Talk:Leonard Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Leonard Cohen has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] "Memorable quotes"

It strikes me that the 'Memorable Quotes' are completely subjective, and could include all of Leonard Cohen's writings if you get everyone's opinions. What, then, is the point? Tolo 18:01, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Long list should be moved to Wikiquote; I would think no more than three here. I would also add that the list here seems very eccentric, virtually none of his most famous lines. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Enough already with all these random quotes from songs. I'd prefer personal quotes any day. – Hattrem 06:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Well, maybe there's a God above/ But all I've ever learned from love/ Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew ya"—from "Hallelujah" (1984) <- This line is from Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah so I removed it from the quotations list.

There's been way too many quotations in the list, in any case, but for what it's worth, the line is Cohen's, and is in the original of the song. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"This line is from Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah so I removed it from the quotations" That line is actually from Cohen's 1988 version of Hallelujah. Buckley (and others) simply mixed verses from the 1984 and 1988 versions. The line is still Cohen's. Leatherwing 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

All spelling on this page should be in Canadian English, due to the fact that Cohen is Canadian. --Zippanova 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But living and working in the US. Is Cohen's own spelling Canadian English? (His first novel is called The Favorite Game.) -- Hattrem 07:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How does Cohen being Canadian mean that all spelling on that page should be Canadian English? Gronky 16:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Your reprint may be spelled that way, but its first appearance in print was as The Favourite Game (printed in London, Secker & Warburg, 1963). Sandover 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Printed in London, yes. The 1963 Viking Press edition reads "The favorite game, a novel" according to The Library of Congress. Anyway, I guess it's not all that relevant. I think Gronky has a point. Consistency is the key in my opinion. – Hattrem 04:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for consistency, and while it may not be my favorite way of spelling, I am content with the North American (U.S.) spelling standard. We should remember that this micro-quarrel about spelling wouldn't even exist had Cohen not published and recorded so widely, in different genres, in different countries and at different times. A lot of cultures would like to put a claim on him, obviously. Sandover 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cohen is without a doubt Canadian. Anyone other culture who wishes to make him their "own" is fooling themselves. Yes, he has lived in Europe and the US for some time, but that doesn't mean that he is suddenly not Canadian. This is especially true when you consider that throughout most of his career he has been close to ignored by almost all Americans. (unsigned, but apparently User:Dogmusic2005 17 Aug 2005)
(Reply, years later, to Sandover) Note that there is no "North America" spelling. The USA has its own special way of spelling some words, and Canada has another (much closer to British spelling). Thus I would go with "favourite" in this article. --Gronky (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Partisan"

In the list of covers of Cohen songs:

I don't know these two recordings, but the song itself is not a Cohen song: his version is a cover. Are these two recordings in some specific sense covers of Cohen's performance of the song? If not, they should be deleted from the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Cohen changed the words quite a bit, too. The original had words meaning "then we'll return to the shade"; but Cohen sings "then we'll come from the shadows". See for example www.leonardcohensite.com/partisanfr.htm, where someone says "Je suis tres intrigué par le fait suivant: le dernier vers de la version originale, "Nous rentrerons dans l'ombre" est "traduit" en "Then we'll come from the shadows", soit "Puis nous sortirons de l'Ombre", c'est à dire l'inverse du sens supposé de la version originale." But this of course only gives further evidence that Cohen is a supreme poet (and in effect God, going incognito to the masses).

--Noetica 13:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So that means it should be clear whether they are doing Cohen's version or the original. Does someone who knows these recordings know? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Various versions of "Partisan" are not listed as covers of songs by Leonard Cohen in the long list (over 1040 titles now) at http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/test.html. Cohen recorded a song written by Anna Marly and Hy Zaret, and only made some relatively minor changes in the lyrics. (User:Fija 2 Aug 2005)

The Partisan was NOT written by Cohen. It is a song written by and for the French Resistance Movement. It was written by Anna Marly and Emmanuel d'Astier in London 1942 and was a direct attack at the fascists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.47.106.5 (talk • contribs) 29 September 2006.

You are replying to a conversation from a year ago. This has long since been sorted out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrek

Yes, I'm quite sure that is Cale in Shrek. It's a slightly censored version of his recording; I can't now remember what they left out, but I remember that when I saw the movie I was thinking "what a wonderful recording to use here" and then found myself going, "that's not exactly how it went..." -- Jmabel | Talk 20:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's definetly Rufus Wainwright, according to the amazon page for the soundtrack album (and my own ears). Pyrop 21:29, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Really? Damn, he is definitely covering Cale's arrangement then. It's note for note. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

You're both right: the version in the movie is Cale, but the version on the soundtrack is Wainwright. If you search google for 'shrek soundtrack John Cale' you'll find several sites saying that. Tolo 10:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Right. It's Cale in the movie, and Wainwright's on the soundtrack CD. This is not entirely unrelated to the fact that Wainwright is signed with Dreamworks SKG, and had an album coming out at the same time as the Shrek soundtrack. PS : Liked the reversion comment "lack of consensus"; that would be one way to phrase it, certainly :) -- GWO

[edit] mother of his children

A recent enonymous edit changed "Cohen fathered two children with dancer Suzanne Verdal McCallister"... to "Cohen fathered two children with artist Suzanne Elrod". I have no idea of the facts, and neither cites a reference, so I am not reverting, but it would be good if someone could sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:23, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

The new version is correct. Suzanne Vaillancourt (nee Verdal aka McCallister) (a Quebecoise) was the Suzanne behind the song "Suzanne" [1]. Suzanne Elrod is the mother of Cohen's eldest children. [2]
The change is correct, as outlined above. The following archived article on the same site also gives some information on Cohen's relationships: [3] -- WJL
The interview with Suzanne Verdal McCallister cited above is very revealing about Cohen's most famous song. I'm adding it to the external links. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 07:00 (UTC) Well, on further review, I see that the overall site it comes from (leonardcohenfiles.com) is already linked, so I guess that will have to do. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Is Cohen now in contact with Suzanne Verdal? And does Cohen have something (like sex or affair) with her?

[edit] God

" It is widely believed that if there's a god, he's Leonard. " Oh, that's wonderful. Shame about the revert. Tolo 06:30, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Officer Cohen?

I cut the following recent anonymous addition, pending citation. "He also expressed interest to become a police officer in his early years." I can't say it's wrong, but I never heard of it, and I'd want to see a citation that this is more than either a random claim or that at the age of 6 he made some childish remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Choir

Who the heck are the recently (red-)linked Midnight Choir? Is this real, or just a reference to the lyrics of "Bird on a Wire"? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:11, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's real. I mean, there's a Norwegian band named 'Midnight Choir', but that's just because, I suppose, it's cool to have the name of your band a Leonard Cohen lyric. Perhaps the well-meaning linker just thought that choirs came in the midnight variety. Tolo 12:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

On this basis, I will delete it, pending documentation. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Midnight Choir is a Norwegian band, as Tolo said, and yes, they did a cover of Leonard Cohen's Bird On The Wire. It has the same title and is the last song of an untitled rarity album from early 1994, that has only been issued in Norway and sold in about 1800 copies as far as I know (it was at the very beginning of the band). Maybe you're right about this not being sufficiently encyclopedic, since it (the song) is so unknown - though the band is quite well known in Scandinavia and the German countries - which I didn't think about, but the cover version exists for sure. Oh and as for the "red"-linking, I am planning to make an article about the band soon, that's why I linked it already. Greetings Totti 19:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the band, and it looked like likely vandalism. (As you can see, someone else thought the same). I'd call this a borderline inclusion in this article. There have been at least 800 covers of Cohen songs, and we link to an external page that tries to list them comprehensively. Since I have no idea how prominent this band may now be in Norway, I'll leave it to the judgment of others whether they are prominent enough to belong in this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice the link. I'll just message them and request the Midnight Choir cover to be added, that's probably more reasonable than adding it to the article. Sorry for the mistake. Totti 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Echo and the Bunnymen

is it worth mentioning Ian McCulloch from Echo and the Bunnymen as a person inspired by Cohen and later to produce a tribute album? (anon 13 March 2005)

  • Probably worth a mention in with other covers, but not much more than that. An awful lot of musicians consider Cohen an important influence. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Conspiracy of Beards

An anonymous user keeps adding mention of a cover of "Chelsea Hotel" by The Conspiracy of Beards to the article. I see no reason why, out of over 1,000 covers of Leonard Cohen, this cover by a choir with no national or international reputation is notable. I have more than once reverted it with edit summaries indicating this and asking the person to explain on the talk page why this is notable. The person has not taken me up on this. Instead, he/she just keeps adding it back to the article. Mere persistence by this anonymous user will not change my mind about this. Either make a case, or I will keep reverting. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi -- That would be I. The Conspiracy of Beards has received international attention by the media for their cover songs of Leonard Cohen's poetry. They have been on National radio, perform live regularly and soon will be doing a tour both in the US and in Europe.Their CD is set to release in 2005. Although they are not as famous as these other groups, they soon will be. Check out their entry The Conspiracy of Beards and web site. Merigorownd 15:25, August 8, 2005

Please take a look at the Notability and Music Guidelines for bands and ensembles. I don't believe that TCOB meet these criteria, which is why Jmabel continues to revert your edits. -Satori 23:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
My view is that they are borderline notable for an article of their own but probably on the upswing, so I don't object to that article, but not (at least not yet) notable enough to be among the 40 or Leonard Cohen covers mentioned, out of over 1000 documented. There are probably a few others in the article that don't really belong, but this one seemed egregious. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Satori: On the contrary, The Conspiracy of Beards meet almost all of the guidelines of Notability and Music Guidelines Merigorownd 17:29, August 8, 2005
No Top-100 hit, have not yet toured nationally, have not yet released an album, have not been featured in music media as far as I could find, do not have a member of an extremely notable band, have not become the most prominent representative of a particular style, and have not won a major music award. They don't, as far as I can tell, yet meet any of the criteria. They will be moving in that direction once the album is out and they go on tour, both of which will be Verifiable information. -Satori 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary The Conspiracy of Beards has appeared on West Coast Live national radio broadcast and National Public Radio and contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. It's my understanding that for Notability and Music Guidelines is notable if meets ANY of the criteria listed. Merigorownd 12:27, August 9, 2005
This thread is getting off-topic from the Leonard Cohen article. That is partially my fault, so I appologize for that. I have no intention of putting their article up for VFD, and neither does Jmabel. I do agree with his point, however, that there are probably hundreds, perhaps even over a thousand, covers of Cohen's material. An unrecorded cover by an ensemble that just touches on notability is out of scope of the article, especially as a catalog of every verifiable cover of a Cohen song would be unwieldy and cause the article to go beyond the size guideline in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. -Satori 19:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you about not linking them to the Cohen article. I just don't want their individual article taken down. I feel strongly about that. Sorry if we got off topic. Best regards. Merigorownd 12:55, August 9, 2005
Jmabel: I'll accept your objection to a link within the Leonard Cohen covered songs area. But I believe that since they have been on several national radio shows including NPR, West Coast Live and upcoming it's totally valid for them to have an article of their own. I am surprised that this came up as an issue and am glad that you don't object. Merigorownd 17:29, August 8, 2005

[edit] Cale or Cohen?

It says in the article "The third and fourth verses of the original lyrics were changed by Cale; Buckley, Crowe and Wainright use these lyrics; Bono and lang use the original." I believe this to be erroneous for three reasons. One, Cale is not given a songwriting credit for his addition to the song. Two, these lyrics appear as "additional lyrics" in the Cohen book of poetry "Stranger Music" on page 348 and Cale is not given credit for these new lyrics. Third, Cohen sings these new lyrics on "Cohen Live". There is no evidence that Cale wrote these lyrics, but I'll concede that Cale's version is the first time these new lyrics appeared on CD. 221.189.95.78 22:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ADD: The "Hallelujah" on "Cohen Live" is from a Halloween concert in 1988, predating "I'm Your Fan" (1991).221.189.95.78 22:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds solid to me, please edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought that Cale had songwriting credit (see the allmusic entry for Fragments of a Rainy Season) but the additions always sounded very "Cohenesque" to me - ancient words made relevant to modern sensibilities that, from another pen, would be jarring - so I'm glad it was Leonard. --Fantailfan 15:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That must be in error -- "Fragments" is a 1992 album, Mr. Cohen was singing those lyrics in 1988.
      • Indeed. Before Cale recorded his version of "Hallelujah" he asked for the lyrics. Cohen wrote back and reportedly sent him "all 15 verses" – of which some were recorded by Cohen for Various Positions (1984) and some others live in concert (starting 1988). – Hattrem 16:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BA , LL.D?

Why I am removing these:

  1. BA - half the adults in North America must have a BA, we do not normally list that, why list it here?
  2. LL.D - from where, when? Honorary, at best, I presume, since his biography doesn't mention law school. We do not normally list honorary degrees after the names. Nearly every prominent figure of the last 50 years has honorary doctorates.

Jmabel | Talk 04:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

BA English (McGill) 1955, honorary LLD (Dalhousie) 1971, honorary D LITT (McGill) 1992. - From The Canadian Encyclodeia [4] Tomsak 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: McGill was - according to Nadel's biography - actually the law college. Even poets teached Cohen law there. Tomsak 13:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "1000 covers deep"

I think we should further prune the covers list, keeping only people who are/were famous or influential in their own right, ore where the cover was a hit. I would like to know the basis on which the following are included:

http://leonardcohenfiles.com/test.html is clearly trying to maintain a complete list. If you simply think this fact belongs on the web someplace, and they are lacking it, I'm sure they would love to add more examples, even obscure ones.

-- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can keep Allison Crowe - she seems to be up-and-comming, her cover of "Hallelujah" appears to be a major feature of her repertoire, and it was listed as song of the week by recordoftheday.com. I have no objection to striking the rest of your list. -Satori 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, instead of listing Jennifer Warnes next to every song she covered, should we just have a line saying something like "Jennifer Warnes released an album of Cohen covers titled Famous Blue Raincoat"? -Satori 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
How about us taking off the artists who participated in the tribute CDs and leaving them in the blurb about the various artist tribute CDs? I think mentioning their versions twice could be overboard.clay 23:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you on Jennifer Warnes. I'm a little hesitant about saying we drop things just because they were on tribute albums. Two very notable Cohen covers -- John Cale's "Hallelujah", which is probably considerably better known than Cohen's original, and R.E.M.'s "First, We'll Take Manhattan" -- come from tribute CDs. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is saying "drop things", just a suggestion to remove duplications. Another suggestion for the cover section is to only include covers that were hits for other artists as the criteria for incusion rather than fame of the performer which would make the entry more notable. People can argue the fame of a particular artist but no one can argue with Jennifer Warnes, Judy Collins etc. having significant success by recording a Leonard Cohen song, rather than filling out an album with one. clay 22:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm wary of criteria that would remove mention that his songs have been covered by Bob Dylan, John Cale, and R.E.M. For someone who did not know Cohen's own work, that would probably establish his stature more than the fact that Judy Collins had a hit with one of his songs or that the otherwise rather obscure (if excellent) Jennifer Warnes has built a lot of her career out of covering him. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're after a complete list, Dave Van Ronk did a cover of "Bird on [a/the] Wire" - it's currently available on cd, "The Mayor of MacDougal Street: Rarities 1957-69", but was on the Polydor 24-4052 "Van Ronk" vinyl (cd info from Amazon, vinyl from Van Ronk unofficial fan site) - is Van Ronk famous, maybe not - NYC named a street after him... (KLB)

No, we are emphatically not after a complete list. There are over a thousand, and someone else maintains a perfectly good list; I say, "Let 'em. They're doing fine." I like Van Ronk and respect him as a scholar and performer, but would tend not to add this: he sung a lot of covers, so there in nothing particularly interesting about him singing a Leonard Cohen song. He sang a lot of Bertolt songs, but we don't mention him in the Bertolt Brecht article, nor should we (although if we did an article on interpreters of Brecht's songs, or something like that, I'd include him. I don't even think I'd include him in an article about interpreters of Cohen's songs: his "Bird on a Wire" isn't really all that different from the original, except that he has an even more gravelly voice. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The photo

Suggestion: Change the photo to one where he's not wearing darkened glasses. Anyone have one that could be used? ... or is that pic particularly meaningful for some reason I'm not aware of? --Nephtes 22:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is his 2001 official photo from Ten New Songs booklet. Indeed I agree, but his latest 2004 photos for Dear Heather shows him with three days old beard, what's very unusla and rare for Cohen. Maybe we should use some other official 2001 photo, like those free promo photos from Sony, available here ([5]) - I vote for #2. Tomsak 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that would be a good choice. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. That's our boy. – Hattrem 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Although a colour pic would be preferable, yeah, I think that one of those would be an improvement. #2 is good; agreed. Are they suitable in terms of copyright? --Nephtes 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

The following remark was kind of clumsily inserted into the "Early life" section: "Leonard Cohen, in his early and later life was a Zionist." I cut it, but only because it didn't sit well where it was. Cohen, as I understand it, has at least for most of his life pretty ardently supported Zionism, though obviously not to the point of making aliyah himself. We mention, accurately to the best of my knowledge (although it is uncited) "In 1973, Cohen toured Israel and performed at army bases during the Yom Kippur War." Should we perhaps have more on this? Does someone have citable material? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that Cohen's approach to Judaism is more bound to tradition than zealousness. Although he stated that he doesn't need any other religion, he was also a Buddhist monk for five years and doesn't see any contradiction in that. – Hattrem 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, but has nothing to do with what I wrote. Zionism is primarily a secular Jewish movement, a movement of Jews as a people, not of Judaism as a religion. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Somewhat middle-class"

What the heck is meant by "a somewhat middle-class … family"? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

There are several cases of POV in the article, most notably "Some of his songs, such as "Ballad of the Absent Mare" and "Hallelujah" are simply beautiful". Someone (with more experience than me) should go and correct them, if possible. Daniel (☎) 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarian?

Hi, can anyone please provide sources that prove that Leonard Cohen is vegetarian? Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not bursting any bubbles here, but Leonard is not (currently) a vegetarian. Sandover 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In the biographical film Ladies and Gentlemen Mr. Leonard Cohen, Cohen implied that, at that time, 1965, he had stopped eating meet, which made him feel more honorable when, for example, he patted a dog. TRoethke (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death of a Ladies' Man

Whoever wrote up the paragraph about this album in the music sub-section was clearly not a fan of the album. I don't know but unbacked claims like "The recording of the album was a complete fiasco" and "The end result is often thought gaudy and ostentatious, and Cohen's songwriting on this album is also thought to be some of his weakest" sound just a wee bit POV to me. Personally I love the album and the only reviews I've read of it have been overwhelmingly positive. That said, I know it was a controversial pair-up and was very much unlike anything Cohen had previously done or has done since. I've also read that Cohen himself didn't like the album but that still doesn't prove that it was "a complete fiasco" or "often thought gaudy and ostentatious." I'd like to see some sources for these comments or else I'm going to take them down. ... and I guess I forgot to sign this.--Lairor 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent activity

User:Sunray has deleted one person's addition about Cohen's recent appearance on the grounds of it not being encyclopedic, but has left another (mine) intact - why? Personally I think something needs to be said about it; as I said, it was his first public appearance in 13 years, and therefore significant. --Richardrj 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Your entry was about a notable event, it was well written and fitted in well with the section. The same cannot be said of the other addition. It was about a different and (as far as I can tell) not terribly notable event a few days after his first appearance. Or have I missed something? Sunray 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like both entries were about the same event (the addition by 138.40.149.75 didn't state the date). Thus the second entry was a repeat of information already in the article. All the more reason to exclude it. I would add that the clip was poor quality, and was of Anjani singing with Leonard merely doing back-up. Sunray 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaking - it reads great now. --Richardrj 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Busking

I have added info abou his busking activities found at http://www.webheights.net/speakingcohen/st93.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.58.112 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

[edit] Musical balance

Reading the section that describes his music in a bit of detail, it seems that the section isn't very well balanced. His first three or four albums are covered in a short paragraph, whilst his work from I'm Your Man onwards devotes a long paragraph to each album. This is odd as those first three or four albums were so acclaimed, were his most influential and are often seen as being the "heart" of his work. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to expand the parts about the earlier albums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.223.244 (talk • contribs) 15 May 2006.

[edit] Abortion stance

What is the specific source upon which the claims of Cohen's anti-abortion stance are based? I see some references to this via a Google search, but many are referencing Wikipedia (or copying it, of course). I have also seen sites stating that his opinion on the specific issue are not clear, despite his frequent metaphorical references to the subject (a reasonable argument in my opinion, considering the abosolutely tangled mass of metaphors he tends to employ). Fearwig 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is simply his lyrics. I'm pretty sure he has never made any comment on the matter in interviews. Lyrics would include those such as the following: "The only man of energy/ Yes the revolution's pride/ He trained a hundred women/ Just to kill an unborn child" (from 'Diamonds In The Mine') and "Destroy another fetus now/ We don't like children anyhow" (from 'The Future'). --Richardrj 11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the matter comes up in the lyrics quite a bit. Consider this, from 'You Know Who I Am':
Sometimes I need you naked,
sometimes I need you wild,
I need you to carry my children in
and I need you to kill a child.

<safe interpretation= inner child>

This, though, does not seem to be anti-abortion, does it?
We might think also of 'Story of Isaac', which is connected in a general way (see article):
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.

<safe interpretation=sending own childern to make war, the words refer to abraham and isaac story.>

But here the references are clearly enough to war – the Vietnam war in particular, given the date of the song (1969) – and the sacrifice of one generation (the infantry!) by another (the old Abrahamic generals). I think this primary reference to war is less ambiguous than the article currently claims.
Noetica 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is a danger in trying to psychoanalyze a person and his belief system from a few lyrics. If Cohen says he's against abortion, that's one thing -- but to try to figure out his personal politics weened from a handful of lyrics -- that's great stuff for an poetry appreciation article but not an encyclopedia, I believe. Best to keep it as factual as possible. clay
I agree, Clay, more or less. I guess a bit of "poetry appreciation" is not out of place in discussion here, though. Provides comradely background analysis for the editors of the article to share. Some of them are obviously pretty serious Cohen scholars. Noetica 02:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many ways to interpret Cohen, but since it is obvious he intends an ambivalence in his lyrics, it's unfair to draw conclusions about Cohen's beliefs. Particularly because he's never been an activist, one way or another, when it comes to abortion. Thanks for raising the issue. I've deleted accordingly. Sandover 08:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film info

Since the "I'm Your Man" film has its own section, I've removed a paragraph about it from the "recent activity" section. a) The film is not really an "activity" by Cohen, and b) the paragraph contained a lot of incorrect info anyways. --Nephtes 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily care to keep that paragraph, but it does seem to me that performing for the film with U2 and being interviewed extensively for it would constitute "activity". - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV in Music Section

While I'm glad there's a music section, I find it very annoying that one person's interpretation of those songs stands in the article. Cohen's lyrics are beautiful, ornate, mysterious, and it's very arrogant to think anyone could ever truly understand them. For instance, saying that Cohen describes his own politics in songs from The Future. Sez who? Who says he wasn't writing about a character? Who's to say he wasn't after something merely euphonic? I dislike not only the idea of one person's interpretation, but these interpretations in particular because they strike me as facile and lazy. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.198.201.145 (talk)

I agree. Lots of text here is laced with POV. I've been meaning to help get rid of it, but I haven't gotten around to it; I bet others feel the same way. Feel free to be bold and work on it yourself. --Allen 13:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm glad someone else agrees but I'm afraid that if I started rewriting it I would only add my own lazy, facile interpretations *or* preface what's there with a lot of flabby hedging, like "it could be argued that ..." I edited the section on DoaLM, and I think that shows a good direction, but obviously that's up to future editors. (Anyone know why the <ref> tag won't work? Is it incompatible with the direct links?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.198.201.145 (talk)

[edit] Death

Death: Is Cohen still alive? Maybe this article is a tad bit outdated, or his death could just be a rumor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.150.147 (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006.

Is it even a rumor? I've heard nothing about this. What is your source? - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I just heard an interview of him on World Cafe. If its a rumor I would guess its a false one. Piercetp 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't claim such things unless you have strong source and reference.It's very disrespectful of the living, Cohen in this case. And just made me very sad thinking about --Javit 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Discography

In the Music section, it states that "Everybody Knows" was on The Future, but in the Covers section, it states that it was on "I'm Your Man." I own The Future and it's not on that album. Can someone confirm which album it is on. - godospoons

I'm Your Man. Track 3. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covers again

Once again, the "covers" section is turning into a laundry list. There are easily 1,000 recorded versions of Cohen songs. We should only be mentioning those where at least one of the following applies:

  • The artist is at least comparably well known (or comparably critically acclaimed) to Cohen. For example, Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, The Neville Brothers.
  • The cover was a chart hit, or featured in a film, etc. For example Judy Collins' version of Suzanne or John Cale's version of Hallelujah.
  • Cohen was a clearly major influence on the artist; this should mean, at least, that Cohen merits mention in the article about them. For example, Jennifer Warnes.

I'm open to other rationales, but these are the ones I can see.

Can someone please explain why the following are notable enough to merit mention:

- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A week has gone by. No defenses of any of them as meriting mention. Removing all. - Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many uncontextualized quotes

Folks: this isn't Wikiquote. I intend to do a major trim on the quotations. I suggest that any of these that are not on Wikiquote be copied there, because all presumably do merit inclusion there. I'll hold off for a week. - Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Years active?

Isn't it a bit misleading to say (in the info panel at the top of the article) that Cohen has been active since 1967? The article introduces him as a poet, novelist, and songwriter; surely then we should say he has been active since 1956, the year when his first poetry collection was published. R Lowry 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Clearly, someone was thinking only of his recording career. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

It is always a bad sign when the External links section needs subheadings for navigation. Can a knowledgeable editor do some radical pruning? Jkelly 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Any problems, drop me a line. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but the references #3 and #10 seem to be the same - #3 is a copy of the list at #10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.67.224 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in THEMES

I agree with the above statements in MUSIC about personal interpretations of Cohen's lyrics without quotes of him as evidence of his intentions when he wrote them. Peronally, I feel that this line, in 'Themes' is another example:

"Coming Back to you" and "If It Be Your Will" are clearly addressed to a Judeo-Christian God."

Now if there is a direct quote from LC confirming this, it should be included with that statement. If there isn't such a quote, this should be removed. Someone's personal interpretations of cryptic poetry being explained as 'clearly' meaning something, while other interpretations are just as possible should really be avoided. For one thing, both songs, but especially 'Coming back to you' could more simply be explained as a song about love for a woman. It's not as if LC is averse to writing about that topic either. Not to mention that lines like

"Even in your arms I know, I'll never get it right. Even when you bend to give me Comfort in the night"

sound more like love for a woman to me. Is it possible it's all metaphor for love for a personal god? Sure, but then a quote from him should be included to prove that. The reason I took the line out already is that the wiki article dedicated to the songs' album 'Various Positions', declares the 'Coming Back to You' an 'unusually straightforward love song'. Consistency would be better, I think. If anyone disagrees, or has any quotes proving this subjective POV, please let me know. (ArcodH 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

The entire "Themes" section is a swamp of POV and "original research", and the only likely remedy is my view is to eliminate the entire section. The article will be much better without it. TheScotch (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soundtracks

The article cites that Lord of War used Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah, but to me it sounds more like John Cale's...I could be wrong, though, I don't have a copy of the film (and I only have Cale's version to compare it with anyway). Can anyone confirm if the version that appears in the film is really Buckley's? Archiesteel 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covers and Tribute Albums

I think it's a testament to Leonard Cohen to see so many people covering his songs...it's also an occasional problem on this page as the covers subsection sometimes becomes a laundry list...why not make another article for the covers (and include some of the less-known ones)? We could also add the tribute albums on there as well (since they're related). I propose to do it, I'll let everyone weigh in on it for a couple of days first. Archiesteel 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be all for splitting that out to an article, and having one prosy paragraph here mentioning a few artists who are either at least as prominent as Cohen himself or for whom Cohen represents a major portion of their repertoire. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm also in favor of the split. Should it be a subpage of this page, such as [[Leonard Cohen/Covers]], or should it be its own page, such as [[Covers of Leonard Cohen songs]]? - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of a cover section but only for notable artists and recordings. At least 80% of what is currently there does not add to our understanding of Cohen. Other artist's Wikipedia entries do not have cover songs being listed like this, it is usually covered in a short paragraph. Perhaps listing the cover versions in the articles of the song itself is a better option, and have a short paragraph on "influences on other artists" in the body of the Leonard Cohen article. Also, I see Bob Dylan listed as having "recorded" a version of Hallelujah. I do not believe that Bob Dylan recorded this for any of his official releases. I do know he performed the song on tour, but only bootlegs are available (e.g. "A Legend in His Time").clay 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Jews and Polish-Canadian

Cohen said in Poland today (on the radio of Trójka) that his family has roots in Poland and Eastern Europe at all. He feels as a Canadian with Jewish and Polish origin... So I will add him to Polish-Canadians category ;) Kowalmistrz 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drug use

im sure it doesnt warrant specific mention in the main article(s) but cohen sure seems to mention drug use (presumaly heroin) in at least two of his earlier songs, 'stranger song' and 'the butcher'. any info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.183.21.218 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I know he mentions that he remembers being on speed when he wrote "Bird on the wire" in an interview with the BBC. But I don't think it really warrants a mention in the article.Arendedwinter 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cohen Live.jpg

Image:Cohen Live.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Field Commander Cohen.jpg

Image:Field Commander Cohen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:More Best of Leonard Cohen.jpg

Image:More Best of Leonard Cohen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LeonardCohenTenNewSongs.jpg

Image:LeonardCohenTenNewSongs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LeonardCohenImYourMan.gif

Image:LeonardCohenImYourMan.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LeonardCohenDearHeather.jpg

Image:LeonardCohenDearHeather.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Leonard Cohen So Long Marianne.jpg

Image:Leonard Cohen So Long Marianne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Essential Leonard Cohen.jpg

Image:The Essential Leonard Cohen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Best of Leonard Cohen.jpg

Image:The Best of Leonard Cohen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of First Album

The article says Songs of Leonard Cohen was released in 1968 at one point and then 1967 at another point. Which is correct? - Added by Patrice : The first album was issued in Dec. 1967

[edit] Discography - Fair Use

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -- Merope 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Australian band Monsieur Camembert release 2CD set of Cohen material

Last week, Monsieur Camembert released the original cast recording of "Famous Blue Cheese - The Leonard Cohen Show". The album contains some of the most novel interpretations of Cohen songs ever recorded, and there are sound-samples at the following websites: http://www.myspace.com/monsieurcamembert http://www.myspace.com/mcfamousbluecheese

There is also a 2hr Cohen special recorded for ABC Radio in Australia, which contains 10 songs from the new album... You can listen for the next 2 weeks at...http://www.abc.net.au/rn/weekendplanet/stories/2007/1947823.htm To purchase the album, please visit... http://www.islandwebs.com.au/applications/search/search_result.asp?ItemID=762

Monsieurcamembert 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Cheers, Yaron Hallis

Offhand, I see nothing notable about this, and the above at least borders on being an ad. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renditions by other singers, once again

Renditions by other singers has once again become a long list of mostly not-too-notable cover versions. I've trimmed it before, I'm not doing it this time, but it should be done. Given that we link externally to a page that attempts to be comprehensive about this, it doesn't seem to accomplish anything to create a half-assed version of that page here.

I strongly suggest that the list be confined to:

  • Hit versions
  • Versions by figures at least as well known as Cohen himself(e.g. John Cale, Johnny Cash, Tori Amos)
  • Notable performers for whom Cohen was a major influence (e.g. Judy Collins, Jennifer Warnes). These should be cases where a mention of Cohen would belong in the article about that person.
  • Also, we might want to keep more comprehensive paragraphs about a few truly widely covered songs, such as "Suzanne" or "Hallelujah", though these really could be moved to articles about the songs in question.

This means dropping mentions of perfectly nice performers like The Dukhs, the Klezmer Conservatory Band, and Roy Buchanan. Again, someone else is being exhaustive, we don't have to. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree, except that I'd say "confined at most to...." In fact, I think this section should say something like "Leonard Cohen's" songs have been recorded by many other singers" and then list just a few examples. I think the "soundtrack" section should read like this too. TheScotch (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References in popular culture: fair warning

If anyone wants to preserve any of the entries in this section, he should find a way to incorporate them into the main article as soon as possible. "Trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia", and this one is going soon. Grab what you value now. TheScotch (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Cohen's place in popular culture trivial? And is the fact that trivia sections are discouraged a requirement to delete it? Discouraged doesn't seem like a word that mandates any particular course of action. I recommend that this effort be directed toward improving the

content rather than its destruction. --SSBohio 17:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Is Cohen's place in popular culture trivial?":

The section title is obviously a euphemism for "trivia". Any explanation of Cohen's real place in culture, popular or other, (which of course would not involve a series of randomly arranged miscellaneous and unconnected entries) belongs in the main body of the article. TheScotch (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I recommend that this effort be directed toward improving the content rather than its destruction.":

If you care to preserve any of the current entries, you will find a way to incorporate them into the main body of the article. Please do not add anything to this section; it's going to be deleted. TheScotch (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "And is the fact that trivia sections are discouraged a requirement to delete it?":
As a practical matter, trivia sections are indefensible--or un-defendable, let's say. Trivia sections can survive for an indeterminate time as long as they aren't challenged, but once challenged, they're pretty much doomed. I didn't attach the trivia sticker to this one, and for aught I know whoever did may never return, but someone was bound eventually to follow through--as in this case I've vowed to. TheScotch (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a dismissive tone as at all helpful in this matter. At the very least, meet me halfway by admitting that my perspective is worthy as well, rather than disparaging the work of others and, by extension, denying that any view but your own should hold sway. --SSBohio 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Until I read your words, I had no idea this was a fait accompli. While I appreciate your saying "please," why would I or anyone else heed your pronouncement about what should or shouldn't be in this article, rather than working by consensus? We're best served by collaborating on this project, not issuing ultimata to each other. --SSBohio 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a very collaborative way to move forward. I don't accept that the section is indefensible because you state it so. How and why is it indefensible? Further, anything that's pretty much doomed is not, in fact, doomed at all. In actuality, your response reinforces my point: that a thing's being discouraged is not the same as its being forbidden. A recommendation shouldn't be confused with a proscription. Even the {{trivia}} template doesn't call for wholesale deletion.
To put it another way, suppose I took the opposite approach and vowed to keep the in popular culture section in the article. How would that be? Vowing to keep anything in or out of an article is counterproductive, since the content of any article is determined by consensus.
I'm interested in working with you to improve the article. I'm not interested in having content unilaterally removed. What do you think? Can we collaborate to improve this article without stripping it of content and decontextualizing Cohen's work? --SSBohio 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of placing your remarks where they belong chronologically. Interpolating them into my remarks is tantamount to editing my remarks, which I've not given you permission to do.

Re: "I don't see a dismissive tone as at all helpful in this matter. At the very least, meet me halfway by admitting that my perspective is worthy as well, rather than disparaging the work of others and, by extension, denying that any view but your own should hold sway.":

1) You are not invited or welcome to critique my "tone" or anyone else's. 2) I am not obliged to meet you "halfway" where I think you are entirely wrong, and I call things the way I see them. 3) I'm not "disparaging" anyone or anyone's work here. 4) The "view" I've expressed is simply the official wikipedia "view".

Re: "I don't accept that the section is indefensible because you state it so. How and why is it indefensible? Further, anything that's pretty much doomed is not, in fact, doomed at all. In actuality, your response reinforces my point: that a thing's being discouraged is not the same as its being forbidden. A recommendation shouldn't be confused with a proscription. Even the {{trivia}} template doesn't call for wholesale deletion.":

1) Notice my phrase "as a practical matter". It's indefensible because it will not withstand. This is the way of challenged trivia sections in wikipedia, and I'm speaking purely from experience. 2) I qualified "doomed" with "pretty much" to allow for the possibility that some trivia sections may have magically escaped, not to suggest that trivia sections ultimately inhabit some sort of limbo. "Pretty much" used in this way is a common figure of speech with which you may wish to acquaint yourself. 3) The template explains that entries (all entries) within a trivia section worth retaining should be incorporated into the main body of the article. Obviously, if all entries have either been incorporated or deleted, the section itself will be empty and a candidate for "wholesale deletion". Essentially, you are misreading the template.

Re: "To put it another way, suppose I took the opposite approach and vowed to keep the in popular culture section in the article. How would that be? Vowing to keep anything in or out of an article is counterproductive, since the content of any article is determined by consensus.":

1) Vow that if you like, but it won't do you any good. 2) I'm not vowing "to keep anything in or out of [the] article"; I'm merely vowing to (warning you that I'm about to) delete this section. If you're concerned about being "counterproductive", you'll find something else to do at wikipedia (or outside wikipedia) because this little war you're attempting to wage is a lost cause. 3) The "consensus" is that trivia sections don't belong in wikipedia.

Once again: if you think anything in the section is worth preserving, you will find a way to incorporate it into the main body of the article. Do it soon because the section is going. TheScotch (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You evidence a belief that you lay exclusive claim to what should be removed from this article, as well as treating my arguments with derision. As you've chosen to interpret my reply as editing your comments, I'll remove all doubt and give this reply below, where it doesn't directly address each of your comments:
  1. I've taken the liberty of placing your remarks where they belong chronologically -- You assert (by begging the question) that my remarks were in the wrong place to begin with, rather than making an actual argument. All I know so far is that your opinion differs from mine, which, in itself, is neither surprising nor helpful.
  2. Interpolating them into my remarks is tantamount to editing my remarks, which I've not given you permission to do -- Your remarks remained unedited. This assertion is factually incorrect. You chose to break my response up into separate topics and reply to each individually. If I've done anything, it was to follow your lead and respond to each of your points in turn.
  3. You are not invited or welcome to critique my "tone" or anyone else's. Actually, I was already invited to do so, by virtue of being an equal part of this project; I need no invitation from you. The tone of an editor's contributions is as much a subject for fair comment as any other aspect of those contributions. Your tone is unhelpful. I've explained why.
  4. I am not obliged to meet you "halfway" where I think you are entirely wrong, and I call things the way I see them. -- I'm not asking you to agree that I'm half-right, just that you're not the only one who gets to have input here. Dismissing my concerns out of hand is both rude and anticollaborative. One can, presumably, call things as they see them without rancor or condescension.
  5. I'm not "disparaging" anyone or anyone's work here. -- The facts belie your statement. You're not only asserting that other editors' contribution of the in popular culture section aren't worth keeping, but that they are so worthless as to be unworthy of dicussion about whether they should be kept. Taking this position disparages the work of others and makes a mockery of collaboration and consensus.
  6. The "view" I've expressed is simply the official wikipedia "view". -- Except for a few very specific areas (like copyright), there is no such thing as the official wikipedia view; Policy is determined by consensus, not by official decree. What you've expressed is not simply that the view you espouse is right; it's that no other view could or should be expressed.
  7. Notice my phrase "as a practical matter". -- I already had. That's why I replied to it.
  8. It's indefensible because it will not withstand. -- You're saying that it's indefensible because it will not withstand attack, that it's indefensible because it's indefensible. You beg the question to the point of tautology.
  9. This is the way of challenged trivia sections in wikipedia, and I'm speaking purely from experience. -- I appreciate that you're willing to assert a factual basis for your view. However, there isn't enough here to go on. What has your experience been? The importance of past history is tempered by the fact that consensus can change.
  10. I qualified "doomed" with "pretty much" to allow for the possibility that some trivia sections may have magically escaped, not to suggest that trivia sections ultimately inhabit some sort of limbo. -- The qualification makes the doom less than mandatory. Your assertion is that not only can the section go, but that it must.
  11. "Pretty much" used in this way is a common figure of speech with which you may wish to acquaint yourself. -- I can assure you that my reading comprehension is such that I understand the meaning of the phrase pretty much. Was it my language skills, my concentration, or my intelligence that you meant to impugn? A thing's being pretty much doomed means that the thing isn't doomed in every case. The use of these weasel words gives lie to your view that this in popular culture section must conclusively go, regardless of any discussion.
  12. The template explains that entries (all entries) within a trivia section worth retaining should be incorporated into the main body of the article. Obviously, if all entries have either been incorporated or deleted, the section itself will be empty and a candidate for "wholesale deletion". Essentially, you are misreading the template. -- There is - to use your term despite its objectionable tone - an obvious difference between what should be and what must be. Nothing you've cited requires the deletion of this section; the most the template does is to recommend that the information be incorporated elsewhere. The mandate you claim doesn't exist in the evidence you've cited.
  13. Vow that if you like, but it won't do you any good. 2) I'm not vowing "to keep anything in or out of [the] article"; I'm merely vowing to (warning you that I'm about to) delete this section. -- You explicitly vowed to remove this content from the article. To now say that you're not vowing to do so contradicts your own assertion. A vow is a sacred pledge; Its meaning is distinct from a warning. Committing to a course of action regardless of consensus is anticollaborative.
  14. If you're concerned about being "counterproductive", you'll find something else to do at wikipedia (or outside wikipedia) because this little war you're attempting to wage is a lost cause. -- I think that consensus is a bedrock principle of this project, and, as such, is worth defending. You've asserted that you're committed to this deletion regardless of consensus and have gone so far as to dismiss anyone else's view as unworthy of consideration. As to the war you accuse me of waging, I don't see it; I'm trying to discuss this matter with you. A war is an entirely different sort of thing.
  15. The "consensus" is that trivia sections don't belong in wikipedia. -- You claim this as consensus, but you resist sny discussion of the necessity of this deletion. If consensus is as you cliam it is, then discussion will only serve to bolster your case. Why, then, do you resist even the idea that there's something to discuss?
  16. Once again: if you think anything in the section is worth preserving, you will find a way to incorporate it into the main body of the article. Do it soon because the section is going. -- A restated ultimatum is no less an ultimatum the second time than the first. Between the tone of command and the unilateral assertion, you make clear that nothing anyone else has to say on the subject is of the slightest concern to you. We're meant to resolve our disputes by discussion, rather than by running roughshod over those we disagree with.
In the final analysis, I have no direct interest in this particular matter. So far, I've never edited this article one way or another. Your approach to this matter is the only reason I'm here.
You've come here and announced that you won't be judging individual contributions to this section on their merits; Rather, someone else should do that work for you if they want any of this content kept, which isn't geared toward improving this article by consensus and collaboration. The process of click edit section, select all, delete isn't editing. As with any other variety of wholesale destruction, it doesn't consider improving the content to be its goal. Removing content is never an end in & of itself. It is merely a means of improving an article. As you've admitted that there may be usable material in the section you intend to delete, then, by extension, your stated intent is to delete any usable material along with the cruft. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be a bad decision for a legal guardian, just as throwing out useful content with useless is a bad decision for an editor. Is that actually the course you wish to pursue? --SSBohio 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

I've added a portrait by Ines Zgonc, which does seem to capture how the guy is (or appears to be) at the moment. I suspect it will be controversial, being a painting rather than a "real image" (sic). Please could editors discuss it's merits rather than just remove it: the other most recent picture on the article is over 30 years old (and Ines's work is getting rather good). --Simon Speed (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He isnt black.

"His work often explores the themes of religion, isolation, sexuality, and complex interpersonal relationships. He is also black."

I presume this is a joke? I cant seem to edit this out though. Please, do so, or explain what you mean in sensical terms.

Thanks, Brock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.114.141.250 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been sorted. BrockFettes (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Europe

This new paragraph is total nonsense! His songs were NEVER banned, quite contrary, together with Dylan, his was very popular from very beginning. In former Yugoslavia, his early LPs were pressed by the local Columbia company (Suzy) and also imported. This complete sectionn is better to be removed, and Zembaty-phenomenon could be put somewhere else. As for Hungary, that's not verified. Also, complete tribute CD was also produced in Croatia (Ibrica Jusic) and the Czech Republic (Juraj Kukura), and songs were covered in Slovenia, Russia, etc. Croatian singer-songwriter/poet Arsen Dedic recorded trbute album in 1970s, but it was never released due to technical problems (4 songs resurfaced recenly from the studio, and apparently the mastertape was damaged after the sessions but before the release, so the project was abandoned as Dedic fell into depression, what's all referenced in various articles at Croatian Cohen site). Tomsak (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Radio 4 / Front Row

There was a really good interview (30 mins) on Radio 4's front row programme. This will be available for 7 days under the listen again feature. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/past_programmes.shtml

There might be some useful information to be gleaned from this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.2.158 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)