Talk:Love Minus Zero/No Limit

Image copyright problem with Image:BringingHome.jpg

The image Image:BringingHome.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:BringingHome.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't Look Back

A snippet from a live performance of "Love Minus Zero/No Limit" is also shown in the movie Don't Look Back.

It would be helpful to remove the ambiguity of this statement. Yes, it's a live performance, but it's more like an informal gathering in a hotel room, is it not? Viriditas (talk)

Can we determine if it was in a hotel or a private home? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Please expand the lead, highlighting the most notable aspects of each section, including notable recordings and performances, and critical commentary. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Minus Zero/No Limit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with 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)

   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)

• 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)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

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

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

Song Title

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)

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)

Has Dylan stated how he interprets this song?

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)

“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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Love Minus Zero/No Limit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation of lyrics are unsupportable statements of opinion

@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)

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)

I agree with Rlendog. There's no need to delete any of this material, as it is all reliably sourced. The Rogonov book specifically states that much of the imagery in this song is derived from the Book of Daniel and likewise supports all of the other points in the article that cite him as a source. Likewise, Gill's book mentions Poe's "The Raven" in exactly the same context as this article, and Tregar's book mentions the brevity and economy of language that Dylan uses in the song. So, it's really hard to see what your problem with this text is Mcenedella. I'm trying hard to "assume good faith" here, but this certainly smacks of a case of personal bias on your part (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), as Rlendog suggests in his recent edit summary. Regardless of your reasons though, please do not engage in edit warring by reverting this article for a third time, in accordance with the three-revert rule; editor consensus is presently not in favour of your edits. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Again, I agree with what Rlendog has posted above. Furthermore, your statement that "Merely because something is published...does not make it suitable for supporting evidence for factual statements in Wikipedia" definitely suggests some kind of personal bias here. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia should be verifiability, not whether a particular editor thinks it's true or not. The sources cited are all from reliable authors/publications and wholly meet the criteria laid out for reliable sources at 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)