Talk:Bob Dylan

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2025

[edit]

In the body it says Dylan was born in 1961. He was actually born in 1941. 47.198.42.97 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It doesn't say at any point in the article that Dylan was born in 1961. Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism accusations and Nobel controversy

[edit]

So @Remsense and I are dancing around this section I want to add to his Nobel Prize subsection.

There are two points I wanna make, and which Remsense disagrees on:

  1. There was controversy around Bob Dylan's reception of the literature prize.
  2. Bob Dylan was accused of plagiarising his speech from SparkNotes.

I've been careful about quoting which parts of each article either repeat or confirm either of these things: That there was controversy and that Slate did accuse him of plagiarising. To take it further, I then went to reputable sources and quoted their phrasing to avoid Remsense's concern about WP:BLP, then highlighted that Slate had listed a graph of similar phrasing. In other words, I was careful to write he was accused. I also added a bunch of sources because I knew they'd be afraid of lawsuits and followed in their example in being objective in my reporting. (For what it's worth, I think the accusations have much merit.)

I think these two points are valid, the changes are completely fair, and Remsense's reversions unwarranted. But since I don't want to get into an editing war with my fellow editors, I thought we could see what the general consensus is. MattressSmith (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is mainly whether the elements actually matter enough to be included. There's controversy with every Nobel Prize. For the plagiarism, a smattering of articles from the time all copying each other (a demerit, not credit) often doesn't amount to due weight for mention in a biography like this. Remsense ‥ 论 15:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they greatly matter, and not just because Slate made a compelling case that gained traction. I'd additionally argue that removing the backlash is completely unwarranted because giving it to a singer-songwriter was novel, and the "quotes" he cited in his lecture completely fabricated. Slate identified them—and correctly, I'd wager—as coming from SparkNotes.
As it is, the section reads like a paean. I imagine you're a fan, but this is worthy material. MattressSmith (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Remsense. Imho this degree of analysis of Dylan’s Nobel Prize lecture is WP:UNDUE. The topic of Dylan and plagiarism is covered in the Legacy section of the Dylan article. Allegations of plagiarism and similarities to SparkNotes in Dylan’s Nobel Prize lecture are described in the WP article 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature, which is the proper place for this material. Mick gold (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about a line on controversy? "The win saw some controversy by authors, as well as for being awarded to a singer-songwriter." MattressSmith (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a line about the controversy if not told otherwise in a couple of days, as I've been waiting for more engagement for four. (cc @Remsense.) MattressSmith (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The line you want to add seems kind of vague and meaningless. Unless we want to go into the details (which as Mick says are in the other article), it seems better to skip it.Brianyoumans (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the NYT quote "Mr. Dylan, 75, is the first musician to win the award, and his selection on Thursday is perhaps the most radical choice in a history stretching back to 1901." explains why it was controversial for a singer-songwriter to be awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. And as Remsense notes, almost every Nobel Prize in Literature is accompanied by controversy. Mick gold (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most controversy is about tastes. Some controversy, like Haneke's, needs covering. In-context, the NYT line reads like it's marking how amazingly unique this is, not how controversial.
I think this line would be useful:
The announcement was met with controversy, in part because Bob Dylan was the first (and, so far, only) singer-songwriter to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature.
If it were up to me, I'd add the line about plagiarising the SparkNotes speech, but I seem to be alone in this.
The page in general reads more like a panegyric than a Wikipedia article. Why are there so many photos of performances? MattressSmith (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan's high school yearbook "caption"

[edit]

Was this meant to say that Dylan's stated ambition was to join Little Richard? Or that the yearbook editors guessed that that was his ambition? The way it's written is unclear. YamSuf (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All we know is that Hibbing High School Yearbook carried the caption "To join Little Richard." To the best of my knowledge, no major Dylan biography has discussed whether this was written by young Dylan or the Yearbook editors. You can see it here: [1] The curator of this website, Jeff Gold (an acknowledged Dylan expert), interprets it thus: he lists his ambition as "To join Little Richard". Should this be added to the WP article? Mick gold (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yearbook captions are generally (almost always?) written by the yearbook staff and are jocular in a hopefully harmless way. You know -- "Most likely to be a movie star", "Most likely to become a comedian", like that. Some times it's "most likely to", sometimes it's "secret ambition:", what have you. Here they didn't prepend anything, but I figure it's given once as a header: "Most likely..." Avoids repetition. "...to join Little Richard" is a presumably jocular reference to his messing around with and playing rock 'n' roll music.
Anyway, here is a scan which proves it. These captions were not written by the subjects, period. Gold may be a Dylan expert but not an expert on yearbooks it seems. Here is the master image. IMO this is so incontrovertibly sky-is-blue proof that the staff wrote the captionsthat we can use it as a ref. Herostratus (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Herostratus
This article currently contains the sentence:
In 1959, Dylan's high school yearbook carried the caption "Robert Zimmerman: to join 'Little Richard'".
Which part of this sentence do you disagree with? Best, Mick gold (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably OK now IMO, User:Mick gold. It's just that User:YamSuf had said the authorship of the caption should be clarified, and the source has "...he lists his ambition as 'To join Little Richard'..." according to Jeff Gold, whom you say is a Dylan expert. Apparently no biographer has addressed the authorship of the caption, so the putative expert Gold is our only source, so we could and possibly should change it to "In Dylan's 1959 high school yearbook, he captioned his photo with 'Robert Zimmerman: to join 'Little Richard'". You seem to lean in that direction. If we want to clarify authorship. But if we do, it should instead be something like "In 1959, the editors of Dylan's high school yearbook gave his photo the jocular caption "Robert Zimmerman: to join 'Little Richard'" or something ("jocular" because readers outside the United States might think these things are serious predictions). Maybe we should, since User:YamSuf was confused and so probably were others. I dunno. Herostratus (talk)
Thanks Herostratus,
I'm inclined to leave the sentence as it is. It's concise and factually correct.
In this 2011 article on Dylan [2], Michael Gray who is a Dylan authority (author of The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia) wrote:
He hammered out Little Richard numbers on a 1922 Steinway Grand. And when he was leaving school in 1959, he wrote in his high school yearbook under "Ambition": "To join Little Richard."
We simply don’t know whether Zimmerman/Dylan wrote his high school yearbook entry, or whether Hibbing High School editors were being "jocular", as you suggest. So I favor the WP:NPOV version.
Best, Mick gold (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Legally Robert Dylan"

[edit]

Could someone please explain why the lead says "Bob Dylan (legally Robert Dylan)...". Shouldn't it just say "Robert Dylan..."? Sorry if this question has already been asked and there is a good reason for it, but i've never seen a single other wiki page that does this. It just seems a bit weird is all. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the archived discussions, such as this. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add a confusion hatnote for Bob Vylan.

Please add:

{{distinguish|Bob Vylan}}

Not to be confused with Bob Vylan.

-- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that people are confused here? meamemg (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People confusing the two: [3][4][5][6][7]... etc -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although we usually don't talk forums as a source, I guess this IS evidence? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 22:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a vote I would probably go with weak oppose. I am sure you can find a few people confused about whatever topic Dahawk04 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is evidence that people are confusing them. Why would RSes confuse them? Presumably RSes have factcheckers, while normal people do not. The confusion hantnote would be worthless if it requires RSes be confused -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done there's also a similar hatnote on Bob Vylan Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that in, say, six months the hatnote could be removed. Unless Bob Vylan continues to be a big thing. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem ideal to operate on the principle that topics are only going to be confused by readers for less than a year at a time. Remsense 🌈 论 21:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, practically speaking, there are such things as 7 day wonders. Up until late June, the band's claims to fame were an album that charted at #18 on the UK Album chart and a couple of UK music awards. Once the controversy dies down, they may return to relative obscurity. Maybe six months is a little short, but at some point most likely the hatnote won't really be necessary and will in fact be more of a distraction than a good idea. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]