# Talk:Just Like a Woman

I have re-added the paragraphs detailing the fact that some commentators have perceived the song's lyrics as misogynistic. This is a widely held opinion...you only have to google "Just Like a Woman - Dylan - sexist" or "feminist" to see that an awful lot of folks out there hold this view. As such, I think the subject needs to be broached in the Wikipedia article. Myself, I don't believe that the song is sexist at all and those saying it is are missing the point totally, but the fact that the lyrical content of the song has been called into question is notable and should be addressed in the interest of a balanced and unbiased article. 
Furthermore, the quotes in the article about this subject are clearly shown to be the opinions of respective authors, not unequivocal facts. These quotes provide not only contemporary critical appraisal of the song but important historical and sociological context, both of which are important for Wiki articles as per Wikipedia guidelines. I have removed, for the time being, the sentence about Women's groups criticizing the song because I can't find a reliable reference to support this yet. However, I know that this is true...only a few years ago, a friend of mine who was doing feminist studies at university came to me to discuss Dylan's "Just Like a Woman" since the song and it's alleged misogyny was being discussed in the course. Hopefully I will manage to dig up a reference for this because it is factually accurate. 
In closing, I intend to do much more work to this article over the coming weeks and it may be that as the prose content expands, the "sexist" paragraphs will find themselves in their own section, but for now, I'll leave them where they are. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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=17:2290262
--CactusBot (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Just Like a Woman. 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/20100310095952/http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:2290262
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Just Like a Woman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927084742/http://www.mbl.edu/events/falmouthforum/events_fal_forum01_30_09.html to http://www.mbl.edu/events/falmouthforum/events_fal_forum01_30_09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Just Like a Woman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617143129/http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/justlike.html to http://bobdylan.com/songs/justlike.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Just Like a Woman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This will run over the course of two days. --K. Peake 09:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Why is August 18 listed as the release date in the infobox when only August is sourced?
Added date into the body text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Genres should be sourced directly in the body, rather than having refs in the infobox
Removed. Genre descriptions for songs on Blonde on Blonde are really inconsistent, so I'd rather leave it blank. (see Talk:Rainy_Day_Women_♯12_&_35#Infobox for variation in another track's descriptions). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"first released on his seventh studio album," → "from his seventh studio album," and place the release year in brackets instead
"It was written by Dylan and" → "The song was written by Dylan and"
Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead feels a bit out of order; writing/recording detail should be after the producer and songwriter, then release
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Move the commercial info to the end of the second para and add more, as the song charted in multiple countries
"some critics have suggested" start a new sentence here to avoid a run-on
"allegedly wrote "Just Like a Woman" on" → "allegedly wrote it on"
Avoid the world claim per WP:CLAIM
"Dylan recorded the track" → "Dylan recorded the song" and capitalize the word Studio
Amended per the five points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"frequent collaborator Al Kooper along with" → "frequent collaborator Al Kooper, alongside" removing the guitarists introduction from the lead, but where are these two sourced as the ones that join them?
I've removed these from the lead, no real reason to single out Kooper or two of the guitarists. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"Dylan's version of the song at number 232" → "Dylan's version at number 232"
"and became a hit across Europe," → "and was a hit across Europe,"
Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"It received good reviews" → "The song received positive reviews" remove the upon release part and add what was praised
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


### Background and recording
The source on the img text offers no mention of organ
Amended the caption and source.
I don't think any of the albums need commas around them
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
"Dylan's producer, Bob Johnston suggested" → "Dylan's producer Bob Johnston suggested"
"his journey to Nashville, and" → "his journey to Nashville and"
Pipe master take to Mastering (audio)
Amended per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Pipe Columbia Studio to Quonset Hut Studio and why is Studio B not mentioned?
Turns out it was Studio A, not the Quonset Hut Studio. I added a reference. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"Seven complete takes and multiple" → "Seven complete takes, and multiple"
You are using the wrong AllMusic ref for the release date; cite the album's one instead
Amended the ref. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Where does he write it was arguably the most commercial track?
Hmm, on reflection that's not a good summary of "There was a time, specifically 1966, when a song like this ... could crack the Top 40. It is certainly one of the most, if not the most, radio-friendly track on the masterful double record". Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikilink bass guitar
"Kooper on organ and" → "Kooper on organ, and" with the pipe
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
[4][12][13] why is [4] here when it does not provide any of the info?
Removed as redundant. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"unusually for Dylan," → "unusually for him,"
"just can't fit"." → ""just can't fit."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
Amended per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


### Composition and lyrical interpretation
Pipe compilation to Compilation album and remove the comma after it
Avoid the word claim per WP:CLAIM
"at work on this song" → "at work on the song"
"that Dylan improvised the lyrics in the studio, by" → "that he improvised the lyrics in the studio by"
"This exploration of" → "Dylan's exploration of" per this being a new para
"or some similar" → "or a similar" and is debutante really an appropriate term?
Amended. I suspect that Heylin's use of the word was a reference to the debutante in "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" - he often uses terms or phrases from Dylan's songs in his books. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"Discussing whether the biographical basis of this song is important," → "Discussing whether the biographical basis is important,"
Removed as the source was not suitable, per WP:RSSM. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"The target of the song is" → "The subject of the song is"
"in Dylan's song." → "in "Just Like a Woman"."
All done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Alleged sexism
Again, the ref on the img text does not back up the info
Removed it as there is no free to use rationale covering the US, as far as I can see). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove overly obvious wikilink on lyrics
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Should the newspaper be referred to as The New York Times or was the name different back in 1971?
Shelton has "...wrote in The New York Times..." Looks from The New York Times like this has been the title since 1896. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"of sexist slurs," and" → "of sexist slurs", and" per MOS:QUOTE
Too much quoting from the AllMusic review is overkill; try to summarize this a bit more
I trimmed rather than summarized. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
"Janovitz concludes by" → "Janovitz concluded by"
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


### Critical reception
"Asbury Park Press columnist" → "The Asbury Park Press columnist"
Add a space before Billboard and mention it was a reviewer of the magazine
Either add the staff or a writer of before Cash Box
"believes that Dylan" → "believed that Dylan" for consistent tense
"The Sun-Herald's reviewer dismissed" → "The Sun-Herald's reviewer dismissed" with the wikilink
Mention that Craig McGregor is from The Sydney Morning Herald with the wikilink
"Arizona Republic reviewer Troy Irvine" → "The Arizona Republic reviewer Troy Irvine" with the wikilink
"likewise, called it" → "likewise, called the song"
"enough to compensate"." → "enough to compensate."" per MOS:QUOTE
"Gray highlights the lyric" → "Gray highlights the lines"
"He does, however, praise" → "He did, however, praise"
All done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


### Live versions and later releases
First para looks good!
Remove pipe on compilations
Maybe add the release years of the compilations in brackets?
"of that album." → "of the album."
Where are the live recordings sourced?
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"and the Deluxe Edition of" → "and the deluxe edition of" per unnecessary capitalization
Removed this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"were released in the boxed set" → "were released in the box set" but this release is not sourced
Removed this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"and Ravi Shankar's Concert for Bangladesh" → "and Ravi Shankar's The Concert for Bangladesh" with the wikilink
All addressed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


### Credits and personnel
Good


### Manfred Mann version
The genres mentioned in the infobox are not sourced
Removed. I struggled to find sources, and not having one would be consistent with what I suggest for the Dylan version infobox. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove overly obvious wikilink on London
Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Background and recording
"Mike Hugg and Tom McGuinness," → "Mike Hugg, and Tom McGuinness," on the img text, also shouldn't they be identified as a group?
The Mann-Hugg Blues Brothers → the Mann-Hugg Blues Brothers per MOS:THEMUSIC
"had started disintegrating." → "had started to break up."
"the group had begun" → "Manfred Mann had begun"
"early 1966 which left Jones unable to perform, the group hired" → "early 1966, which left Jones unable to perform, Manfred Mann hired"
"in June of that year, leaving the rest of the band" → "in June 1966, leaving the other members"
"also leaving the group" → "also leaving Manfred Mann"
"d'Abo who had recently quit his band accepted" → "d'Abo, who had recently quit his band, accepted"
Mention what year June was in since this is a new para
"the band signed a contract" → "the group signed a contract"
"with the group staying on that label" → "with them staying on the label"
"who had produced" → "who had produced for"
"the Who and David Bowie," → "the Who, and David Bowie,"
"that the Manfreds were fans" → "that the members were fans"
"The band had scored a hit" → "The group had scored a hit"
Remove commas around Kenneth Pitt
"much of the Manfreds'" → "much of their"
All addressed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Release and reception
"as the group's debut single on that label" → "as Manfred Mann's debut single on their label"
"over who's version" → "over whose version"
"Bob Dylan crashed his motorcycle," → "Dylan crashed his motorcycle,"
"The Manfreds version was backed by" → "Manfred Mann's version was backed by"
Introduce who Manfred Mann is to avoid confusion with the group as a whole
Avoid the world claimed per WP:CLAIM
"at number ten" → "at number 10" per MOS:NUM
"It spent ten weeks on the chart." → "The song spent 10 weeks on the Record Retailer chart."
"to Bruce Eder of AllMusic meant that Manfreds" → "to Bruce Eder of AllMusic, meant that the other version's" but is this really the link?
Yes, but the quote wasn't exact. Amended, and added Eder as the author in the citation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"In Disc and Music Echo, it reached number nine," → "It reached number nine in Disc and Music Echo,"
Pipe New Musical Express to NME
"Across Europe it was" → "Across Europe, the version was" but you need a source for this
Changed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"reviewed both Manfred Mann's and Jonathan King's version, but preferred the Manfreds version," → "reviewed both Manfred Mann's and King's versions, but preferred the former,"
"which she attributed to" → "She attributed this to"
"she believed it would do better in the charts if Paul Jones" → "she believed the song would do better in the charts if Jones"
"a "fine-tempoed arrangement."" → "a "fine-tempoed arrangement"." per MOS:QUOTE
Add something like a writer or reviewer for Billboard and Cash Box
"and predicted it to reach the" → "and predicted to reach the"
Amended per the points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


### Charts
#### Manfred Mann version
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
I think Lyons Maid is linked to something of the same name that is irrelevant
Judging by the online images I found when searching, that brand was actually the sponsor of those charts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Why so many UK charts?
As far as I can tell, all the UK charts meet the criteria in WP:CHARTS. (See, e.g. UK Singles Chart). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Pipe New Musical Express to NME
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
Add Billboard and Cashbox in brackets instead
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
I removed the NZ chart - see Talk:Rainy_Day_Women_♯12_&_35#Charts_and_positions for some discussion on that one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


#### Bob Dylan version
Shouldn't this be first since he is the original performer?
Moved, to follow order in the article, although the Manfred Mann single was issued before Dylan's single. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Add Cashbox in brackets instead
Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)


### Notes
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks great at 24.8%!!!
Wikilink Scarecrow Press
Wikilink Broadway Books
Wikilink Omnibus Press
Wikilink Continuum International Publishing Group
Wikilink Princeton University Press
Wikilink Penguin Books
Bodley Head → The Bodley Head with the wikilink
Pipe Black Dog & Leventhal to Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers
Wikilink Grove Press
Wikilink University of Illinois Press
Pipe Reed International Books to RELX
Wikilink Billboard Books per MOS:LINK2SECT
Pop Matters → PopMatters with the wikilink and shouldn't this be italicised?
Wikilink Yale University Press
Linked/amended the above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikilink Visible Ink Press on ref 1
Removed rather than amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Always cite AllMusic as publisher and wikilink solely on ref 2
Combined these as the different urls seem to go to the same content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
Wikilink Rolling Stone on ref 3
The San Francisco Examiner → San Francisco Examiner on ref 22
Remove or replace ref 23 per WP:RSSM
Removed - surprisingly, Ricks has nothing about the song in Dylan's Visions of Sin. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Pipe MBL to Marine Biological Laboratory on ref 31
Wikilink The Post-Crescent on ref 32
Why is C.H. in speech marks on ref 33
Removed the speech marks. They were intended to show it's a pseudonym or initials. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikilink Asbury Park Press on ref 34
Pipe Cashbox to Cashbox (magazine) on ref 36 instead of refs 86 and 93
Sun-Herald → The Sun-Herald on ref 38 with the wikilink
Wikilink The Sydney Morning Herald on ref 39
Arizona Republic → The Arizona Republic on ref 40 with the wikilink
Wikilink The Guardian on ref 48
What makes ref 62 a reliable source?
bestclassicbands.com has editorial overview; the author of that article was Jeff Tamarkin, who has credentials listed at [1]. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of Melody Maker on ref 71
WP:OVERLINK of Disc and Music Echo on ref 74
WP:OVERLINK of Record World on refs 87 and 94
All done - subject to comments/exceptions noted above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed! --K. Peake 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the thorough review, K. Peake. I've replied to your comments above; let me know what else needs to be done. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 Pass now, I copyedited some of the sloppy areas but your hard work definitely reached the mark! --K. Peake 20:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised by having so few mentions of cover versions other than Manfred Mann's.  Richie Havens, Jeff Buckley, Nina Simone, Joe Cocker, Stevie Nicks and numerous others have covered this song. Seems to me worth a mention, that's a pretty illustrious list even for a Dylan song. Was it a deliberate decision to omit this, or just that no one's added it? - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably to do with WP:SONGCOVER, I imagine. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Havens played it at the Madison Square Garden in 1992 for the concert celebrating the 30th anniversary of Dylan's first album (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/bob-dylan-the-30th-anniversary-concert-celebration-preview/2036/). I would think that alone would merit a mention. - Jmabel | Talk 18:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There are two folks here who keep thinking that Wikipedia is their place to disapprove the classic song's lyrics. They write in the front page that the song is "accused of sexism", as if it was a fact, but in reality, while there was SOME criticism - most people seem to disagree with it, and believe that Dylan's lyrics are much more complicated and tender. This oversimplification of a classic song presents it in an unbalanced and unneutral light. To administrators- while including the criticism is OK, it should be balanced, not written in one sentence as a fact on the front page. Please remove this condemnation if added again and make sure that this entry is will be destroyed no more. 2A02:14F:4BE:F2C6:0:0:3F3D:7D8B (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering someone added this info and you've been reverted by 3 different users, it's fair to say consensus is against you so far. I'm struggling to understand why you care so much about this. The accusations are well-documented. Taking them off a Wikipedia page isn't really changing anything. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Just 3 people "against" me is not indicative of a consensus. You are more than invited to do research on different opinions, see the comment section on the song (YouTube), see some interpretations on forums. The consensus I see, is that the song is being misinterpreted a lot, and that it's not about gender but about age. Many also point the last verse as a proof that it's not a sexist song.
Now why do I care? Because this is an encyclopedia, and it should not go with just one of the opinions, or condemn a classic and beloved song in one sentence. The right thing to do is to include several opinions, which was already done here, and the explicit sentence in the main page is not just uneeded - but imbalanced. Let me ask you the same question - why do you so care for the condemnation? Cant you accept the fact that many people love this song and disagree with your opinion on it, and that Wikipedia should not be inclined towards any side? 2A02:14F:4BB:1E40:0:0:4111:C070 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't care for the "condemnation" at all, but I feel strongly about people who continue to revert because they believe that they know better than others. If an article has three paragraphs on a subject, it's normal to have outlined in the lede. If i seek a 3rd opinion, will you abide by it? Or do I have to seek a block for edit-warring? Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I support the line's existing in the lede; I have been silent thus far because I didn't want to complicated discussion of this issue, and because I didn't want to edit war. I feel the lede is sufficiently neutral in its presentation - it avoids phrases like "universally criticized", for instance; the lack of that phrase implies not everyone criticizes it. However, if there are more reliable sources with different interpretation than what is in the article already, they should certainly be added there, at least to the main body. Tduk (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
There are - and some are already present in the sub-entry dedicated to the "sexism" interpretation. The truth is that, most people online seem to disagree with the "sexism" interpretation, and the song seems to be quite beloved (at least nowadays).
Now, as for the line, I would say that whether you mean it or not, this was a condemnation, not a neutral line. Because when you simply say "the song was criticized", people will think it means "universally criticized". The right thing to do here if you really care for this line, is to write that the song was "criticized by some" - so readers will know it's debated and not universally agreed upon, without having to scroll down to see other interpretations. Don't you think it's a fair point? 2A06:C701:4A58:2F00:4B80:7C05:3475:58FC (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Done. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
thanks. I'm glad we reached and understanding. 2A02:14F:175:935:0:0:236A:3B79 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I am ok with this change too. Keep in mind that "browsing the internet" is not the most rigorous method of demonstrating consesnsus - there are all sorts of bias that come up, including the obvious one that you're only getting opinions from the kinds of people who post their thoughts on the internet (a very specific kind of person). It does make sense that some would have interpreted an implicit "universally" in there which is not the message we should have there, regardless of what "most people online" might say. I'm also glad we reached an agreement and finally understood each others' stances. Tduk (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)