve got to be back on the road soon.’ But I was sleeping one day and I just sat up in bed at seven in the morning and I was compelled to get dressed and drive over to the Bible school. I didn’t know myself if I could go for three months. But I did begin telling a few people after a couple of months and a lot of them got angry with me.” (1980)

I think Dylan is acknowledging conversion in this material. Mick gold 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use this section for the sources denying Dylan's Christian conversion, and not for continuing the debate from other sections. patsw 22:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the someone could find a source denying Dylan's Christian conversion as motivated as some seem to argue about it here. patsw 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Published sources for Dylan's conversion, with more to come.

Given the endless nature of this argument, I decided to get a little proactive about the sources. I looked up a few of the Bob Dylan biographies, and sought them out at the local bookstore. This particular bookstore only had two typical biographies, so I decided to work from them. Here are two very clear secondary sources which mention Bob's baptism/conversion. I hope this resolves the issue of sources so that I can waste my time on a video game or with my oft-ignored art projects.

This is copied verbatim (excuse any typos) from the books, and as it's for encyclopedia use, I hope the publisher doesn't mind me printing this long excerpt here.

This first section is from Howard Sounes' book, 'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan', pages 324-326:

There were signs during the latter stages of the 1978 tour that Bob had become caught up in this enthusiasm for Jesus Christ. Bob met his old college friend Dave Whitaker after a concert in Oakland, California, in mid-November, and spoke to Dave's eleven-year-old son, Ubi. "Would you send me a guitar?" asked the kid. The next day a truck pulled up with a gift from Dylan- a brand-new Fender Stratocaster decorated with quotations from the Book of Paul. A few days later Bob played a show in San Diego. He picked up a cross that a fan had thrown on stage and started wearing it. Shortly after this incident Bob felt what he later described as "this vision and feeling," which he believed to be the presence of Jesus Christ in the room. Billy Cross was sitting next to Bob on the bus when he looked over and noticed that Bob seemed to be writing a spiritual song- "Slow Train Coming"- the lyrics of which were only partly formed at this time but which described a resurgence of faith of God. The band played the song at a sound check in Nashville on December 2.

The catalyst to Bob's extraordinary full-blown conversion to Christianity seems to have been his relationship with sometime girlfriend Mary Alice Artes, although his relationship with Carolyn Dennis also focused his mind on the subject. Artes was linked with the Vineyard Fellowship, a small but growing evangelical church in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. The Fellowship was founded in 1974 by Kenn GUlliksen, a singing pastor with a Lutheran background. "I did an album of my own and had a number-one song in the Christian world," he says. "It sounded like The Carpenters, it was so boring." Popular music was used to enliven services at the Fellowship, with people encouraged to get up and play songs. Several well-known musicians were associated with the Vineyard Fellowship, including a member of The Eagles. Church meetings were informal and Pastor Kenn often dressed in shorts. Because the Fellowship did not have a dedicated church building, they would lease buildings or meet on the beach. Ideologically, the Vineyard Fellowship was Bible-based, taking a fairly strong line on drugs, excessive drinking, and adultery.

Pastor Kenn says Mary Alice Artes approached him one Sunday in January 1979 after a service in a rented church building in Reseda and said she wanted somebody to speak with her boyfriend at home. Two of Pastor Kenn's colleagues, Paul Edmond and Larry Myers, duly went with Artes to an apartment in the West Los Angeles suburb of Brentwood. It was here that they met Bob. According to Pastor Kenn, who received a report back, Bob told them his life was empty. The pastors replied that God was the "only ultimate success" and Bob indicated that he wanted what Pastor Kenn calls a "lifestyle relationship" with God. "He was apparently ready to ask for God's forgiveness for sin," says Pastor Kenn. Larry Myers spoke to Bob about Jesus Christ, and talked about the Bible, from Genesis through to the Revelation of St. John the Divine. "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah," says Myers.

Bob later said that Mary Alice Artes was instrumental in his conversion. But she resists suggestions that any one person was responsible. "I cannot lead anyone to the Lord... I could only say that God did what he had to do," she says. "I think that too many people wanna be glorifying themselves in a situation that really should not have any glory at all."

Bob and Mary Alice enrolled in the Vineyard Fellowship's School of Discipleship, attending Bible class most weekday mornings for more than three months at the beginning of 1979. At first Bob thought there was no way that he could devote so much time to the project; he felt he had to get back on the road. Soon, though, he found himself awake at 7 A.M., compelled to get up and drive to the real estate office in Reseda where Bible classes were held. "I couldn't believe I was there," he said.

Assistant Pastor Bill Dwyer, who taught a class on the Sermon on the Mount, recalls Bob as being withdrawn in Bible class and also when he made rare appearances at church. "He probably needs to be," says Pastor Bill. "The few times he would [come] into church people would glom onto him: Oh, it's Bob Dylan!" Indeed, Pastor Bill, who had all Bob's albums, had to restrain himself from doing the same.

It was during this late winter/spring period of 1979 that Mary Alice Ares was baptized in a swimming pool at Pastor Bill's house.

"This was total immersion. Because baptism is a symbol of burial, burying guilt, and then pulling the new man out of the water," says Pastor Kenn. Bob attended the baptism and, not long afterward, Bob was himself baptized, probably in the ocean, which was where the fellowship normally conducted baptisms. By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it. Yet he was clearly quoted in a 1980 interview with trusted Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Hilburn saying: "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to."

An element of religiosity had always existed in Bob's work, and it was particularly strong on the album John Wesley Harding. Religion had in fact been with him since childhood when his father instilled a strict moral code in his eldest son and sent him to study with a rabbi for his bar mitzvah. As a songwriter, Bob had always felt himself to be a channel for inspiration. At the start of his career, he told Sing Out! that words just came to him: "The songs are there. They exist all by themselves just waiting for someone to write them down." In this sense, he had a powerful everyday connection with a mysterious source of information and, over the years, he came to think that the songs arose from God. It was a small step, apparently, from this to flinging himself headfirst into orthodox religion. Yet Bob of course was born and raised in the Jewish faith, and it is fundamentally wrong to most Jews to think of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. "For a person to be a 'completed Jew' is very offensive to them," admits Pastor Kenn. "They think that is an oxymoron, where as I see it, Christians see it, and Jewish Christians see it at the [truth]." Indeed, Bob's embracing of Christianity caused consternation, and some offense, among his Jewish friends and family. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think. Because he is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded. He was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed," says Bob's aunt, Ethel Crystal.

Bob's conversion to Christianity also caused considerable upset to his own children, who had been raised in the Jewish faith. Suddenly, packs of journalists were following their father to the Vineyard Fellowship in the hope of getting pictures of him going to a Christian church, and then staking out his home. The children saw this commotion when they visited their father. It was embarrassing and one of the few times when his celebrity was a problem in their lives.

The second except from Sounes' book is from page 356:

In the fall of 1983, Bob's seventeen-year-old son Jesse had a belated bar mitzvah in Jerusalem- Jakob and Samuel had already been bar mitzvahed in California- and Bob was photographed wearing a yarmulke at the Wailing Wall, adding to speculation that he had returned to Judaism. "As far as we're concerned, he was a confused Jew," Rabbi Kasriel Kastel told Christianity Today. "We feel he's coming back." In fact, Jesse was on vacation in Israel with his grandmother, Beatty, when they discovered a bar mitzvah could be conducted quickly and easily at the Wailing Wall and Bob simply flew in to play his part. He still believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and kept a broadly Christian outlook, although he had not maintained regular contact with the Vineyard Fellowship since the early flush of his conversion.

The second book is called 'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson (2nd edition). This excerpt is broken into 3 sections, as one is from the main body of text, and the other two are from sidebars. All is taken from pages 112-113:

'Jewish roots' sidebar

Prior to his Christian conversion, Dylan had shown some interest in getting back in touch with his Jewish roots. After his father's funeral in June 1968, he confessed to Harold Leventhal, Woody Guthrie's former manager, that he had never really known the man who was Abe Zimmerman. Leventhal's response was to urge Dylan to get back in touch with his Jewish faith. Over the next few years he read widely around the subject and held talks with Rabbi Meir Kahane, a founder of the Jewish Defense League.

He visited the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem on his birthday in May 1971. Time magazine reported that he was considering changing his name back to Zimmerman. Dylan dismissed such reports as "pure journalese". But he did consider the possibility of taking his family to live on a kibbutz. Bruce Dorfman, the painter who was his neighbor in Woodstock, reported that when he returned from Israel he was seriously considering become a Hasid. Instead, by the end of the decade he had become a born-again Christian.

His conversion caused offence to members of his family and is Jewish friends. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think," said his aunt Ethel Crystal. "He is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded, he was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed." And, despite his Christian conversion, his children all had bar mitzvahs and he attended the ceremonies on each occasion. When he encountered Leventhal at a party in Hollywood in 1980, his old friend confronted him and demanded, "What have you got that cross dangling around you for?"

In 1982, there were strong rumours that he was again exploring his Jewish heritage, sparked by a picture of him wearing a yarmulke at the bar mitzvah of his son Jesse in Jerusalem. The following year there were further stories that he had been spending time with an ultra-orthodox sect called the Lubavitchers and even that he had recorded an album of Hasidic songs. Dylan kept silent, which only encouraged the rumours.

By 1986, Allen Ginsberg was claiming that Dylan had reverted back to "his natural Judaism". Dylan appeared with his son-in-law Peter Himmelman (husband of his step-daughter Maria) at the annual Jewish Chabad telethon in Los Angeles in November 1989 wearing a yarmulke and singing "Hava Nagila". But ultimately, the importance of his Jewish roots appears to have been cultural rather than religious.

'The Vineyard Fellowship' sidebar

The Vineyard Fellowship, to which Dylan's girlfriend Mary Alice Artes introduced him in late 1978, was a small evangelical church that peddled a New Age, born-again version of Christianity. It had been found in Los Angeles in 1974 by Ken Gulliksen, who had previous been a singer on the Christian Music circuit. The church's style was informal. Gulliksen took services dressed in his shorts and counted a number of LA musicians among his congregation, including T-Bone Burnett, Steven Soles and David Mansfield, all of whom had played on Dylan's Rolling Thunder Tour.

Body Text

In January 1979, one of Dylan's girlfriends, Mary Alice Artes, approached Pastor Kenn Gulliksen of an evangelical church called the Vineyard Fellowship in the San Fernando Valley and told him that he wanted someone to speak to her boyfriend. Gulliksen sent two colleagues, Paul Esmond and Larry Myers, to meet Dylan in the West LA suburb of Brentwood. Within days he had signed up with the Fellowship. Sometime in the coming weeks, he was baptized and he and Artes commenced a three-month series of bible classes at the School of Discipleship.

Hopefully, these sources will come in handy for both the Bob Dylan and the List of converts to Christianity articles.

I'll have to a few other bookstores tomorrow and see if any other useful books can be found. If this is useful to any of you, I have the ISBNs.

'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan' by Howard Sounes. ISBN 0-8021-3891-8

'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson, 2nd Edition. ISBN 1-84353-718-4

Hopefully, I'll provide more excerpts tomorrow. --C.Logan 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources already provided are alreadyt sufficient. The discussion on this talk page seems excessive, what many well-intentioned editors don't grasp or unwilling to accept is stated plainly at WP:RS: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia doesn't seek truth, only what verifiable sources stated are "truth." If you found a couple verifiable sources declaring Dylan converted, then that alone really suffices unless there're other verifiable sources declaring Dylan didn't. Have you considered just asking an admin to join in, as this seems to be a lengthy circle of debate with new sources cited ad nauseum yet magically still no consensus. If you believe the sources fulfill WP:RS then that will end this back and forth. Tendancer 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell is everyone so upset about his conversions or not? I can't believe people are suggesting everything he says in public and ALL his albums are just his persona, that would be an insult to his ART. Those songs mean something to him, or at least some do he HAS admitted that at least.

Get rid of the "criticsm" section please

So why is there a criticism section in this article? What are we questioning somebody's actions, or non-actions? This is the only reason I really hate Wikipedia, for it seems that every article has to have a criticism section, even though in many cases it does not and should not need one. And in most cases the quotes mean so little that it should not even be put in (I mean do we actually really care what Noam Chomsky thinks about Bob Dylan? this quote is really reaching a bit to far.) Also not to mention that, this is a Bio!! Thats like me criticizing the Beatles because I think there overrated, then reach through the internet to find some obscure quote from some obscure person then publishing it on Wiki, and calling it a general criticsm. Come on people we don't need ten year olds running this thing.76.109.112.101 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think you make a good point. Can someone explain or defend the use of this long quote from Chomsky? --JJay 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not me. And I agree that there is a point here. I can see that if there were a separate article on Bob Dylan as a musician, that the content might be more appropriate there. I can myself appreciate seeing such criticism somewhere in wikipedia, though. After all, Christopher Cerf published a whole book about seemingly misplaced criticism, The Experts Speak, which I personally found rather funny in reprinting some very negative reviews of Richard Wagner, George Bernard Shaw, and others. But I do question whether the biography article is necessarily the best place for such content. John Carter 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Dylan is open to criticism. And this is a good broadside of criticism. I think it knocks Bob Dylan out of the water. I like it, and I think it should stay. By the way, Noam Chomsky is not some obscure person. Bus stop 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that Dylan is open to criticism and I have nothing against criticism sections in general. However, there are massive amounts of negative comments on Dylan going back to the start of his career. Therefore, I wonder why Chomsky - who is a noted partisan idealogue - deserves a 195-word platform smack in the middle of Bob's bio. I also wonder why Chomsky deserves the status of Bob's only critic. The quote further raises issues, such as drug use, that aren't even discussed in the bio. At the very least, it looks to me that the quote needs to be cut down. --JJay 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone could find criticism which is more directly relevant and more closely tied to the extant content of the article and the subject in wikipedia, I personally would have no objections to seeing the existing quote disappear. John Carter 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a good quote because Chomsky is an intellectual. Therefore it has particular sting. That is what criticism is, of the negative sort, anyway. Bus stop 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally cannot see the point of this Chomsky quote. This article is supposed to be a biography of Dylan’s life and achievements. Criticism is relevant when it relates to controversies within that person’s achievements. For example, when Dylan went electric at Newport in 1965, the criticism of Ewan MacColl is quoted, quite properly, because it shows many in the folk world were unhappy with Dylan’s change of direction. The fact that John Lennon disliked Dylan's 'born again' Christian beliefs is, quite properly, mentioned in this article. Within the T. S. Eliot article there is a discussion of the allegation of anti-Semitism within Eliot’s work. This seems relevant because some critics (e.g. Anthony Julius) have questioned whether the anti-Semitic references in Eliot’s poetry qualify our assessment of Eliot’s achievements. The Chomsky quote seems pointless to me because it is not clear what Chomsky is talking about. I know Dylan’s interviews quite well, and I cannot recognise the interview Chomsky says he heard. For Chomsky to say that he heard some (unspecified) Dylan interviews from the 1960s, and he was disgusted by them because they were serving the interests of the “capitalist PR machine” does not seem like a great intellectual achievement. Bus stop says s/he likes the Chomsky quote because it “knocks Dylan out of the water”. Is that really the point of Wikipedia? Mick gold 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mick gold -- In the big scheme of things Dylan's going electric is of little importance. Bus stop 11:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please refrain from making these sort of unsupported comments. This article is not about the "big scheme of things". It is about Dylan's life and career. In the "big scheme" of Dylan's life and career, his going electric is of major importance. This is discussed at length in the article. In contrast, Noam Chomsky seems to have played no role, either big or small, in the scheme of Dylan's work or life. Furthermore, the Chomsky quote, which is taken out of context from a letter that has not been published by a WP:RS, in fact focusses on drug use - something that is not discussed in the article. Chomsky claims no direct knowledge or interaction with Dylan. Instead, he offers his subjective opinion and partisan critique based on his supposed listening to an unidentified radio interview. His comment is not being used to support or refute an assertion made in the article, in violation of WP:RS, and is not backed up by secondary sources, which is a major WP:RS requirement for exceptional claims. I would further submit that inclusion of the long Chomsky passage violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, to wit: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views. Given that the Chomsky quote has no supporting secondary references, and does not relate to a specific aspect of the text, one can only conclude that it represents a "tiny minority view". As such, and considering the tenor of the remarks from five editors opposing its continued inclusion in the article, I move that it be either immediately removed, or that a small excerpt be used within the article text to either support or contradict a specific aspect of Dylan's life. JJay 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chomsky quote is NOT referenced, the link has nothing to do with the "quote" It should be deleted. Teapotgeorge 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... OK it is referenced but do we really need it? Teapotgeorge 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why are some of you up in a tizzy about the Chomsky quote? Can anyone articulate their objection to it? I think that Chomsky accurately depicts Dylan's failure to do more than make art, despite the reputation attached to him as leader of a generation, or some such moniker. He (Dylan) is associated in some people's minds as an articulator of anti war and civil rights sentiment. Chomsky, who happens to be a prominent activist, not an artist, is essentially shooting from his discipline to Dylan's discipline. That is why it's interesting. It is not really criticism of Dylan. It points up the question that there are various approaches to life and they are all failures, or at best flawed. I think the Chomsky quote is a good counterpoint to the gushing love lavished upon Dylan in much of the rest of the article (and everywhere else anyone hears commentary on Dylan). And it would seem to me that is what a criticism section is for. Bus stop 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop My objection is that I don’t know what Chomsky is talking about. He claims that in an interview:

“(Dylan) was asked what he thought about the Berkeley ‘free speech movement' and said that he didn't understand it. He said something like: 'I have free speech, I can do what I want, so it has nothing to do with me. Period.’”

I know Dylan’s interviews quite well, and this does not ring a bell. I think that Dylan never explicitly denounced his earlier phase of social activism. People have written books about Dylan’s relationship to 1960s social activism, without coming up with a quote like that. My query: can you find an interview with Dylan where he says what Chomsky claims he said? I would be genuinely interested if you can. If you can’t, Chomsky’s remarks come across as a negative attack without factual basis. Dylan devoted a whole chapter of his autobiography Chronicles to explaining how stupid he found the whole ‘spokesman of a generation’ label. The intro to this article accurately calls him ‘a reluctant figurehead of American unrest’. It’s odd that 40 years after people mistakenly called Dylan ‘the spokesman of a generation’, you want to print a quote from Chomsky which denounces Dylan for something he may not have said. I don’t think it’s the job of this article to point out that “there are various approaches to life and they are all failures, or at best flawed”. I think that is sophomoric philosophising. Mick gold 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is "sophomoric philosophizing" on my part. Writing is an art, not a science. There are an almost infinite number of articles that can be written on a given subject. Bus stop 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the details on any of this. Dylan happens to be an artist. Chomsky happens to be a scientist. I think he is a linguist. I would characterize him as a social scientist. (But please don't ask me to research this.) My understanding of the criticism is that it is one discipline criticizing another discipline. I like it because it illuminates a big picture. And, clearly, Dylan is a big man. I envision a lightening bolt traveling across the sky from the discipline of social science to the discipline of art. Neither side is wrong. But for that brief instant we see the landscape illuminated. What I get out of it is that both disciplines have failed, to a degree. It is a reality check. That is why I like it. Both disciplines mean well. But each discipline owes it to the other and to humankind to deflate the other once in a while. Hubris naturally sets in with success. I simply like the quote because it takes the reader out of the article on Bob Dylan, to point out that his accomplishments, however great, are also limited. Did Dylan or Chomsky prevent the carnage going on around the world right now? How could you not like a comment like Chomsky's? It is a big criticism because it arches across the sky, from one discipline to another. Science and art are very different disciplines. Bus stop 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot more can be said about it, but I don't want to write an essay on it. It is just as much criticism of Chomsky as it is of Dylan. And the reference to "drugged" is not to be taken as literal. Dylan is known for a manner of speech (and singing) that is both unique and slightly funny. As an artist, Dylan is always (or sometimes) "pushing the envelope." Some of those statements are to be taken as meant to be provocative. It is unreasonable to think he made an about face and no longer was concerned with progressive social causes. I think he had a sense of humor and the Chomsky section also shows Dylan exhibiting that, but to do that, one has to read between the lines. Bus stop 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No real disagreement. However, I, and I think a lot of other editors, question whether a "social criticism" of this kind is really most appropriately in a single article about a single music performer/entertainer. This is, after all, an encylcopedia, and we have lots of articles with various specific content. It may fit well elsewhere, but I believe it is pronouncedly off-topic here. If this content is acceptable here, then we should probably also have content in the appropriate artices to the effect that Ted Danson didn't stop the Iraq war, Steve Martin's tastes in the visual arts are not widely agreed with, the Smothers Brothers for all their talk didn't seem to have any effect in ending the war in Vietnam, and on and on and on. I personally think that content of this type, which refers to things not already in the article and is generally, in a sense off-topic, might belong somewhere in wikipedia, but not in articles such as this one. John Carter 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Bus stop- The context of the Chomsky quote is drugs. Literally. Chomsky starts by stating: As for drugs, my impression is that their effect was almost completely negative, simply removing people from meaningful struggle and engagement. He then goes on to use Dylan as an example of the effect of drugs. Whether the passage, as you claim, "is just as much criticism of Chomsky" is irrelevant. This article is not concerned with Chomsky, either pro or con. If the material is important, it belongs in the Chomsky article. In addition, your comments on the passage are, at the very least, contradictory. Above you write: this is a good broadside of criticism. I think it knocks Bob Dylan out of the water. You go on to say: It is a good quote because Chomsky is an intellectual. Therefore it has particular sting. That is what criticism is. You later write: It is not really criticism of Dylan. It points up the question that there are various approaches to life and they are all failures, or at best flawed. Finally, you now seem to find humor in the quote and write: one has to read between the lines. I don't see a cogent argument developing here for maintaining the material in the face of a number of policy breaches (which you have ignored) and the comments from opposing editors. Given the broad consensus shown by a range of users above arguing for removal, the quote has now been removed from the article. JJay 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with JJay Mick gold 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "reading between the lines" is almost always inherently POV (as different individuals will have different ideas as to what lies between the lines) and thus not something which we should in any way be encouraging here. John Carter 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Refining Prose

Please don't be alarmed by all my edits; they're all minor and only intended to make the article more readable and logical. I'm trying not to change the content, I'm only cleaning it up some. Tix 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One comment. You added the word "secretly" regarding the marriage. I know nothing about the subject one way or another, but think that a bit of elaboration might be in order. Secret from whom, for instance? If just from the press, it might be called a "private" or "non-publicized" wedding. "Secret" is kind of a loaded word in this context. John Carter 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. "Private" would be better.Tix 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity

This thread was not being used to discuss improvements to the Bob Dylan article in violation of Talk Page guidelines (see notice at top of page). It has been moved to the List of converts to christianity talk page. --JJay 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate Section for Conversion?

This might be a bad time to suggest this, but since there's a lot written about his conversion and the albums put out immediately afterwards, and since it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the 70s, maybe we should make it a separate section, within the 70's section but not lumped in with everything else in the 70s. Like, for example: ====Conversion to Christianity==== Or something along those lines. The heading would be smaller (one more equal sign) than the "70s" and so that it would be firmly set as a subgroup of the 70s section. Or if people don't think it's important enough to merit its own section, than maybe the material about it should be reduced in size since right now its got three prominent quotes and lots of other stuff written. And if it is reduced so as to just get the essentials, maybe (if anyone's ambitious enough, including me) a new article could be created, about the controversy and debate over his conversion. Thoughts? Tix 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of time and energy that has gone into what is seemingly, to me anyway, a comparatively minor point, I wonder whether the content merits a separate section. Having said that, however, it certainly seems to have enough material to be a fairly long article, so I guess I would say maybe even splitting it off into a separate sub-article would conceivably be acceptable. John Carter 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make it more readable and organized, so I'll go ahead and try it and you can change it if it doesn't seem right. I'll be bold. But if a new article is created, then maybe it can be pared down and "de-sectioned", with a link to the new article of course. Tix 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I can try to help out a little myself, but considering my real knowledge of the subject is nil, I wonder how much good I could be in preparing it. I could at least look over what you write and try to clarify any ambiguities you might unintentionally leave and/or try to find some of the sources for the various points which I am sure are going to be challenged if they are not sourced. Thank you for your effort, by the way. :) John Carter 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tix You have made some good edits but I strongly disagree with this separate section you have created. I think it completely overstates the significance of the ‘born again’ Christian phase of Dylan’s career. And, to put it mildly, this is a very sensitive topic. I’ve just had a quick look at the Talk page below this entry. I find it frightening.

The reason Dylan is important is he’s a brilliant singer/songwriter. Every book on Dylan agrees his greatest album are, in no particular order, Freewheelin’, the mid 60s trilogy (Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde), and Blood on the Tracks. (Some critics add John Wesley Harding to this list.) The ‘born again’ Christian period (roughly from September 1979 to May 1981) is fascinating because it show the total conviction with which Dylan hurls himself into a new point of view, and because his views alienated many of his former fans, and many of his contemporaries, e.g. John Lennon. I don’t think any major Dylan scholar think it’s one of the most important things he did.

I think it’s crucial that this article contains an accurate, well-sourced account of Dylan’s ’born again’ Christian period. I think it currently does. But to give it a separate section is, I would argue, grotesquely disproportionate to its significance in Dylan’s career. And it is hurling a bucket of gasoline onto the flames of controversy. I’m currently away from home (working, I have to work sometimes) and I don’t have much access to the internet. I can participate more in this debate in a few days time. Mick gold 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but don't you think if it's not significant to have its own section, then it should be boiled down to its essentials? I mean, 4 quotes put in the big "cquote" things, and all in all, the whole Conversion part took up about half of the entire 70s section, it just seemed awkward and out of place just lumped in with the whole 70s narrative. I think I would lean towards this option then, of having at most 2 quotes, one from Dylan and one from a critic, and then I guess leaving it as part of the 70s section with no separate "Conversion" section. That was my original point: either pare it down or section it off. But maybe I'm wrong: do you think it's fine how it was? Tix 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the separate section. I also tend to think the conversion period merits expansion given its important relationship to Dylan's work. --JJay 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you’re right, maybe the new section works. ‘Conversion to Christianity’ sounds a little aggressive to me as a section heading. Could we call your new section "The 'Born Again' period" ? Many Dylan reference books use this phrase. Michael Gray's 'The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia' has a 5 page entry on "The 'Born Again' period" (pp 76-80) which contains a detailed account of Dylan's involvement with Christianity from September 1979 to May 1981. Thanks Mick gold 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this, mainly because the conversion itself is merely one of the initiators of this nearly 4-year occurrence. The title you've suggested is a more accurate representation of what the section is actually about- not merely his conversion, but his subsequent change in style and behavior which followed.--C.Logan 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. The only slight problem I have with that is that it suggests that when the period ended, his Christianity ended as well, and I don't personally think that. But my personal thoughts aren't exactly of encyclopedic quality (haha), and the general consensus seems to be that he had a certain period where he was evangelistic and born again, and then soon after he returned to his normal self. So I'll go ahead and change it to "The 'Born Again' Period" which is probably more satisfying to a large amount of people, and its use in Gray's Encyclopedia definitely lends credibility to it. Tix 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changed heading per Mick's reference. Also regarding my comment on expansion, while we can't let the section dominate the article (or the article talk page), if it does grow to a considerable length (and there are some quotes I'm considering adding), we can potentialy spin it out, as was done with Darwin for example. But we are obviously not there yet. --JJay 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to John Carter

Copied from User:Bus stop's page:

"As the above note seemed to "jump" over my direct question to Cleo, I repeat it here. Please illustrate specifically which point of logic you are using to justify the conclucion that he (Dylan) had to "renounce Judaism" (to use the phrase you used) to embrace Christianity. John Carter 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some of my remarks may have been misinterpretted. I do not take issue with the well documented fact that Bob Dylan embraced Christianity in the early 70's for a period of time. There are available sources in which Dylan himself discusses "finding" Jesus. It is perfectly accurate to say that: "During the 1970's and 1980's there were media reports that Dylan had become a born again Christian." I have an issue with the specific use of the word "conversion" to describe this period. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I believe there is an important distinction to be made here. Dylan does not have to renounce Judaism to experiment with Christianity. It seems that we are all in agreement that an actual formal "conversion" requires a baptism. A key element of religious conversion is the renunciation of your former faith. I'm not sure Dylan ever did that. The only source that has been provided for the "baptism" appears to be a self published newsletter by a pastor with a transparent agenda. I do not object to the pastor's statements being included in this article, as long as they are presented clearly. I think it is too great a leap, however, to take information from an isolated (in my opinion) unreliable source and present it as fact on a list of notable people who have converted to Christianity, which does not lend itself to further explanation. I have not had the benefit of seeing the two books that have been cited. I am concerned that they may merely be authors reiterating the pastor's statements. It concerns me that there do not appear to be any other coroborating witnesses to this "baptism" and that the pastor himself is vague about the time and place. I am also very concerned that information from these sources may have been twisted and taken out of context to support a point of view. I am not saying that to be harsh or accusatory. I have been watching this discussion and I notice that in the pack of editors espousing their own nuetrality no one has removed the following statement from the article :

"However by 1981, his conversion was then a matter beyond speculation."

This is not a quote. There does not appear to be a source for this sentence. This is pure subjective opinion and interpretation. A sentence of this nature in completely unacceptable on Wikipedia - yet there it sits, while everyone accuses User:Bus stop of POV pushing. There appears to be a bit of hypocrisy here, which leads to some skepticism on my part.Cleo123 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Cleo, note the fact that the book sources explicitly explain his conversion, and both verify that he was baptized. Please remind yourself that one can certainly know that someone married someone else without knowing the time and the place. As John Carter pointed out (if I recall correctly), the church under which he was baptized doesn't keep baptism records.

Additionally, in your assumption that one must renounce their Judaism to become a Christian, you are ignoring the fact that all the Messianic Jews/Fulfilled Jews/Jewish Christians do no such thing. And from what I've read, Dylan synthesized his old beliefs with the new, finding them compatible.

And concerning the text you quoted in this article, please take that up user Patsw, who added the statement. I wasn't involved, and I don't quite agree with the statement (as people could certainly still speculate about the event itself, although it was widely reported that he did convert, apparently). --C.Logan 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Please, stay on point and stop obfiscating the issue. We not discussing Messianic Jews. You have claimed that Dylan underwent a baptism into the Assembly of God denomination and converted. All anyone has asked you for are corroborating sources. Explanations such as "they don't keep records" come accross as flimsy excuses for a lack of supporting evidence. We also are not discussing marriage, which requires a license - a verifiable form of documentation. As for the books you continue to cite, you appear to be the only editor who has seen them. I suspect that the books may contain little more than a recounting of the information contained in your primary source, which does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards.

Most troubling, however, is your statement that "Dylan synthesized his old beliefs with the new, finding them compatible." Your statement lends credence to the notion that Dylan did not formally convert. Christ either is the Messiah or he isn't. The two are not compatible. Does the Assembly of God accept the notion that Christ may or may not be the Messiah as part of ther baptismal ceremony?

Your statement that User:Patsw is responsible for the POV statement is a bit too convenient, as it just happens to support your view. Any truly nuetral editor of integrity would remove the statement. I've been waiting to see how long it would take for one of you to do it. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes. Cleo123 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assembly of God? Um... recall that I've never said that. In fact, I've always said that he was affiliated with the Vineyard Fellowship Church which is... what the sources actually say, published (book) sources included. And as far as corroborating sources, please actually read the sources. Read both book sources, and then take a look at the internet sources. Do me that favor first before you continue to say these things. And as for the marriage thing, the analogy only goes so far- I'm saying that it is not necessary to know the time and the place to know that something occurred. And additionally, I'm confused as to why you think the internet source is my 'primary source'. Check the references- the books are at the top of the list, and if any of the sources is borrowing from the other, the online source is 'borrowing' from the book.

I believe that you should take the time to go to the bookstore, as I have, and read the books yourself (Chapter 8, I believe, in Sounes' book). Sounes clarifies his sources in the back, so you can feel free to check it.

As far as me being the only editor who has seen them, well, thats because I'm the only editor who is proactive enough to go looking. I've provided the ISBN numbers on the L.o.n.c.t.C. page, so look them up and read them over whatever makes you feel cozy. Additionally, User Mick Gold apparently has has several books on Dylan which he claims support the conversion as well, but he's on vacation for some sort of film project.

And, despite you pushing aside Jewish Christians/Messianic Jews, you challenge with a similar point. Please understand the beliefs of Jewish Christians/Messianic Jews. Read their writings. To them, Jesus is the Messiah, but Old Testament laws and guidelines still apply, the holidays are still celebrated, and the believers are still fully involved with their Jewish identity. You do not have to be under these blanket terms to have these beliefs. The above mentioned groups sometimes form into congregations (Messianics moreso, considering that they are stuck between both extremes), but many individuals profess these sorts of beliefs in their own congregations/denominations. I can assure you that these people believe that the two faiths are quite compatible. (To note: Jewish Christians are somewhat more Christian, and Messianic Jews are somewhat more Jewish.)

Again with Assembly of God thing... please check the sources I myself put forth so you know what I'm even arguing about, and make sure you don't conflate me with other users, as you mentioned that someone else had claimed the A.o.G. connection (which I argued against the first time).

Oh, and how nice of you to assume good faith about the patsw edit. I was not aware of this until you mentioned it, at which point I checked the page history and found the editor who added it (I was generally curious). The fact that you are so quick to accuse speaks volumes. Please note that this page was never frequented by me until halfway through this dispute, at which point I noticed the extensive use of the talk page here to talk about the article I am directly involved with. I don't check the edits on this page as often as on L.o.n.c.t.C.. The talk page is generally about other issues, like Noam Chomsky quotes. I'm concerned with the List. And honestly, I'm not sure how I would re-word the statement in question. I'd have to look at the sources in question, the circumstances. Any ideas? I'd be glad to help. And why don't you ask patsw about it before dumping it on me in the form of some secret 'test'? I know I'm online the most (it seems), but this isn't my article. I just watch it for the talk page, to see when L.o.n.c.t.C. related edits come up. I'd prefer to read more about these things before I change them.

Also, maybe you should note that I left shortly after I posted my response, as I've been with a friend (I noted this on Bus stop's page). That's more non-Wiki time which passes and thus 'speaks more volumes' about my 'ulterior motives' in your view. Please shed these paranoid assumptions. We're editors. We all think we have good reasons behind our arguments (By we all, I mean you, I, and everyone involved). Remember what happens when we assume! --C.Logan 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, read WP:CIVIL. If you continue to engage in personal attacks, I will not hesitate to report you. I also do not appreciate your attempts to put words in my mouth, twisting and distorting my statements. I have made no "paranoid assumptions" - only factual observations. A number of editors, yourself included, accused another user of improper biased behavior on the Community Sanctions Noticeboard. I have responded to that request for review and merely placed your own conduct under the same editorial scrutiny. To coin a phrase, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

In my prior posting, I reminded you that this was not a discussion of Messianic Jews. Your response is to post yet another lengthy, off topic statement about Messianic Jews. I consider your behavior to be disruptive. Please, try to stay on point. It also would helpful if you could keep your remarks brief. This is a discussion page, not an essay contest.

As for your remarks regarding the Assembly of God vs. the Vinyard Church, I simply confused the name, as another editor has argued for the Assembly of God. The fact that there is conflicting information regarding which denomination he allegedly "converted" to only weakens your argument all the more. As you are well aware, I have reviewed your online sources and have discussed their failure to meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria with you on other talk pages. In my last posting to this page (which you have surely seen), I asked another editor to assume good faith on your part, and that of others. In light of that, your innuendo regarding good faith assumptions is particularly offensive and inappropriate. To my mind, the fact that you continually appear to be twisting other editors' statements and posting misleading information on this talk page, calls all article information provided by you into question. Cleo123 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleo, I didn't mean to sound disrespectful or rude concerning your confusion about which church/denomination I'd said. However, as far as corroborating sources go, you seem to not realize this fact- that (at least) 3 books, by Clinton Heylin, Howard Sounes, and Nigel Williamson, all agree about a myriad of things: Dylan's involvement with the Vineyard Fellowship Church, his relationship and encouragement from Mary Alice Artes, her request to Ken Gulliksen to send pastors to speak with her boyfriend (Dylan), Dylan's acceptance of Jesus as the Lord, his participation in the Bible-study class, to which he was scheduled to attend for three months, but was under pressure to continue with his tour, his reclusive nature during the study, along with later events. How, with three widely-available books relaying the same information I am, is this not considered sufficient corroborating evidence? This is even ignoring the internet sources which further agree.

In regards to the Community sanction noticeboard, it's quite clear that my statements there were mild. I do believe that Bus stop makes his bias apparent, and those quotes supplied support my assumption:

In regards to the listing on this page, I can say a few things. I've gone far out of my way to list and summarize each of the sources used. In fact, Bus stop and I were at one point in agreement: the original reference was slightly ambiguous. So, I sought out 8 more sources, which were all apparently insufficient- in his view (feel free to come to your own conclusions here). I've added yet another source, a lengthy article from a Jewish newsletter, which is actually quite fair and even sometimes apologetic about the nature of his religious beliefs (this has also been summarized, and quotes have been noted at the above link). According to Bus stop, none of these sources are sufficient. Bus stop has said that he is acting in a neutral manner in his edits, and others seem to agree that he is a reliable and helpful editor, but I'm unsure if the same can be said in this instance, considering certain things he has said. I don't mean to villainize him, but at the same time, I'm truly surprised that he persists with his argument, and I'm puzzled as to why he really hasn't made an attempt to provide sources which support his viewpoint.--C.Logan 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

While it seems that we are being turned into insidious proselytizers, you accuse me of an equal crime because I questioned Bus stop's bias? I think it's still fair to consider some of the things which were said by him in assessing his bias in the argument. I have never stated that "a Jew has been conquered by Christianity, so get over it". I'm not thinking in that mindset. However, in Bus stop's opinion, this is exactly what we are thinking. Is this fair? Would it make sense for me to accuse Bus stop of trying to "hide the fact that a Jew converted to Christianity"? No, that's silly. I'm not making that accusation. However, Bus stop assumes that we argue for inclusion for the sake of proselytizing. Please tell me what makes you think I'm trying to proselytize? If this issue is the only reason, then spare me the accusation. You have no idea who I am, what I do, or why I do it. When I try to explain these things to you, I am largely ignored. When I try to resolve this more peacefully, like I did last night, I am ignored. The discussion merely continues as if no one ever tried to slow it down. And yet you assume that I am not being civil? I'm merely agitated. Excuse me if my language seems harsh. Just remember that we are on the internet, and there's a dimension missing in these text transmissions.

Again, with regards to Messianic Jews and Jewish Christians, it is actually very relevant to the point. You say that the two faiths are incompatible, and yet there are many Jewish believers in Christ who do not agree with you. It is silly for you to make such a statement as if it is authoritative, because it is clearly an opinion. Some Christians don't find Christianity compatible with Buddhism, but many do (and practice both). You said:

"Most troubling, however, is your statement that "Dylan synthesized his old beliefs with the new, finding them compatible." Your statement lends credence to the notion that Dylan did not formally convert. Christ either is the Messiah or he isn't. The two are not compatible."

You cannot use your personal opinion as an authoritative statement, so please don't try to make my argument sound foolish by doing so.

As for keeping my remarks brief, I believe I am using the minimum amount of words possible to get my point across. With that particular paragraph, I was trying to correct a misunderstanding of yours about the possibility of compatibility between Christianity and Judaism. Simply, explaining things in the proper number of words. I'm sure you two feel the same about your heftier responses.

Could you please present me with these Assembly of God sources which you've been speaking of? I know you've mentioned them to me before, but I'm not exactly sure where to look. Considering the paragraph which explains the corroborating evidence above, I'd be surprised if one would argue that three published biographies would seriously be challenged by what seems to be an isolated internet source.

Additionally, I thank you for encouraging others to assume good faith in me, but it seems that you're not entirely doing so yourself. As I've said, you assume that I 'intentionally' left in a questionable statement. I don't believe it's fair to criticize me for my business with other issues, and for my assumption that somebody else (i.e. someone who actually polices this article, which I barely even watch) would take care of the problem. I apologize for my lack of proactivity in the matter, but this does not mean that you can assume I neglected to remove the statement because of any ulterior motives. You said:

Your statement that User:Patsw is responsible for the POV statement is a bit too convenient, as it just happens to support your view. Any truly nuetral editor of integrity would remove the statement. I've been waiting to see how long it would take for one of you to do it. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes. Cleo123 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this truly assuming good faith? It seems as if I'm guilty until proven innocent. And indeed, if you are truly neutral, why haven't you removed it? Is it because you are using it as bait to test the integrity of others? This is, after all, what you seem to be saying.

Basically, I would like you to actually assume- for a minute- that I'm not here to proselytize; that maybe, just maybe, I'm not arguing to 'spread Christianity'; that I'm not throwing my integrity out of the window because something might promote my faith. Please, assume good faith.--C.Logan 04:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop misrepresenting my views and putting words in my mouth. Statements such as "Please, tell me why you think I am trying to proselitize?" are patently ludricrous. My contribution history clearly shows that I have never made any remarks that would warrant such a misleading question. On the contrary, I asked User:Bus stop on this page to stop making such accusations. I am not going to waste my time cataloging your numerous misrepresentations above. You have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Don't bother writing anymore long diatribes full of falsehoods to me. I will not be bothered to respond to you. Cleo123 05:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted your exact words, above. I'm simply presenting what you said to me. Granted, I can't hear your tone, as we're reading text, but it seems quite clear that you suppose that we are not acting honestly in regard to our editing habits. Additionally, the 'you' was intended to refer to the participants on your side of the argument, i.e. you and Bus stop- I was simply posing the question openly, and as it seems you two agree on many points, it's likely you could explain to me why it seems that way to the opposition.

If you truly feel that I've misrepresented you, then I am honestly very sorry. It is difficult to continue in an argument without agitation when your points are misrepresented and wrongly attributed. The times that you have done this have been accidental, and were the result of a misunderstanding of my words. Bus stop appears to be much clearer in his stance concerning my own motivations and the motivations of other editors. I must honestly say that it is extremely frustrating to be involved in an argument in which nobody seems to be listening, only talking. I consider both sides guilty of this. I had hoped to end things peacefully, and preferably in a personal discussion rather than an open forum such as this, but it seems that Bus stop is not really interested, or has somehow not read what I said.

It's upsetting that you no longer wish to respond to my edits, but perhaps it is for the better- it doesn't seem like either of us was taking things correctly from the other person's arguments. I must apologize for any perceived rudeness I have displayed when discussion things which you said I had said, but did not- although I would say that it is understandable. Your statements of my 'involvement in the Vineyard Church', your claims that I argued 'Dylan was involved with the Assembly of God', your statement that my 'primary source is a newsletter'... these things are misrepresentations of my argument. All these statements are false, but you did not intend to present them in a deceptive manner. It's simply frustrating to see your own words warped by someone else and spit back at you as if you are at fault. --C.Logan 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleo -- That's what proselitizing is all about. Without talking out of both sides of their mouthes they would have a hard time getting proselytization across Wikipedia's regulations which are in place in order to prevent advocating for individual causes. Obfuscation is important too. Please don't ask proselytizers to stop obfuscating. If they didn't obfuscate, they would actually have to address the criticism that others make concerning their promoting of Christianity on Wikipedia. Sometimes it seems that all I am reading is hot air. They've apparently perfected the art of frustrating conversation so that it goes nowhere. Bus stop 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not speculate as to the motivations of others. I share your belief that promotion of any religion on Wikipedia is improper. You have made your point. I understand that you are probably very frustrated at this point, but accusing others of proseltizing only escalates tensions on the page. Let's try to assume good faith and focus on the "what" as opposed to the "why". I think that may be more productive. You would like this stalemate to be broken eventually, right? LOL! Cleo123 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I very clearly and demonstrably disagree with the statement that, and I quote, "It seems that we are all in agreement that an actual formal "conversion" requires a baptism." I have indicated before that, if this standard were to enforced, that a number of groups which are described as Christian, the Vineyard movement among them, do not keep records of baptism, and that there are several Christian denominations which hold that baptism of desire is all that is required for conversion. Also, as I have indicated elsewhere, it is documented that several official documents relating to living people have been destroyed. The loss of many documents during the Allied attack on Nazi Germany is perhaps one of the clearest examples of these. If we were to demand what seems to me to be a standard which is clearly (1) not applicable to all the entities involved, including particularly the specific entity under discussion here, the Vineyard movement, and (2) dependent upon the survival of such documentation over time so that it might be consulted later, we may well face the rather ridiculous situation that one or more televangelists do not qualify as "Christian" by these standards. Also, I find the convenient excuse that "formal documentation" is required in this instance ridiculous. If we were to use this argument, then the article on the Vineyard movement itself would be reasonably deleted on the basis that there is no concrete evidence that it actually ever had any substantive membership. Clearly, in cases when the documentation which is sought may very likely never have existed in the first place, and is really only sought because of an inaccurate presumption on the part of individuals whose knowledge of the specific subject involved is less than we might desire, it is at best unreasonable and at worst a demonstration of bad faith to demand it. As I have stated before, if this standard were to be employed, then we would not be able to cite any particular notable event reported in a contemporary, trusted mainstream publication as having occurred on a particular date if the original document verifying it (if one ever existed, which probably was not the case here) no longer existed. Halls of records, particularly in the devloping world, are damaged and destroyed distressingly often, so it could reasonably be stated that, even if someone's birth, marriage, or whatever were reported in a daily newspaper as having happened the day before, if the "official" document was destroyed or no longer legible, that it could not be discussed here, at least without what would be frankly an almost ridiculous qualifier appended. I have to believe that in cases like this secondary sources which have not been specifically denied or contradicated have to be regarded as authoritative. I also note that Dylan in his statements as referenced, has completely refused to address the issue clearly at all, so that standard is not met. Also, I note that wikipedia's standards to not in fact require verification of all statements made, even in cases of living persons, but rather simply documentation from generally reliable sources. On that basis, I believe that, if the documentation which some of the parties who are in favor of including this material does at least support this contention without reservations as to the fact of the matter, that the required for at least qualified inclusion (qualification perhaps regarding lack of original documentation) is met. After all, many people have trouble remembering the specific dates and circumstances of events important to others. Many of us guys are notorious for forgetting when our wife's or girlfriend's birthday is, let alone "anniversaries" of this, that, and the other. On this basis, I believe that the reasonable standards to be applied when a specific type of sought documentation which is indicated may not now, or ever have, existed is sought after, it should be noted that that standard cannot be achieved and that uncontradicated contemporary accounts, or uncontradicated memoirs of those involved in the matter, at least peripherally, are probably all that is required. And I personally find raising the spectre of a lawsuit or other such negative response in this case almost contemptible. The subject under discussion has been under discussion, off and on, in several, if not most, of the mainstream publications of the United States and the western world for about 25 years now. If no one can find, in all of that time, any evidence of a retraction or other similar action from any of the publications and news media which have discussed this matter, then it is I believe rational to conclude that none of the parties involved have the slightest interest in disputing the information. I would, of course, welcome any real evidence from the opposition. I recognize that many of them would say that I have myself presented no direct evidence, but I personally believe that anyone who has read my previous contributions to this discussion would realize that such a statement would be clearly unsupported by the evidence. John Carter 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we are getting way off topic here. Discussions of lost WWII documents have no bearing on this increasingly distorted discussion. As for myself, I have no issue with sourced discussion of Dylan's Christian phase in this article. I take issue with our use of the word conversion, which implies something formal - and his inclusion on a list, which does not provide for any sense of context. It seems to me that editors have had a very difficult time finding sources that substantiate a formal conversion. The media has shyed away from such bold statements (for good reason) and Wikipedia should do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with WP:LIBEL, it is the policy and must be adhered to. The fact that no libel suits have been brought to date against other media outlets is irrelevant and can play no role in our decision making process. See WP:CRYSTAL. Quoting sources within the context of an article is quite different than asigning a label to someone on a list. The later requires a higher level of verifiable sources. The pastor's vague and unsubstantiated statements regarding a formal baptism have been questioned. All anyone has asked for is some coroborating evidence. Discussions of other denominations are off point. Dylan has made it pretty clear in his interviews that he considers it a private matter. As this is a living person and the evidence of an actual formal conversion is sketchy, I believe we should respect Mr. Dylan's feelings. I see nothing to be gained by placing a Jew on a list of Christian converts. Any benefit is outweighed by the downside editorial risk.Cleo123 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this discussion got way "off-topic" when a given editor assumed to speak for others, apparently not noting that there was existing disagreement with the comment that another editor said they thought we could all agree upon. And I stand by my comment that demanding records where records are clearly and demonstrably at best unlikely to exist, or ever have existed, is both irrational and counterproductive. In cases like that, when there are sources which seem to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the basis of all the available evidence, that those sources can and should be sufficient enough for something to be cited in wikipedia content. John Carter 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While, from your viewpoint, you'll never believe me, I agree with you about the promotion of religion on Wikipedia. I'm very upset that we've become locked up in an argument that mixes itself up with the assumptions we've made about those on the other side. I've helped to defend Islam and Christianity-related articles from vandalism, both pro and anti. I'll delete any O.R. which supports Christianity. I'll add a note when someone cites the Comma Johanneum as support for the Trinity, as I know this was a later addition to the Bible, and not in the original texts. I make pro-Christian and anti-Christian edits. One should not be afraid of criticism of their faith, and I'm certainly not. I love my faith, but I'm not on Wikipedia to spread it. Trust me on this.

I'm just as annoyed by proselytizing, and I'm glad that it's not as encouraged in the Eastern Orthodox Church as it was in the many Protestant churches in my region (which constantly churns out street-side proselytizers). I know that they believe they are doing a good thing, but they're doing it the wrong way. No one wants Christianity in their face when they're going about their business. When I do tell people about it, it's mostly for understanding, and always alone when the conversation takes that turn.

Although my little user box and some of my words have made my faith apparent, it doesn't play into these edits. I honestly believe that I am correct in the matter, and that you are incorrect- that is why I argue so relentlessly- faith has nothing to do with it. I'd argue just as fervently for a Muslim convert, if the sources were there to back it up.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that you've been unwilling to bring up any sources, while I have gone out of my way to transcribe pages of text to prove my point- and I'll gladly continue to do so. A lot of this has to do with your unwarranted assumptions from day 1 that we are only here to proselytize, 'place a Jew on a list of Christians' and party afterwards. I assumed good faith with you, Bus stop, but in light of your lack of good faith in me, I became more critical of your position by reading the questionable things you've said.

Please know why I am arguing with you. Listen to me, really. I've tried to cool things down by suggesting we discuss these things personally, so that we can be more open to understanding each other's points. You seem to ignore me when I post those messages. Do you think I'm trying to trick you or something? I really want this to end, mostly because online debates kill me. And we could all be doing more productive things with this time. How many bytes have we added to this discussion? I'm guessing somewhere in the high 200k range. This is on its way to becoming a book's worth of material.

Hell, I could be writing. Painting. Doing musical things. Sitting on my roof. And yet I'm on Wikipedia, arguing about Bob Dylan. In the light of these realizations, I'd like to end this, somehow, soon, lest more precious seconds of life tick away. Once again, I'd like to talk to you personally (i.e. one-on-one, not in person, obviously... somewhere on Wikipedia). I'm hoping we can be Wiki-friends after this- helping each other to edit and such. It would be a big box of periwinkle-sparkled Wiki-cooperation. What do you say? --C.Logan 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "conversion" is technical at best. If it exists (highly doubtable) it's main purpose is for exploitation by proselytizers for Christianity. That is why the contrived "category" was created on the List of converts to Christianity page. As everybody knows Dylan isn't a convert to Christianity, it is just a technicality (at best) that is exploited cynically by those who proselytize for Christianity. Even Dylan's Christian phase (short lived) is only technical. All evidences of "Christianity" evidenced in Dylan's life are of a "theatrical" nature. Songs (Gospel) delivered from the stage -- theatrical. Christian-laced "sermonettes" delivered between songs -- theatrical. A question I posed before -- what evidence is there of a "Christian life lived" in Dylan during this (brief) phase? Answer: nothing. In point of fact there is no evidence of Christianity as a religion being anything more than a prop for Dylan, a performer, during his "Christian phase." The real Christians, the proselytizers, cynically try to get as much milage out Dylan's brush with Christianity as they can. They concoct unnatural criteria for "lists" on Wikipedia so that they will include people like Bob Dylan. In point of fact, Dylan's relationship to Christianity is inconsequential. When one speaks of a list of converts to Christianity the first thing that comes to mind are Christians who converted in order to become Christians. But that is not what the List of converts to Christianity means. The editors have concocted an innovation for their "list." Their list is not those Christians who have arrived at Christianity by means of conversion. That would be too simple. That would be too straightforward. That would be too obvious. That would be too compliant with the spirit of Wikipedia's injunction against advocating for causes on Wikipedia. So instead they've concocted the contrived criteria that "their" list includes any notable person who has ever converted to Christianity. And the reason for this is what? It is for no other reason than to get Bob Dylan onto their list. It is a ploy. It is a ruse. It is subterfuge. So far Wikipedia has not gotten wise to this particular way to dodge WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Dylan is not a Christian. Never lived a "Christian life. In fact there is evidence he has at times since then been involved with Orthodox Judaism. But the fact remains he was born a Jew, he has not had anything to do with Christianity in 25 years, and he is at present just a Jew. So then the proselytizers add "disclaimers" all over their list. (That is necessary because no one would assume a list would have the weird criteria they've chosen.) They have to put disclaimers on the top of the list and next to Bob Dylan's name to explain to people what would never occur to them naturally. (You see, this is all a contrivance.) And needless to say that language is carefully worded to continue to pull the wool over people's eyes. It is travesty and an exploitation of Wikipedia. The obvious list is the list of those notable Christians who have come to Christianity by means of conversion. A list having those criteria would only contain people who actually represent Christianity. A list of those normal criteria would require no "disclaimers." If some editors wish to wax eloquent on Dylan's Christian phase, they can do so on the Bob Dylan article. (Or, perhaps, some other article, having a relevant theme.) A balanced picture can be presented in an article, using a multitude of words, sentences, and even paragraphs. A list is a black and white situation. And the particular criteria chosen for their list is just a contrivance. I think it is (or should be) obvious to many that a Jew should not be on a List of converts to Christianity. Proselytizing is contrary to Wikipedia's most basic neutrality principle. The intransigence on the part of some editors to hew to Wikipedia policy is a problem and needs to be addressed. Bus stop 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• From the Larry Yudelson source that you yourself added to the article with this edit [6]: In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history, Yudelson, Larry. "Tangled Up in Jews". Washington Jewish Week (1991)[7].
• In addition, I am forced to again remind you and others to adhere to talk page guidelines, namely: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Unsubstantiated accusations and personal opinion as shown in your post here [8] do nothing to further the sole purpose of this page: discussing improvements to the Bob Dylan article. Per the talk page guidelines, use diffs and references to support your argument. JJay 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop said above, and I quote, "The intransigence on the part of some editors to hew to Wikipedia policy is a problem and needs to be addressed". I agree wholeheartedly. Considering he himself has yet to provide a single source for his own arguments, and has in fact created what are at best, in the eyes of many others, spurious arguments to remove content simply, presumably, because his own existing intransigent POV, I think, if he wants to see the conversation "elevated", he should be the first one to actually, for once, abide by wikipedia policy and cite his sources for his own contentions. John Carter 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Concerning the criteria for the list, it should be a list of all notable Christians who have come to Christianity via conversion. That would not include Bob Dylan. You can't contrive parameters (criteria) just to get Dylan on the list. That is a contrivance. And I think it constitutes proselytizing. Wikipedia has a policy against that. It is called WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. All of the "disclaimers" that you have added to the list don't right the wrong of the contrived parameters. Use natural parameters, as I have described above. I will describe them again: The natural parameters are: a list of all those notable Christians who have arrived at the identity of Christian by way of having converted to Christianity, as opposed to having been born a Christian. That is the correct list -- it will not require disclaimers. You will not have Bob Dylan on the list. But there is an article on Bob Dylan. You can contribute to the part of the Bob Dylan article that covers the Christian phase. There are presently "disclaimers" in at least two places on that list that you and/or others have created. That is no way to cover the "Christian phase" in Dylan's life. In fact, it is completely misleading, in the first place, to put a Jew on a list such as that one and then have to post disclaimers of various sorts. An article such as the Bob Dylan article allows for lengthy context; disclaimers do not. You can't dictate what the parameters are. They are either natural or they are not. Bob Dylan does not fit natural parameters for a list such as the one we are discussing. Bus stop 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly where you as an individual receive the authority to tell the rest of the editors of wikipedia what any article "should" be, particularly since you yourself seem to see fit to tell others that they "can't dictate what the parameters are." Honestly, the only one who seems to be trying to dictate parameters here is you. However, I am sure that the people who have worked long hours to construct the content of this article are very grateful that you, in your seeming absolute grasp of all the facts, have deigned to share with them your point of view. That, of course, is a joke, considering that you have already said (and demonstrated) you don't know much about the subject, but still see fit to pontificate to others regarding what you, in your vast wisdom(?), have determined is acceptable anyway. And I note once again that you have failed to provide any sort of references. Why doesn't that surprise me? Maybe because, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, your argument just doesn't stand up, particularly with the complete and total lack of substantiation you have to date provided?John Carter 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- We are talking about the List of converts to Christianity, are we not? And I believe it is part of the section of Wikipedia called "Articles on Christianity," isn't that so? The particular article's title is "List of notable converts to Christianity." So, why are you endeavoring to contrive to set parameters that will result in putting a Jew on that article, which happens to be a list? Is it that you want to put Dylan on the list, so you've come up with a definition for the criteria for inclusion that will result in Dylan on the list? Or have you just looked at the natural parameters that should apply to such a list? If you look at the natural criteria that should qualify a person for inclusion or exclusion you will see that it is really quite simple. I think we are talking about converts to Christianity, are we not. I don't think we are talking about anyone who ever had any brush with Christianity. That would be a much longer list. That would include people whose connection to Christianity is either tenuous or nonexistent at all. Dylan, of course, has no connection to Christianity at all. Isn't the natural parameters of your list those people who are representative of Christianity? Or are you trying to contrive something else? Isn't the natural form that your list should take, that of those Christians who were once of another faith, or no faith at all, and are now Christians? Dylan is just a very charismatic, high profile Jew. Why are you seemingly clamoring to have Dylan on this list? As a Jew, Dylan does not even endorse one of the basic tenets of Christianity -- that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. That does not matter to you? I find this a contrivance to get a Jew on a list of Christians. Are you not interested in Christianity? Isn't this article, and this section of Wikipedia, supposed to have as it's primary focus Christianity? I would think the naturally occurring inclination would be to find those notable Christians who converted to Christianity. Dylan is not even a Christian. He is a Jew. It is totally misleading to have him appear on a list of converts to Christianity. I know you've pasted disclaimers all over the list, but that is precisely indicative of the incorrectness of having Dylan on the list in the first place. The appearance remains, despite the disclaimers, that Dylan is a Christian, when he appears on this list. Can you tell me -- why do you see it as important that Dylan appear on this list? It appears to me you and others have contrived unnatural parameters in order to get Dylan onto the list. I find it fundamentally misleading. It seems to me that you are more concerned with proselytizing for Christianity than with compiling a straightforward list of Christians who have converted to Christianity. WP:NOT#SOAP says that we are not to use Wikipedia to advocate for an idea. In this case the idea I have in mind is Christianity. You have ample space on the Bob Dylan article to go into the significance of his "Christian phase." It was over 25 years ago. It was primarily theatrical, not religious. And Dylan, in the intervening years has been a practicing Jew. Christianity is not at all part of his life. I think these contrivances you and/or others suggest as parameters for this list ought to be rejected, because they are just a cynical ploy to circumvent neutrality, a very important Wikipedia principle. What I hear you arguing for is not just an article on Christianity but a polemic that will illustrate that a much admired Jew found Christianity attractive. That should not be what the list is about. Bus stop 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And, just out of curiosity, as you have been asked before, how is putting a name of someone who has since seemingly changed his mind and has apparently renounced Christianity "advocating an idea"? Oh, but I fogot. You've already admitted you know nothing about this subject. But then why...? Oh, never mind. We both know that you never actually directly respond to anything do you. Witness the questions I posted just above your last "comment" for prove of that. Oh, and you did know that if you are going to so tiresomely accuse people of advocating a point of view for soapbox purposes, you are actually supposed to produce some, well, evidence, right? You do know that you are supposed to provide verification, or at least substantiation, of your statements, don't you? Or is providing any evidence of your own point of view beneath you? John Carter 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. (sincerely) You are asking User:Bus stop to provide sources for what? Are you looking for sources that verify his status as a practicing jew? Or are you looking for sources that question his conversion? Please, advise. Cleo123 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Do you understand that my primary criticism is your contrived parameters? As part of the Wiki Christianity project you are compiling a list of converts to Christianity. Do I have that much right? Next comes the question: Who goes on that list. My argument is that Christians go on that list. Not Jews. It is a fundamental wrong to put a living, thinking, breathing, Jew, who you know to be a Jew, on your list of converts to Christianity. Do you know that Christianity and Judaism are two different religions? Do you know that there is a contentious history of Jewish -- Christian relationships? Not always, but sometimes. Do you know that Christians affirm that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? Are you aware that Jews do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? What right do you have to put a Jew on a list of Christians? And, why do you want to put a Jew on a list of Christians? You mean, because their fundamental religious beliefs are mutually exclusive -- is that why you would like to put a Jew on a list of Christians? Why don't you tell me what your motivations are? I am pointing out that the natural and logical such list contains all Christians. I am asking you why you want to contrive criteria for that list that allows for the inclusion of a Jew on that list. I look forward to your response. Bus stop 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, John. Why don't you listen to what Bus Stop has to say. It's really very simple the way he explains it.

Obviously, Do you know that Christians affirm that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? But as Bus Stop has clearly stated before, his various on stage comments don't count as evidence because Dylan never used the word 'messiah'. All he ever said was that Jesus "touched" him, "called" him etc. How do we know he wasn't just referring to one of his Latino buddies? To put this man on a list of Christian would be libellous

And Bus Stop is also correct in saying, Are you aware that Jews do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? along with, Dylan is a Jew by way of having been born a Jew. His mother and father were Jewish. See, Bus Stop's argument here is:

Dylan was born not believing that Jesus was the messiah.

There exists no video evidence of him ever describing Jesus as the messiah.

Therefore, Dylan was never Christian.

QED

But even if Dylan had been Christian for a little while, Bus Stop will add that, He need not "renounce" anything. He does not have to convert [back] to Judaism. Obviously, if Dylan stops believing in Jesus he couldn't become an atheist or anything else. I agree with Bus stop 100% - Dylan automatically reverts to believing in Judaism because his Mitochondrial DNA determine his religious beliefs. Nick 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That was absolutely adorable. Nick hath summed up Bus stop's argument clearly and concisely. --C.Logan 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, a person is Jewish by either of two means: being born Jewish, or converting to Judaism. Bus stop 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are three types of people who are considered 'Jewish': people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people. I believe this is the point being raised. While no one is disputing Dylan's ethnicity and cultural identity, his religion is called into question. One can be a Jew and not practice Judaism. This is quite clearly the point that Nick is making. One can be culturally Jewish and religiously Buddhist. One can be culturally Jewish and can have no religion at all. Calling someone 'Jewish' does not guarantee that that person practices the Jewish religion. --C.Logan 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article Who is a Jew?, which despite having few sources, is actually very thorough, at least from a perspective of covering the positions of each Jewish movement and so forth. What it lacks, is that it has a purely Orthodox Jewish perspective on the history of matrilineal descent, when there has in fact been excellent scholarship by trained historians that gives a different perspective as to the history of matrilineal descent. Nevertheless, the article is accurate as to the practices within Judaism today. --Metzenberg 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the content referenced above. I wonder whether it might be possible to ask the people who are (presumably) the most concerned with the subject of who is and is not a Jew, Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, to perhaps try to use more specific definitions for purposes of clarity. I acknowledge up front that in some periods of history it makes sense to not differentiate between ethnic Jews and religious Jews (Nazi Germany unfortunately being a wonderful example), but that in other contexts, like (I think) the modern Western world, it would make sense to at perhaps differentiate. Since, as it seems to me, given that becoming a Jew is at least in part tied to one's genetic heritage, if it might be possible to perhaps create, within the larger classification of Jews, a smaller classification for observant Jews. This classification, or maybe category, could include a subsection for those who have converted to the Judaic religion from some other ethnic background. Such differentiation and clarification would I think in several cases help remove the ambiguity which is often currently tied to the word "Jew". John Carter 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan's Profession of Faith

When someone is says, "I believe Christ is my savior, etc." it often called profession of faith. This implies, "I feel this way with my whole heart and mind at this time, and I plan on being a faithful servant and sinning no more, etc."

Using this language would acknowledge Dylan's sincerity in 1979 (complete, not experimental), but also not make claims on his current spirituality. Perhaps this would be a better compromise? --Knulclunk 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any compromise would be nice. I'd love to make it clearer that he is apparently no longer Christian (I actually haven't seen any evidence which places him in the practice of any religion), but I still believe his conversion is extremely notable, and should be placed on the list. I consider the same for the other entrants who later left Christianity, such as Duleep Singh. Are there any others now listed? --C.Logan 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We're editing an encyclopedia based upon the compilation of facts from verifiable, reliable sources. So many of the comments here have a closer resemblance to a bulletin board discussing Dylan. What User:C.Logan "believes" is a comment for a bulletin board. C.Logan is entitled to believe anything -- but it's not our task to judge the evidence in 2007 from events that took place in 1979 and the early 1980's. Secondary sources reported on his conversion and have already been quoted in the article. If you now are reduced to parsing his profession of faith, it's time to move on. patsw 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, but you should probably notice that there's a fellow here who considers 14 secondary sources (read: the kind of sources we're supposed to have) insufficient. I believe Knulclunk's suggestion is a direct result of this fellow's incredible standards. --C.Logan 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of secondary sources on any controversy (not just this one) are simply a circular chain of citations of each other. Whether in print or online, a footnote is used to create an illusion of legitimacy. --Metzenberg 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if those secondary sources qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then I really question whether there is reason to try to require a primary source, particularly when, as in this case regarding the baptism, the presumptive primary source (a baptismal record) seems to have very likely never existed in the first place, because the body which many people presume would generate such records unusually made it a policy not to require such records in the first place. John Carter 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These sources have been compiled not as an overwhelming lump of citations, but were added one-by-one as Bus stop systematically rejected internet sources, encyclopedia citations, newspaper excerpts, and finally, 3 biographies. At no point has Bus stop ever submitted a source which would cause us to take his word over the word of these secondary sources (which are the vastly preferred type of source). Additionally, as we were asked to compile sources with corroborating evidence, we did so- and yet we are still accused of providing insufficient, non-corroborating sources. --C.Logan 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who may think a primary source is preferred in the Wikipedia to a secondary source:

“ Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. (WP:ATTR) ”

The secondary sources I used, two New York Times music reporters writing years apart, are certainly not a circular chain of citations. Also, the primary source in this case would be the words of Bob Dylan himself. patsw 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain this many times, when the sources I present are cast aside as 'secondary', as if it is some sort of mild slang term. --C.Logan 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The New Bob Dylans

Does this section really belong? I understand it was merged from an article that was deleted at AfD, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Dozens if not hundreds of artists have probably been likened to Dylan in their career or dubbed "The New Bob Dylan" and these statements don't see, notable or worthy of inclusion. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the end of the article just gets kind of messy; you got "Family," "Fan Base," "Chronicles," "THe New Bob DYlans", etc. and it's not very aesthetically pleasing, nor is it well organized. I think Chronicles and Fan Base at least could just be incorporated in the "Later Years" section somehow. Tix 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section in question could be added to some sort of "Influences" section, but it would requiring serious revision and substantiation that the individuals mentioned were in fact influenced directly by Dylan. Otherwise, it probably should be removed. John Carter 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan is known for his poetic, often obscure lyrics with interesting themes and narratives. A number of other notable musicians and songwriters have been compared to Bob Dylan in that they share these attributes. Very early in his career Donovan was called both the Scottish Bob Dylan,as well as "Britain's Response to Bob Dylan", but this label was dropped as their styles diverged. Bruce Springsteen, John Prine, Kris Kristofferson, Elvis Costello Neil Young, Bright Eyes, are all part of a long line of talented artists who, at some point in their careers, were seen as the "new Dylan". That was the content in the article, I've moved it here to be incorporated elsewhere or anything like that, but for now it doesn't belong in the article in my opinion. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Name for Bob Dylan's "Christian" period

I personally wonder whether "Gospel music" is the right phrase to use here. I note that there is a similar, although more emotionally "loaded" phrase, Contemporary Christian music, which might be at least as applicable. Perhaps we might be better off not trying to define the genre involved, but perhaps referring to it by some other means, like maybe the name or names of the albums involved? John Carter 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Born Again" is a good example of semantic shift. It doesn't really mean the same thing anymore, at least not anything that people would agree on. Many Jews still consider "born again" to be a reasonable analogy to the Jewish term for the equivalent, baal teshuva. At least, I don't think you would offend them by saying so. But since the 1970s the term "born again" has gone through a semantic change called pejoration in which it came to be associated less with mainstream Protestantism and more and more with holy rollers, storefront churches, recovering alcoholics, etc. Back in the 1970s, it was more mainstream than it is today. People served in the Nixon administration, went to jail, and then became "born again" and became ministers in mainstream churches. Better to use a musical style to define his work in this period. That's why I have proposed changing the heading to "gospel" period.

I don't find "gospel" to be a loaded term. It's the name of a musical genre. Indeed, there is a long tradition of musicians performing in and collaborating in different genres, ethnically and religiously. I would compare it to klezmer, which is a yiddish or Jewish genre. Many klezmer musicians are not Jewish. They choose to perform in that genre. They may also perform in other genres. To give a great example, the Klezmatics last year worked with Joshua Nelson to create the album Brother Moses Smote The Water, combining gospel and klezmer muscial styles. Several members of the Klezmatics are not Jewish and several are. I don't know whether Joshua Nelson is Jewish or not. I don't consider it to be any of my business. --Metzenberg 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked, and the Joshua Nelson page does indeed say that he is Jewish. I've had a chance to ask him peronsally. (I met him once casually, after a concert.) I assumed that he was Jewish when I met him, but I just didn't feel like it was any of my business to ask. In any case, although he is Jewish, Joshua Nelson explores the gospel genre. I'm sure nobody would have any problem with saying that, right. Genres are musical traditions, and it is commonplace for musicians to explore and contribute in many genres. Joshua Nelson is a good example of bring the gospel genre into a Jewish context, and the result is a very powerful syncretic album with the Klezmatics, which I recommend to any Dylan fans. --Metzenberg 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion thread above [9]. I don't think the "gospel period" as a heading adequately conveys the thrust of the section, which deals with more than the music produced during the period. "Born Again" is a better description of the content and is frequently used in the references [10] to describe this period of Dylan's life. --JJay 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think its appropriate to use a musical genre to name a period in a musician's life,. Even though much more may be going on in the fellow's life, it is as a musician that he defines himself. But I won't do three reverts, so it is up to somebody else.

Now, to add to the analogy about Joshua Nelson and defining a musician by multiple genres, see Joshua Nelson#Jewish Gospel Singing. Joshua Nelson is Jewish, yet he serves both as music director at Hopewell Baptist Church in Newark, New Jersey, and as a full-time Hebrew teacher at Congregation Sharey-Tefilo-Israel in South Orange, New Jersey. I'm Jewish, but I'm thinking about going to Hopewell Baptist Church some time when I am in New Jersey, for a free concert! --Metzenberg 00:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't see your point about Joshua Nelson, who frankly in no way can be compared to Dylan. Cat Stevens would be a far better example. --JJay 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "Born Again Period" is the best since it is how major Dylan sources (such as Michael Gray) call it, it has a general consensus I think. "Gospel Period" suggests it was only a genre experiment, which is not borne out by the evidence. Tix 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my point about Joshua Nelson and Bob Dylan is not that they are comparable either as musicians or as gospel singers, but rather that they are both examples of "genre bending" musicians. They both take one musical tradition and use it to express themselves in another. They both borrow freely and synthesize new forms from existing ones. Indeed, Dylan is the king of genre-benders. Every time his fans get used to him in one genre, he switches to another. I would not compare Cat Stevens at all. For one thing, Yusuf Islam really only did one genre. And Yusuf Islam has never tried to express himself in an inspirational Islamic musical style. (He has created spoken word audio albums of Islamic material.)

One more thing ... I have no idea what Joshua Nelson's religious background is, and I feel like it is wrong to even ask. He is African-American. Did he convert to Judaism? Did he have an Ashkenazi mother and an African-American father? Did he have an African-American mother who converted before he was born? None of my business. I just listen to the music. --Metzenberg 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Tix and JJay. To call it the “Gospel Period” suggests that it’s just an exercise in musical genres. What was extraordinary about this period was that Dylan was embracing a new faith, expressing it in his music, and preaching his views aggressively, both in on stage sermons, and off stage conversations with interviewers. Mick gold 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Embrace" and "same old Dylan"

• "Embrace" is a ambiguous and distorting description of his conversion.

• I researched a quotation from the New York Times at the time other editors were claiming on the talk page that Dylan had not converted, or that if he had, it was not well-publicized in reliable sources. The reason for the quotes appearance is not to demonstrate it was same old Dylan, but that for reporters covering Dylan, while in 1979 it was a rumor (the Rockwell quote), there was no longer in 1981 speculation over whether or not he converted (the Holden quote) -- which is why I have added By 1981, while Christian influences were apparent, his basic style had not changed patsw 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism again

Wow! Just minutes after I posted the above, somebody sort's out the page! Thanks.

For future reference, all you have to do is go to the history, pull up the previous version of the article (before the vandalism), click "Edit Page" and just click "Save PAge" and it will save that as the official Bob Dylan page (at least that's how I do it, maybe there's a better way!). Tix 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan in Bible classes

The wording “According to Pastor Kenn Gulliksen, Dylan participated in Bible study classes…” suggests Gulliksen is sole source for Dylan’s attendance. This is not so. Dylan has talked about attending Bible study classes in interviews: “At first I said, ‘There’s no way I can devote three months to this, I’ve got to be back on the road soon.’ But I was sleeping one day and I just sat up in bed at seven in the morning and I was compelled to get dressed and drive over to the Bible school. I didn’t know myself if I could go for three months. But I did begin telling a few people after a couple of months and a lot of them got angry with me.” (Robert Hilburn, Los Angeles Times, Nov 1980) Re-printed on p. 495 of Clinton Heylin, “Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited”, Harper Collins, 2003, ISBN 006052569X Mick gold 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No citation for "support for Jewish causes"

I don't have a problem with this except for its lack of source; could we get some (preferrably various sources, one for each Jewish cause he's supported) sources for this? And to whoever added this stuff here (I think it was Bus Stop), good work! I had never seen that interview where Dylan says he's not in an organized religion. I thought he had never really said anything that explicit. Strangely, in the interview it's not a direct quote from Dylan which is unfortunate, but I don't doubt its veracity. With this whole issue, I just want a little clarity as to what Dylan has actually said and done; it doesn't matter if he's Jewish, Christian, atheist, or agnostic, as long as we got reliable sources for it. I've heard of him getting involved with Jewish causes, like telethons and stuff, but we need a cited source here! Thanks. Tix 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to see "written sources" from the Lubavitch movement. Think of the Lubavitch movement actually as being somewhat equivalent to the Vineyard, except that it is directed only towards Jews. In other words, it makes so much sense that Dylan drifted from Vineyard to Lubavitch in a few years time. Lubavitch rabbis doesn't seek converts to Judaism, they only seek to help less religious Jews become more religious, and they do so very uncritically too. I have attended Lubavitch dinners myself. They send emissaries all over the world. When I was in Costa Rica during hanukkah, the local Lubavitch emmisary welcomed me at the public menorah lighting, and when I told him I was traveling, he gave me a cheap little menorah and enough candles to light for the rest of the festival. Lubavitch almost never publicizes who its supporters are. Unlike mainstream Jewish organizations, it never publishes lists of contributors. It does have its supporters appear at fundraisers, but only if they want to. You won't find much documentation of who its supporters are. Lubavitch contributors tend to be more liberal Jews, not Orthodox, who feel some kind spiritual connection with Orthodoxy and want to engage in Orthodox practices at times. --Metzenberg 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Zimmerman vs Dylan

I see that Zimmerman is used in a number of spots in the begining section and then changes to Dylan? Is this really appropriate? I didn't see this discussed before, but I am sure it has. I guess the think is use his birth name in describing history before he changed it? I would preffer to see Dylan used throughout the article. Thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is standard practice here when writing about people who changed their names to refer to them by the name they were using at that chronological point. See Cat Stevens for example. I made it a bit more consistent, and it should remain as Zimmerman until he started calling himself Dylan. Tvoz |talk 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, is there a Wiki manual of style page for that or any other "official" Wiki page you can direct me to? Thanks in advance, --Tom 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, never mind, found it at WP:MOSBIO. This is actually the style page I reffer people the most often over issues of ethnicity in the lead sentence of bios. Go figure :) --Tom 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay are you trying to suppress evidence?

JJay just deleted, almost immediately, the post that I just added here as a "promotional post for a New York singles Jewish weekend". In fact, I have no interest whatsover in promoting someone else's Jewish Singles Weekend. I posted it to show that Dylan's name is used by the Lubavitch movement at times (on postings that are intended mainly for a Jewish audience). I'll post it again and delete the URL where you sign up. This is going on next weekend, and the rabbi advertises himself as the rabbi that touched Bob Dylan's soul. --Metzenberg 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NY Shabbat w/ Bob Dylan's Rabbi, Manis Friedman May 18-20 (2007) ==

Just when I was about say, Lubavitchers don't care about this "feather in the cap" thing, I get an e-mail today from a Jewish group (URL omitted.org) that tries to arrange shidduchim (Hebrew, matches or marriages) between Jews. I didn't sign up for this organization myself. A friend of mine (who thinks I oughtta be married) put me on their list. Sinai refers both to the synagogue in Beverly Hills that has a huge Jewish singles night every month, and also to the mystical concept (at the very heart of Judaism) that all Jews of all time stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah. So, check out URL omitted.org, and here is what they say about Rabbi Manis Friedman:

He touched BOB DYLAN's soul, kept FERGIE, the DUCHESS of YORK captivated for hours, and has changed the lives of tens of thousands of Jews worldwide.

The weekend offers: Singles from USA & Canada - Program Includes: (1) Rabbi Friedman on Love & Marriage (5 classes), (2) Shabbat Day Outdoor Excursion, (3) Trip to the Resting Place of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, (4) Home Hospitality (private accommodations available), (5) On-Site Shidduchim Assistance.

Perhaps to emphasize his Bob Dylan connection, Rabbi Friedman offers his own "greatest hits" collection on a CD. The CD contains drashes (anglicized Hebrew, inspirational discourses on the Torah) such as (1) Bashert - Meant To Be (2) What Men and Women Want Each Other to Know.

So if anybody wants to spend an inexpensive weekend in Brooklyn eating Glatt Kosher food, with a chance to ask Bob Dylan's own rabbi a few questions, and maybe meet your bashert (Hebrew, the partner G-d intended you to be with) this is it. Next weekend! (I am posting this with tongue in cheek, can't you tell?) Now, I feel like I am violating Bob Dylan's privacy by posting this here, but it was from a mass e-mailing that was sent to thousands of people today, very indiscriminately at that. Does Rabbi Manis Friedman have Bob Dylan's permission to use his name this way? Nothing against the rabbi on my part. I've always found the Lubavitch movement very warm and welcoming. Maybe I'll see you there, Bob. --Metzenberg 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• How does that relate to improving this article- which is the only justification for posting here. --JJay 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay. We are talking about evidence for Bob Dylan's return to Judaism. This is evidence. Do you want to cover up such information, or hide it from other people's eyes. It appears that several megabytes of information about Bob Dylan has been posted to this Talk page over the last five years. You want to decide what people will see and what they won't see. And on a Talk page at that? Metzenberg 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You really need to review talk page guidelines. This is not a general discussion forum for Bob Dylan or Manis Friedman. An itemization of a single weekends "program", a blurb for Rabbi friedman's CD, and an endorsement of the Glatt Kosher food on offer this weekend - along with a link and a recommendation to come meet Bob's "rabbi" are not acceptable on talk pages. I would point out that the article at present does not discuss Dylan's involvement with the Lubavitchers. I would therefore encourage you to contribute to the article by finding sources per WP:RS that attest to that involvement. But a promotional email from a rabbi who claims to "have touched Bob Dylan's soul" (whatever that means) is not a source for this article. --JJay 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay. I see above on this page long discourses about the Vineyard and its programs in which Bob Dylan obviously participated from 1979 to 1982. I agree with you that he was following Christian spiritual practices at this time in his life. Now if you would like to examine the Jewish spiritual practices and the movement that he appears to have been following since 1982, I've given you a sampling, to show the context in which the claim that Manis Friedman was Bob Dylan's rabbi was actually made. I don't do so to promote them in any way. The maintain a huge network of websites of their own, which anybody searching the web for information about Judaism is sure to find. They know how to promote themselves. You can see how they are a very welcoming movement, and I think it shows the context of how Dylan returned to Judaism after 1982. --Metzenberg 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be as clear as possible here: your post essentially consists of irrelevant detail (singles weeekend program, Rabbi's CD, food, etc) that does not relate to this article. If you read the article, you will see that the few lines on the "Vineyard" period are sourced to reputable sources. If editors here want to expand the article to include a discussion of Dylan's involvement (or lack thereof) with Judaism (including Eastern parkway, the wailing wall or wherever people want to go with it) that's fine with me. However, that expansion has to be based on WP:V and WP:RS. Your email claim from a Rabbi (that he touches souls, or keeps minor nobility captivated for hours) is at best anecdotal and did not merit a long post, which in all appearances seems designed to promote an event by a third party group. The email itself is not a source we can use in this article. On the other hand, a secondary source (or Dylan interview) that describes the process by which Rabbi Friedman touched Bob Dylan's soul would be most enlightening. Please post again when you have found that source. --JJay 23:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to find such a source. Jews tend not to talk that way about belief or faith. The "I touched so-and-so's" soul" type of claim would be looked down upon and does not tend to get made. Didn't I say here myself that I thought it was tacky? Jews look at belief as very private, and do not make statements about what their own beliefs are, and rarely make statements about what other Jews seem to believe. The emphasis in Judaism is on what you do, not what you believe. I've noticed that this sometimes makes Christians very uncomfortable. They ask, what do you believe? Where is your statement or profession of creed? The answer is that there isn't one, and there is even a strong cultural reservation against having one. --Metzenberg 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Shema be considered a (if not the) creed of Judaism? --C.Logan 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would. There is an article Jewish principles of faith, which I refer to with the disclaimer that as the article now appears, I wrote much of the first four paragraphs. (Check the history.) I am a very active editor on wikipedia on Jewish topics. I think this is important to understanding Bob Dylan today. If Bob Dylan was a Christian at one time and made a profession of faith in Christianity, you would not expect him to then make yet another profession of faith to show that he is no longer a Christian but has returned to Judaism (if that is indeed what happened ... I simply don't know!) Indeed, to make a profession of faith is very unusual in Judaism. Metzenberg 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment - it doesn't mention a time when he "touched bob dylan's soul" SECProto 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SECProto. I was frankly surprised to see the email in my own email box. I thought it was a bit tacky. It doesn't appear to have been written by Rabbi Friedman himself, but by a supporter of his. From what I have heard, Friedman is a very inspirational speaker. One service offered by the Lubavitch movement, to mainstream Jewish organizations and less religious Jews, is that they will always provide you with a great speaker at practically no cost. If you want to organize any kind of Jewish weekend or event, and you need somebody to speak, you can call them. They have women that speak for them too. It's funny, but they are both ultra-religious and very liberal at the same time. I really think that analogy to Vineyard Christianity is good. I think the point of posting this here is that it offers insight into what kind of Jewish spiritual practice Dylan has returned to since 1982. If you want to know more about it, I won't post URLs here, because JJay thinks that is "promotional", but I am sure you can figure out how to use Google to find the information yourself. --Metzenberg 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually do agree with JJay in some ways - it is indeed a promotional page, so it can't be linked to from the wiki as any sort of source. But it is an interesting starting place for some research. SECProto 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While Metzenberg is acting in good faith, the above source does not meet the standards of WP:A. However, at least a name is given, so you can look up further information regarding this rabbi. --C.Logan 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with JJay too. I said above, I feel using Dylan's name that way is tacky. I think Dylan seems very reluctant to have his name used. He has expressed reservations about those who want to see him as a prophet. I wonder what Dylan really feels about the way that Manis Friedman or Friedman's supporters are using his name. But one comment I must make is that some of the things Dylan has said about religion in the last 25 years can only be understood if you understand the Lubavitch context for them. Dylan says very little about Judaism, but when he makes biblical references it is often clear (to a Jewish person, like myself) that he has attended Jewish Torah (Bible) study, listened to rabbinical commentaries, and the like. --Metzenberg 23:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay wrote a nice note to me, just now on my Talk page. I'm sorry for the title of this section, "Are you trying to suppress evidence?" Clearly not his intention. I hope that everybody who is reading this section feels that it shines some light on what Bob Dylan's beliefs and practices may really be today. We're just trying to understand Bob. And thanks JJay.

JJay asked earlier if I could produce verifiable evidence about Dylan's faith. I've said that this is impossible because Jews simply don't produce professions of faith. The "profession of faith" is a Christian style of religious discourse. What I do see, in some of the occasional allusions to religion in Bob Dylan's interviews since 1982, is a lot of signs that Judaism and religion are a part of his life today. Nevertheless, he is very private about these matters, so my instinct is to leave him alone.

I told Busstop, in a note on his Talk page, that if I personally ran into Bob Dylan at a Kabbalat Shabbat service (welcoming the sabbath) and he taught me a new melody for Lecha Dodi (the song of mystical origin that welcomes the Sabbath) that I would not come back here and tell people. Rather, I would say, "Some mystical guy I met on Friday taught me this great new melody for Lecha Dodi ... wanna hear it?" --Metzenberg 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Yudelson page on Bob Dylan

Editors here have asked for "verifible evidence" like a profession of faith in Judaism about Bob Dylan's supposed return to Judaism. I've said, impossible, in part because Jews don't write professions of faith.

Since there was no page on Larry Yudelson, I created one several weeks ago when I saw this debate taking place. I felt it would help editors here understand Yudelson's article about Dylan and his website dedicated to Dylan's Jewishness (not updated for years right now). Read about Yudelson himself before you look at his "Bob Dylan: Tangled up in Jews" website. Yudelson goes by the pen name Reb Yudel (referring to a kind of Jewish Don Quixote character in an important Hebrew novel). He attended a mussar Yeshiva. In other words, Yudelson is one serious dude!

Yudelson's page offers information such as references to Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) that are to be found in Dylan's works. Most of this information would not be understood outside a Jewish context. Please look at the Yudelson website as a key to understanding Bob Dylan's Jewishness, and ask me any questions here if you have any. --Metzenberg 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand that there are no professions of faith in Judaism. Facts like that were one of the reasons why I have stated earlier that we should go with the documentation that is provided, and see if it is enough. Unfortunately, I note that several people have in recent years picked up the "trend" of Kabbalah, Madonna among them. I would know, actually, as I helped set up the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah, and am actually one of its only three members. I think that there is a relevant question which can be asked, however. Would you argue that anyone who has taken up Kabbalah, including all those listed in the List of celebrities involved in the Kabbalah Centre, qualify as converts to Judaism? I ask because, while Kabbalah is as it were a form of Jewish mysticism, it may not necessarily mean that they have actually formally converted. If they are not all counted as converts. In fact, I note on the Kabbalah Centre page that not all Jews consider Kabbalah Centre to be real Judaism. Why do I have a feeling that this discussion might go the way of the discussion of Dylan's conversion to Christianity, with various people questioning the specific details for the purposes of basically defending their own preexisting positions? I hope you understand I don't see myself doing that, by the way. While I acknowledge that studying Kabbalah is certainly an indication of Judaism, I'm not entirely sure that it necessarily counts as meaning that the person in question has converted to Judaism. I myself have studied all the books I could find by Gershom Scholem on the subject, and as you note from my user page, I clearly do not count myself as a Jew. John Carter 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Madonna has obviously taken an interest in Kabbalah without intending to become Jewish. And why not! It belongs to the whole world.

Among Jews, it used to be said that one should not study Kabbalah until the age of 40, and only then if you have already mastered Torah and Talmud. There are critics of the Kabbalah Center. To me, those criticisms seem to come from rival rabbinical teachers with rival points of view. There is a saying that if you know even one word of Torah then you have an obligation to teach it to anyone who wants to learn. So why not teach it? But it takes a lot of study to understand Kabbalah. I don't feel I am even ready to begin learning it. Is Madonna on the right derekh (Hebrew, spiritual path)? None of my business. I am happy that she wants to study and learn from Jewish traditions.

Dylan's lyrics sometimes contain rabbinical language, allusions to Jewish prayer and Kabbalah, that Christians might not recognize or understand the significance of. My view is that Dylan is obviously reading and studying these traditions with rabbis as his teachers, and that's all we really can tell about him. But I do think the fact that he studies with rabbis is a sign that he is no longer practicing Christianity. --Metzenberg 06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point about his no longer studying Christianity. And, for what it's worth, all I was implying by saying what I said was that studying Kabbalah isn't the "definitive proof" we would necessarily be seeking that he has "reverted" (sorry if the word is objectionable, but it seems to me to be the most specific one) to Judaism. I have seen references on the List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians that indicate he might be somehow loosely associated with Messianic Judaism, which counts as whatever you think it counts as. Personally, I would not object to seeing a statement which indicates that Dylan has seemed to perhaps be returning to his Jewish roots since leaving the Vineyard movement, as the evidence does seem to bear that out. If it could be in the form of a quote from some reliable source, I would even welcome its inclusion. However, I'm not sure that it is really an abandonment or rejection of Christianity either, as the evidence I've seen doesn't demonstrate that. Sorry if it looks like I'm "splitting hairs" here, but I think we all want to have the statements in the text be as specific and verifiable as possible. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing an addition to the article to the effect that "there is no clear way in which a Jew can formally "revert" to Judaism. However, Dylan's recent study of Kabbalistic lore and other Judaica indicates that at least he has at least found the study of Judaism to be important to him." I know that's really badly phrased, but I hope you get the idea. And, again, if there is a quote from a reliable source which says something even stronger, provided it isn't demonstrably inflammatory, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it included. Again, sorry if it looks like I'm "splitting hairs". John Carter 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think of Yudelson's 1991 article, which is linked from the Tangled up in Jews website, as being that reliable source. Since 1991, it frankly has not been news. Newspapers report news. Could we agree to use that 1991 article as a source, since it was published in Jewish newspapers and was widely read? Again, see the Larry Yudelson article. --Metzenberg 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see evidence of his studying Lubavitch Hasidim, and I can certainly see inclusion of that in the article. And it could certainly be argued that his supporting the telethon would be an indication of becoming more actively Jewish. In my ignorance (which I admit) I guess the most telling point to me might be being asked to open the Ark. Would it be the practice of a rabbi that he would only ask someone he knew to be a practicing Jew to perform such a ritual? If yes, that's good enough for me. Unfortunately, the "one writer tells" comment there seems to me to maybe be a way for the writer to distance himself from the comment, but I wouldn't necessarily object to its inclusion anyway. I can certainly see that he has been studying his Jewish heritage, but believing in the Apocalypse of John could be seen as maybe making him tied to some sort of Christian Jewish group. I can see making a statement to the effect that he has been focusing his attention on Judaism since leaving the Vineyard movement, and possibly even becoming an observant Jew again (I dunno what that means, but if there is evidence of such I would accept it), including studying and intimately involved in Hasidim and the Kabbalah. I guess my objection (if any) might lie in using the word "convert" or "revert" as the presence of some Jewish Christian groups, like Messianic Judaism, makes it possible that he might be allied to some of them, as indicated by the sources on the List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians. I wouldn't object to seeing some phrasing to the effect that he has been actively involved in Judaism, maybe even exclusively Judaism, and I could even see his being included in one or more of the categories of observant Jews, and even the list of those who have converted to Judaism, provided it indicates that he hasn't been apparently active in Christianity. I would at this point just maybe object to the use of "convert" or a similar word. Maybe something like, "Since leaving the Vineyard movement (or whatever details are appropriate), Dylan has been proven to be an actively observant Jew, with no evidence of remaining a practicing Christian." I know I'm splitting hairs here, and I apologize, but I could definitely see something phrased something like that being included. With a sufficient strong statement to that effect, I could even see being included in a Jewish convert category. I'm not worried about a lawsuit or anything here, just not wanting to have something prove us wrong on the subject. I also note that I am myself perhaps less than completely objective here, and could even be wrong in my conclusions, and would welcome comments from any other parties. John Carter 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

John, You asked ... I guess the most telling point to me might be being asked to open the Ark. Would it be the practice of a rabbi that he would only ask someone he knew to be a practicing Jew to perform such a ritual?

I think such things are indeed signs that the Chabad rabbi sees Bob Dylan as a practicing Jew. Howvever, it is not usual for qualifying questions to be asked. Rather, people can easily recognize that someone else is Jewish based on some simple procedures, such as the ability to put on a tallis and the use of a Hebrew name. So, did that Rabbi go up to Dylan and say, "Tell me Bob, are you really a Christian?" My guess is, most rabbis would not even ask. Simply by accepting an offer to assist in the Torah service, Dylan is practicing Judaism. But I think your insight is correct, that if the rabbi thought of Dylan as a Christian and not a Jew, he wouldn't have been asked to participate in the Torah service.

The Torah service is structured so that there are many opportunities for individuals who have limited knowledge of Hebrew to participate and still receive "honors" that are equivalent to reading the text itself. Indeed, the reader is just a reader, while the aliyah goes to the person who is called and says the blessings. These "honors" include opening and closing the ark, dressing the Torah, carrying the Torah around the synagogue, and most importantly, saying blessings before and after each segment is read. In a typical Shabbat morning Torah service, with seven aliyot (readings of sections) there can be roughly 20 different people involved. Ten are required to make a minyan. You always say "Yasher Koach" to the person who has just completed one of these mitzvot. On the Yudelson website, there is a description of Dylan receiving at "aliyah" (which literally means "going up") at a Yom Kippur service at Chabad in Encino, California, a few years ago. That's an honor that would only be given to a practicing Jewish male at a Chabad center.

The person who manages all of this activity around the Torah reading is called the gabbai (not the rabbi). This tends to be a voluntary job that rotates among active older males in an Orthodox synagogue. The wikipedia description of the torah service is very thorough, except that it doesn't really tell you about the full range of practice in non-Orthodox synagogues. It does go into things like the partnership minyan phenomenon. There are issues throughout the Orthodox and non-Orthodox world about what roles men and women should play.

My own observation has been that these honors are given out very freely, with very little questioning. For example, when I am traveling in some foreign country and I visit a synagogue, I have often been invited to participate. All they ask me for is my Hebrew name. We always talk about where our families came from too (Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Russia, etc.). Other topics include, where have you been in Israel, what business are you in, etc. No matter where I am in the world, and I love to travel, I always want to see what people are doing, but I don't want to stand out or have any kind of effect on their practice.

I'll offer a new section below, from a book on Chabad-Lubavitch. --Metzenberg 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from "The Rebbe's Army", by Sue Fishkoff

Here is an excerpt from a book on the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. I offer it with the disclaimer that I am acquainted with the author. I don't really know her personally, but I have spoken with her several times at parties. I admire her writing very much. When we see each other, we usually talk about Jewish books. Sue Fishkoff is an author and a journalist who writes for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Jerusalem Post. Her book contains a chapter about Chabad's celebrity fundraising activities. The Rebbe, of course, refers to the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher rebbe, who passed away in 1994. Here is what the Sue Fishkoff book says about Bob Dylan (page 167, paperback edition):

BEGIN QUOTATION

Bob Dylan is one of the biggest names associated with Chabad, although his connection has waxed and waned over the years. Born Robert Zimmerman in the small Minnesota town of Hibbing, Dylan was allegedly bar-mitzvahed by a rabbi in a black hat and white beard who showed up in his town one winter night, taught him his Haftorah portion, and disappeared soon afterward. In the early 1980s, Chabad "rescued" Dylan from a brief flirtation with Christianity, and for several years he studied with Minneapolis shlichim (Hebrew, emissaries) Manis Friedman and Moshe Feller, whom he also visited for Shabbat dinners. Manis Friedman is still refered to as "Bob Dylan's rabbi," and a glowing blurb from Dylan appears on the front cover of Friedman's book on marital intimacy, Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore? Dylan made surprise appearances at the 1988 and 1989 telethons, once playing "Hava Nagilah" on the harmonica with his religious son-in-law, and he's been sighted almost every year at Chabad High Holiday services, most recently in Encino, California in 2001, where he was honored with an aliya (Hebrew, "going up") to the Torah on Yom Kippur morning. He came to the Rebbe for Sunday dollars more than half a dozen times, and word has it that he gave $100,000 for a Chabad building in Minnesota named after his father, but the notoriously reclusive star won't give interviews on this or any other subject touching on his current religious affiliation.

END QUOTATION

From Sue Fishkoff (2003), The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. New York: Schocken Books. ISBN 0-8052-1138-1. Copyright 2003 by Sue Fishkoff. (Note that the author retains copyright. A limited quotation here, and in the article, would fall under fair use. Schocken Books is a legendary old Jewish publisher with European roots that was acquired by Random House in 1987. Random House has retained the Schocken name as an imprint.) --Metzenberg 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be very much the reputable source which has been missing. If it is to be added to the article, however, it should be used as a reference rather than a quotation. SECProto 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SECProto. Dylan's 2 Chabad Telethon appearances were in 1986 and 1989. 5 Aug 1986 he recorded a version of Hank Williams' 'Thank God' with Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers; broadcast 14 Sep 1986. 24 Sep 1989 he contributed harmonica & recorder to 3 songs: 'Einsleipt Mein Kind dein Eigalach', 'Adelita' & 'Hava Negilah' to band comprising Peter Himmelman and Harry Dean Stanton. The band were introduced as Chopped Liver [11]. I think it would be simplistic to characterise Dylan as switching from born again Christianity back to 'normative Judaism'. His work is much more complex than that. 'Ring Them Bells' (1989) sounds like a call for a re-awakening of moral values, using emphatically Christian imagery. There are other examples. Mick gold 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would describe Dylan as a spiritually motivated performer who doesn't want to limit his audience and the scope of his collaborations to just one religion. While he has clearly returned to the Jewish tradition, he is unafraid of using the gospel genre, style, and idiom, and continues to do so at times. See the Scott Marshall articles below. Dylan often pushes the limits when performing for a Jewish audience or a Chabad telethon, by performing materials from his gospel period (although not with lyrics that would offend his audience). --Metzenberg 07:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's Unshakable Monotheism, by Scott Marshall

Here are some links to a another series. This article ran as a four-part series in the Jewish Press. Tagline: In a four-part series, music journalist Scott Marshall looks at the strange spiritual journey of Bob Dylan. Lot's of material here, and a real award-winning series. Have a read! --Metzenberg 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism - Part I: the 1960s

• Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism - Part II: the 1970s

• Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism - Part III: the 1980s

• Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism - Part IV: the 1990s

New York Daily News article on June 8, 1986

Here are excerpts from an article that appeared in the New York Daily News on June 8, 1986. The entire article is reprinted on Shmais, a website of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.

1960s Superstar Dylan is Worshipping with Hasidic Jewish Group in Brooklyn By Mike Santangelo/Daily News Staff Writer

Bob Dylan, the reclusive pop superstar of the 1960s, has spent parts of the last four years living and worshipping with the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn's Lubavitch community. Members of the community say that Dylan, 45, has been taking instruction from Talmudic scholars and listening to talks by Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson.

His latest visit took place during Passover and he is expected to return when he comes to New York for a concert in Madison Square Garden July 17, community members said.

Dylan declines to discuss his religious activities. "We do not talk about him here," said Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, spokesman for the Lubavitch community who has become a confidant of the singer. "He is a very private person and we respect his wishes to remain so. You never know when he will drop in -- he can come or go at any time."

For the rest of this article, see Shmais reprint of Daily News article Later, the article says ...

Dylan has made a long spiritual journey that began with the protest and drug culture and included a flirtation with fundamentalist Christianity in the late 1970s. Now he attends farbrengens, gatherings where Schneerson speaks to followers for hours. (Farbrengen is Yiddish for a chasidic gathering for homiletic discourse.) --Metzenberg 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)