Talk:2 + 2 = 5 (song)

Brief analysis revision
I revised the previous lyric analysis, which was glib and (I would say) not substantially supported by the text. Especially in the context of 1984 (and also, I would add, the contemporary buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which goes far in unifying the disparate themes of Orwellianism paralysis and impending danger) and Radiohead's previous ouevre, 2+2=5 takes on pretty transparent meaning. I think, though, given Yorke's frequent comments to this effect, that the song shouldn't be understood as a critique of the Iraq war exclusively. --Jdfawcett 17:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Reference is strained-
From the text:

"The album lists subtitles, or alternative titles, for each of its songs. 2 + 2 = 5's is The Lukewarm, paralleling a biblical passage from Revelation 3:15-16: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." Singer Thom Yorke has mentioned it as a reference to the works of Dante."

This biblical reference includes nothing in common with the song, except for the word "Lukewarm." The line suggests that in fact, York intended another meaning, and this user is merely drawing the comparison creatively. This would be original research wouldn't it? I am deleting it, but I won't be checking back later ;)
 * Agreed. Apparently someone added it again. I'm deleting it, and will be checking back later. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss the matter here instead of reverting it back. FAL 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been proposed below that "2 + 2 = 5 (song)" be renamed and moved to "2+2=5 (song)"

I don't see why there should be gaps between the symbols when, as far as I know, there aren't on any tracklistings or covers from Radiohead. U-Mos 13:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is properly typesetted as:
 * $$2+2=5$$ (HTML TeX, using )
 * $$2+2=5\,$$ (PNG TeX, using )
 * So it kind of looks like the math typesets with a bit of a space there (I think a quarter space or so in TeX). (But otherwise, I don't mind a move to 2+2=5 (song)). +mwtoews 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Standard formatting, insufficient reason for change.  Much like all-caps on album cover. Gene Nygaard 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all-caps numbers! +mwtoews 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, as this track is listed as 2+2=5 elsewhere, whereas an all caps title wouldn't be. Besides, There There was moved to There there due to the printed track listing. Although I don't agree with that and have in fact just nominated it to be moved back, this is an unconventional title and so the page should mimic what Radiohead say exactly. U-Mos 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All it would have taken was to say there are spaces between the words on the back of Hail to the Thief! U-Mos 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for
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 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 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for
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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for
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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for
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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Time signature?
The time signature change is confusing me. The "are you such a dreamer..." section from 0:14 to 1:22 is in 7/8, and the heavy section from 1:54 onwards is clearly in 4/4, but the middle section is a bit fuzzy - can anybody with better ears tell for sure which signature this bit falls into? — sjorford++ 22:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)