Talk:Love Minus Zero/No Limit

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   Prose read well, complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   There is a problem with ref #17 [1]. This returns a null search page. Better to stick with ref#5 which returns the full list of versions by Dylan and others. Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   None used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, if the ref problem above can be fixed this will pass. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Cool, thanks for fixing that, I tried but couldn't. I am happy to promote this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review. I fixed the link. It is actually the same webpage that could be accessed from ref #5, but this link gets to the covers directly. Rlendog (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:2793478

--CactusBot (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the fact that this article says 'In theory, the resulting quotient would be equal to "absolutely unlimited love.". I can't read the references since it's not online, but anything divided by infinity is zero, not "absolutely unlimited".

  (love-0) / infinity

= love / infinity = 0

Does anybody have any alternate explanation of the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-a-x (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. It makes it worse that the sentence is expressed in mathematical jargon, suggesting to the uninformed that this has some mathematical validity. The article also links to Limit (mathematics) which has no actual relevance, but again suggests there is some real maths in the title. I'm going to remove these suggestions. I think that Dylan probably did intend something along those lines, but we shouldn't imply that this makes mathematical sense. After all, he got the Nobel Prize for Literature, not Mathematics.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "Love Minus Zero/No Limit" was written as a tribute to Dylan's future wife Sara Lowndes.

Has Dylan himself stated that this is how he interprets his song? If so, I believe that adding a quote from Dylan explaining how he interprets his song would improve the article by clarifying this. If there is no evidence that Dylan, himself, interprets the song this way, then I think this sentence should be rewritten to be more open-ended and less emphatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleonar5 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“The name of this song is a fraction. Love minus zero is on the top and underneath no limit. I made the title before I made the song.” Manchester, England 1965 EDLIS Café 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090808203644/http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:2793478

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

@Rlendog: After reviewing the cited sources for factual claims about the song's provenance, I've deleted the claims which are unsupportable.

The deleted paragraphs claimed the song was influenced by various historical source materials - "recalls," "reminiscent," "comparable to," and "evoke." This would be very interesting if true. I've reviewed the sources and found no such claims present. The Gilliland radio show does not mention Love Minus Zero, the Rogonov book makes no such claims (please see Google Books search for 'Daniel'), etc.

These are [statements of opinion], and should not be included in the article. If there are factual sources indicated Dylan was influenced by Blake, the Book of Daniel, or others in writing these lyrics, we should include those. In the absence of that, these are merely impressionistic opinions with no basis in fact. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for evidence that Dylan was influenced by Blake or the Book of Daniel or others. These are reliably sourced interpretations of elements of the song, and are appropriate for the article. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

three-revert rule; editor consensus is presently not in favour of your edits. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Kohoutek1138 Rlendog First, with regard to revert war - reversion should be done only when neccesary. I invited your comment on the evidence to support the facts presented in the article, to which you wrote "There is no need for evidence." I also invited you to continue the discussion on Talk, and instead you reverted thrice without engaging. Without being contentious, that's not the best way to handle a legitimate difference of opinion on an editorial matter.

Regarding the difference of opinion, let's go through the evidence one at a time. Let's start with the claim that "Some of the song's images evoke prophecies form the Book of Daniel." Please re-review the Rogonov: the basis for his claim that Dylan was influenced by the Bible in these lyrics is that this line in Book of Daniel: "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floor;" inspired this line from Dylan: "Statues made of matchsticks / Crumble into one another". And in addition that the line "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire." inspired Dylan's line "She doesn't have to say she's faithful / Yet she's true, like ice, like fire." On the plain face of it, there is no resemblance between the lines he quotes and the lines he claims are inspired by them - there's no prosody, subject matter, vocabulary, wording, phrasing, or meter shared by the lines which he feels have inspired Dylan.

Rogonov offers no further evidence for his assertion. Dylan has never claimed these were inspired by Book of Daniel. There's no other support anywhere in the wide world of Dylanology for this claim. Merely because something is published - in this case in a book of interpretative criticism - does not make it suitable for supporting evidence for factual statements in Wikipedia. I read that both of you are doubting my motives, but other than happening to like the song, and Dylan, I simply think we should be more accurate in presenting lyrical antecedents for the work of a Nobel Laureate. Leaving my motives aside, can you make a strong argument in favor of the claims that: a) Dylan's lyrics were in fact inspired by the Book of Daniel and/or b) that Rogonov provides any evidence of the same other than his hunch / preference / interpretation? And I suppose, c) should we include authors' various interpretations of Dylan, or any other act, in the relevant articles? I feel strongly against c) but would have to make a more detailed assessment of current practice elsewhere in Wikipedia before giving a definitive view; perhaps that's where we differ here editorially? 24.90.224.240 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking my statement that no evidence is needed out of context. No evidence is needed that Dylan was specifically inspired by the Book of Daniel or Blake because the article never asserts that he was specifically inspired by them. The article references those books/authors in the context of interpreting the lyrics, and for that we have reliable sources that the lyrics are reminiscent of those earlier works. And with reliable sources claiming that this is a valid interpretation of the lyrics there is no reason to exclude that information. Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with what

WP:RS. I suppose, as a compromise, we could edit the text to specifically attribute these statements to each of the respective writers -- such as "Author Andy Gill has suggested that this image recalls Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven'" etc -- but given that the inline citations already tell anyone reading the article which author is saying these things, I really think that's overkill and totally unnecessary. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Kohoutek1138, I do not know where your accusations of personal bias come from? I have no relation to the song, writer, or sources quoted, and am not in the field. It's not necessary and it is rude.

On the substance, I went and read ten other random song articles (Penny Lane, Layla, etc) and many do have a 'reception and legacy' section, which covers material similar to this, but far better presented as authorial opinion. As a reader, I was under the impression in this article that Dylan had sourced the material from Book of Daniel, (as he is wont to do, for example in 'All Along the Watchtower'), hence the research, hence the edit.

I will re-work my contribution Kohoutek1138, Rlendog and flag here when complete. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do take your point Mcenedella about these contested peices of text being presented as fact, rather than authorial opinion, although I do also consider it pretty obvious that these are opinions expressed by well known Dylan biographers and critics. Also, I am sorry if you deem my above replies to be rude, as it was not my intention to offend at all.

So, as a way to move forward with this, can all three of us agree that specifically attributing these statements to each of their respective writers, as I suggested above with my "Author Andy Gill has suggested that this image recalls Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven'" example, is an acceptable compromise? How do you feel about this Rlendog? I would, however, be against any edits that go beyond simply reformatting the text to specifically attribute it as opinion at this stage. That is to say, nothing that is in the article currently needs to be deleted, just given attribution within the text. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this. It is probably an improvement over the original. Rlendog (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a crack at doing this tomorrow. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've had a crack at it and attributed as opinion most of the contested text. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]