Talk:Claus Spreckels

Detailed research on Claus Spreckels can be found in a new article at http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHonline/2010/spiekermann.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.40.48 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The German Historical Institute in Washington, DC has published a short biographical article on Claus Spreckels that can be found here: http://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=5 Immigrantentrep (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Peter G Werner please provide sources that back up your assertion. I'm referring to your revert and edit summary, here.

The NYT never practiced yellow journalism so far as I know, nor does sensationalism undermine the facts of the article. As W. Joseph Campbell, the author of Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies notes, "The term is convenient but imprecise; it’s often invoked (though not entirely accurately) as a shorthand for the sensational treatment of the news." Delectopierre (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see you've made on the order of 15 edits since I left this note and I haven't seen any effort to provide any sources. Reverting. If you do have sources, please come and provide them. Delectopierre (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are serious WP:NPOV issues here and overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources for this article. First off, you state, full stop, that Claus Spreckels was a slaveowner, which might be a matter of interpretation. That smacks of POV-pushing. Secondly, your source is your interpretation of a news story from 1900. And again, even though this is from the New York Times, this may very well reflect coverage originating from the San Francisco Chronicle in that era, which was strongly biased in general, and was in cahoots with other sugar interests (the ones who eventually formed C&H) against Spreckles.

Per the issues with WP:PRIMARY, I have to ask why you are not consulting later biographical sources that might cover the slavery/labor exploitation issue in historical context. A quick Google Book search reveals that there are several biographies of Spreckles, including one from just last year: The Sugar King of California: The Life of Claus Spreckels by Sandra E. Bonura. There's also an older work, Claus Spreckels: The Sugar King in Hawaii by Jacob Adler. Surely between these two and perhaps other books on labor history that might cover Spreckles, there should be an evaluation of Spreckels labor practices in historical context. If those works call his labor practices 'slavery', then that should be what's said here. But if not, then what you're doing is original research and POV pushing, that that's not acceptable.

I will put this up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in order to get more attention to this issue, since I think this issue needs the attention of other experienced editors. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the reply. Some thoughts below, however I welcome your posting on the NPOV noticeboard to get experienced editors to weigh in, especially those with a view of labor practices at that time.

• First, I'll ask: what is the difference between saying 'this is yellow journalism' and shouting 'that's fake news', both without any evidence to back it up? Neither hold any water.

• There are serious WP:NPOV issues here and overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources for this article I am unsure what your point is regarding this, as I posted a secondary source. Could you explain?

• First off, you state, full stop, that Claus Spreckels was a slaveowner, which might be a matter of interpretation. and Secondly, your source is your interpretation of a news story from 1900 I am unsure what I interpreted. The article describes facts, and those facts can be described as slavery. Is there a different word you suggest to describe the facts of the labor practices in the article?

• I have to ask why you are not consulting later biographical sources that might cover the slavery/labor exploitation issue in historical context. A quick Google Book search reveals that there are several biographies of Spreckles, including one from just last year: The Sugar King of California: The Life of Claus Spreckels by Sandra E. Bonura.

• To say Bonura's book addresses the incident at the start of chapter 9 would be generous. She does not use the world slavery, but so far as I can tell, she makes no effort to rebut the facts, nor any of the other reporting at the time that described the labor practices (for example, reports out of his native Germany that he was employing indentured servants.) In fact, her book essentially shies away from the question of labor practices, but even worse, doesn't seem to grasp the facts herself. As you can see below, she states that the laborers camp outside of El Paso, after reaching California.
• She does, in fact, call it a sensationalist headline, but again, provides no evidence to rebut it. Further, her quote at the end of the passage suggests she sees that if Claus had not employed illegal or immoral labor practices, he might have cleared up what happened.

"Claus later found himself in trouble when employed labor agents to secure 2,500 workers from Puerto Rico. The greedy agents, working on commission, turned out to be inhumane. Once on the U.S. mainland, the agents tightly packed the recruited laborers into sleeping cars and guarded them closely as they traveled by train from New Orleans to San Francisco. In one instance, a group of 194 Puerto Ricans reached California three days before the steamer to Maui was scheduled to leave. The agents consequently forced the migrants to camp out in the desert three hundred miles east of El Paso to prevent them from escaping into San Francisco's general population. To Claus's chagrin, a New York Times journalist reported on this horrific situation with his sensationally titled article, 'Men Say They Were Kidnapped for the Spreckels Sugar Plantation -- Closely Guarded on Train.' The labor agents had enticed the men ('decoyed' them, according to the article) to board a ship, 'ostensibly to land on the other side of their island' -- that is, still in Puerto Rico. Imagine their surprise when a short cruise turned into a journey to a foreign land. Waylaid for three days in the desert, these workers shouted their situation to anyone willing to listen. Unfortunately, the outcome of this situation and Claus's response are unknown. Journalists had frequently noted, 'Mr. Spreckles [sic] is an easy man to get access to, but it is another matter entirely to draw any information out of him.'"

The Sugar King of California, PP 120 Delectopierre (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll add, here are some pieces to contextualize the labor conditions of Hawaiian plantations at the time:

• Why it's hard to pinpoint the end of slavery
• The interface of race and accounting: The case of Hawaiian sugar plantations, 1835-1920; Fleischman, Richard K;Tyson, Thomas N
• [1]Sugar and the Transformation of the American West: An Interview with Bernadette Pérez

Delectopierre (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

First off, when you say "Spreckels was a slave owner", full stop, in the lede, you are describing chattel slavery, as it existed in the antebellum South. However exploitative the conditions on plantations in Hawai'i, none of the sources I've looked at described it as chattel slavery, nor do other sources on this same event argue that these laborers were in any permanent position of bondage.

In terms of secondary sources, the one that you include is actually a critique of the bad press that Spreckles received at the hands of the De Young-owned San Francisco Chronicle of the 1880s. And, in any event, you should be making more use of secondary sources like biographies and labor histories that put these events in contrast rather than relying on one short newspaper article and adding your own strong layer of interpretation. As it stands, there are two biographies of Claus Spreckles, and further historical material on labor history in Hawaii. In addition, just through my own research, I see that there's other material out there on this exact event involving the Puerto Rican laborers with helps to put it in some context. The first is Rebellion in the Bay: California’s First Puerto Ricans and the other is a book called Puerto Rican Diaspora: Historical Perspectives. Both describe an event that would be called human trafficking or labor trafficking if it were to take place today. Exactly who was responsible for it is another matter - it was the action of labor brokers who were in turn hired by the Hawaii Sugar Planters' Association. A footnote in "Rebellion in the Bay" mentions:

"John D. Spreckles denied that he or Claus Spreckles contracted to hire the Puerto Rican migrants on their way to Hawai‘i. In the San Francisco Call he stated that he was not importing any help, but that he did know that other Hawaiian plantations were doing so. He emphatically denied any connection to the kidnapping report. However, Spreckles may have been trying to mislead reporters in order to keep his company’s involvement quiet (San Francisco Call, “Porto Ricans for Plantations” 7 December 1900: 5)."

All of this is contextualizing information that needs to be included both for historical accuracy and NPOV reasons. And this is the kind of context that secondary historical sources will provide, rather than doing original interpretations of one or a few primary sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

First, I don't see a thread in DR about this. Have you added it? I welcome more eyes on this.

Second, are you suggesting we add that he was also a human trafficker? I hadn't considered adding it. But it may make sense to do so.

Third, your assertion about chattel slavery is fully OR. Where did I say that?

Fourth, I welcome you adding the context you feel it needs. Be bold! Delectopierre (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's no WP:OR on my part. The statement "Spreckels was a slave owner" clearly implies ownership of another human being under conditions of chattel slavery. This claim is not backed up by other sources and there is no evidence that the people in question were held as slaves upon arrival in Hawai'i. Literally no other source that I can find, even those who clearly describe the conditions of transport of the Puerto Rican workers as non-consensual, call Claus Spreckels a slave owner. This language is blatantly POV, and it's an original interpretation of a single primary source, and it needs to come out per Wikipedia's rules on WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

What should be in the article:

1) An in-context discussion of Claus Spreckels and accusations of slavery on his Hawaiian plantations. Including the 1880s accusations, and the consensus seems to be these were stories planted by political enemies of Spreckels, and that conditions on the Hawaii plantations he owned were no better or worse than the C&H sugar barons who were friendly with the De Youngs. (This is biographically important concerning several of the Spreckels family biographies, since it's apparently a contributing factor to Adolph B. Spreckels assassination of M. H. de Young in 184.)

2) An in-context discussion of the 1900 controversy over the transport of Puerto Rican workers, of which there appears to be plenty of secondary literature.

In general, primary sources should only be cited as a backup to existing historical literature.

I will be bold and start a rewrite of this section, as California and Bay Area local history is an interest of mine, and I've contributed to articles on that topic before. Albeit, I'm currently awaiting library access to an electronic copy of Spreckles 2024 biography. Once I have a thorough grasp on the historical literature, I'll add to this section, and probably other biographical details as well. My interest is not in a hagiography of Claus Spreckels, but in an article that reflects the consensus of existing historical literature on this person, without novel reinterpretations. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your first point, you made the claim that slavery necessarily implies chattel slavery in the antebellum south, and said that's me pushing a POV and is OR.

In point of fact, the term slavery includes various forms of slavery, and I made no allusion to the antebellum south. That's the OR to which I refer -- more specifically WP:SYNTH.

I will respond more fully when I am at my computer. In the meantime, I'll ask again:

• Where's the DR thread?
• Which primary sources are you referring to? So far as I know, Wikipedia considers newspapers to be secondary sources unless the subject and author/publisher are the same person. While spreckels did, in fact, have a newspaper, I haven't used it as a source. Delectopierre (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

At this point, your arguments are rules lawyering. Your treatment of a single short newspaper article *from 1900* and bypassing subsequent historical works like biographies and labor histories (and I've detailed a significant body of these above) is effectively going against the entire idea of using WP:SECONDARY sources in preference to WP:PRIMARY ones in discussion of historical events and figures. It is utterly ridiculous that you continue to belabor that point.

You are using the term "slave owner" in very tendentious way that literally no other historical work is using. That raises the question of this being an original interpretation, which clearly falls under WP:OR. ("Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.") I also do not think it is supported by any factual account. What other human being did Claus Spreckels own as property? There is no evidence, given the multiple sources I have cited, that any of these laborers were unfree when they reached Hawai'i. It is also disputed whether Claus Spreckles had a hand in the trafficking of these laborers to Hawai'i. So at best, we have a disputed story of Spreckels involvement of the coercive trafficking of labor to Hawai'i. That does not add up to "slave owner". The language that you've added is unsupported and highly contentious. WP:NPOV quite clearly says "Avoid stating opinions as facts." That is what you are doing with the statement "Spreckels was a slave owner".

YNPOV Noticeboard thread is here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Claus_Spreckels:_Accusations_of_slave_ownership Peter G Werner (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

What rules am I lawyering? You made the claim that slavery necessarily invokes chattel slavery in the antebellum south, I said that it doesn't, and that claiming it does is either OR or SYNTH. What about that is rules lawyering?

Or are you referring to my comment about primary vs. secondary sources? Clarifying that a newspaper is a secondary source is also not rules lawyering?

Further, it is hardly a single source. I am currently trying work out how to upload an article from the San Francisco Chronicle (it was originally run in The Well Post in leipzig on March 1 1883) published June 3, 1883, with a headline "THE SLAVE TRAFFIC. A Protest From A German Journal. SANDWICH ISLAND SERFDOM. An Exposure of the Lures Set to Entrap Teutonic Emigrants to Hawaii."

The article describes that Spreckels promises laborers free passage and high wages, only to arrive in the sandwich isles (Hawaii) and find out they make almost no money and owe a debt for passage. The article describes a plea to the german parliament to end the practice. There is further evidence he did the same from Norway, Portugal, China, etc.

Is there a way I can upload a PDF? Here is a link, if you have a SFPL library card. Delectopierre (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Delectopierre, using even older sources does not improve the situation. Contemporary news sources are inherently not great scholarship to rely on, especially for something like this when there is more recent sourcing suggesting it was yellow journalism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where are the contemporary sources that suggest it was yellow journalism? Perhaps I've missed them, but I don't see any.

Additionally, Contemporary news sources are inherently not great scholarship to rely on huh? Can you say more on this? Delectopierre (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Or are you referring to my comment about primary vs. secondary sources?" Yes, I am calling that "rules lawyering". Newspaper articles might be in some technical sense a "secondary source", but what you've been arguing is that a single short article from a time close to the event, and your interpretation of that article, basically overrides the later body of secondary historical research on the same topic. So in this context, you are choosing a relatively primary source over a clear body of WP:SECONDARY sources. This point should be patently obvious. And your choice to use the term "slave owner" based on that story is an original interpretation of that single story that crosses the line into WP:OR. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let's review:

• You revert my edit, saying there was yellow journalism at play.
• I revert your reversion, asking for proof of yellow journalism.
• You provide no proof, but now say I cannot use a primary source -- in this case, the NYT -- to make this claim.
• I ask what you mean by that, pointing out that newspapers are secondary sources, not primary sources.
• You accuse me of rules lawyering.

Again, I welcome a discussion about the content with reliable sources to back up claims. I believe I've provided reliable sources to back up my claims. Delectopierre (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"your arguments are rules lawyering"...

"You are using the term "slave owner" in very tendentious way"...

While you have made some salient points, please read WP:NPA.

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you interpret this as a personal attack, but the arguments I'm rebutting are self-evidently ridiculous. Does one seriously engage with these arguments? Please! It is patently obvious that one small newspaper article should not outweigh the larger body of secondary historical sources. And, yes, I think the definition of "slave owner" on offer here is a non-standard one, to put it mildly. I think that I can dismiss what are some extremely low quality arguments without that being a personal attack on Delectopierre. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

one small newspaper article

There are countless articles, and in fact, the PDF you provided from the early 2000s backs up my claims, which I detailed below. Delectopierre (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The NYT piece does not use the terms slave or slavery, though, it does say they were kidnapped and put to work on a plantation. The citation from immigrantentrpenuership.org seems to use those terms. DN (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

A longer response to Rebellion in the Bay: California’s First Puerto Ricans, @Peter G Werner:

• You include a footnote [4] from page 87 that starts "John D. Spreckles denied that he However the following page (88) states:

The San Francisco Call, in contrast, reported that the Puerto Rican workers were treated well, and were especially rich as a result of the money they received from the yellow journalists: “Happy, well fed and ragged, joyously jingling small change—lucre lotted from the overzealous yellow newspaper agitators—the children of Porto Rico passed through the city [of Los Angeles] this afternoon” (“Puerto Ricans Pass”). The paper’s representative did not hear “a word of evidence that they [the Puerto Rican migrants] were being mistreated.” One possible reason for the discrepancies of this report is that the newspaper only interviewed the labor agents and did not speak to the workers themselves. Another reason could be that the owner of the San Francisco Call, John D. Spreckels, was possibly related to Claus Spreckels, one of the sugar plantation owners (Young 146).

• I think it's safe to say that, in fact, the reason The Call didn't speak to the laborers, and provided coverage that didn't include the fact there was slavery is that, JD was Claus's son, and while I'm not certain if Claus was ever the owner of the paper, he paid for the building where The Call was housed.

The article also states:

• "Agents were intent on not losing their investment so they kept strict watch and control of the railroad cars and kept reporters or any other curious people away from the specially scheduled train (“Have We”). One observer declared that “The slave traders are afraid of publicity” (Livernash, “Record-Breaking”)." P.87
• "While traveling along the Southern Pacific train route, many migrants did attempt to bolt the train. Those who were successful in escaping were rounded up by local sheriffs and returned to the labor agents." P.89

• Note that this is a common practice for escaped slaves

• "During the journey from Puerto Rico to Hawai‘i, the migrants decided to abandon the expedition rather than continue with a company that did not deliver on its promises or allow them freedom of movement. These migrants risked their lives by abandoning the expedition but they felt they did not have any alternatives." P.93

• That sounds like the definition of slavery to me. Risking ones life to escape forced employment?

Delectopierre (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not denying that the conditions in which the Puerto Rican workers were brought to Hawaii were coercive. That is not sufficient to call these worker's "slaves", in particular, given that it is clearly documented, as noted below, that they were free to leave and find other work once they were in Hawaii. As to your dismissal of the San Francisco Call story, that's once again you making an interpretation of the source material (aka WP:OR). The statement "Speckels was a slave owner" is your *opinion* and is not well-supported by the source material. It is POV pushing to insist on this language when other sources do not say this. I am all for covering these issues, including information that may or may not reflect negatively on Claus Spreckels or other members of the Spreckels family. But your editorializing is out of line and does not belong in the article. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

they were free to leave and find other work once they were in Hawaii perhaps they were around 1898 (or more likely 1900 when Hawaii became a territory, as detailed here) but Claus kidnapped plenty of laborers (slaves) prior to that year, as I've demonstrated.

As to your dismissal of the San Francisco Call story, that's once again you making an interpretation of the source material I'm actually highlighting what the source material you provided says, and providing the context the material didn't have for some reason -- that JD was Claus's son. I think, this is ironically the closest we get to a PRIMARY news article in this entire conversation: a newspaper owned by subject of the article's son, who is one of the heirs to his fortune, and whose newspaper operates out of a building built by the subject of the article.

From the source PDF: "One possible reason for the discrepancies of this report is that the newspaper only interviewed the labor agents and did not speak to the workers themselves. Another reason could be that the owner of the San Francisco Call, John D. Spreckels, was possibly related to Claus Spreckels, one of the sugar plantation owners (Young 146)." Delectopierre (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing in the linked article specifically about Claus Spreckels and I'll note that 1898 pre-dates the very specific reference that you hang your entire case on. You would basically have to call all 19th Century Hawaiian plantation owners "slave owners" if that's the case. That's not been the practice on Wikipedia and that's not the norm in historical literature. That's because as exploitative as plantation labor practices were at the time and however much they meet modern definitions of human trafficking, it is not generally seen as "slave owning" in the chattel slavery sense. These were still paid, free laborers, even if the conditions of labor were exploitative. You are introducing a novel interpretation that is not found in existing sources. Once again, the POV statement "Spreckels was a slave owner" needs to go. A contextual discussion of the conditions of plantation labor, taken from strong secondary sources, is fine. Including the blackbirding practices used in the transportation of the Puerto Rican laborers in question.

And, please, do try to follow my argument about the statement in the SF Call article in context rather than twist my arguments. Yes it's a similarly primary source and it's one that disputes your primary source. That puts your source as a disputed one. But if you've been following my argument AT ALL, you'll note that I'm not saying get more primary sources, I'm saying *start making use of secondary historical sources that have discussed this exact topic in context*. "Rebellion in the Bay" covers all of these primary sources and is a reliable secondary source. This source should be one of the main ones for how this issue is covered in this article. And note that this source does not describe the laborers as "slaves" nor Spreckels as a "slave owner", this in spite of the fact that it is a sympathetic treatment of the Puerto Rican laborers.

Also, I do not agree with your dismissal of Bonura upthread. Just because her POV doesn't agree with your personal interpretation is no reason to dismiss that work as a valid historical work. Again, you are revealing that you have an intent on injecting your POV about Spreckels rather than follow the consensus of interpretations given in existing historical works. That is not an acceptable practice. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Peter:

Before replying to your other points, I'd like to address two claims you keep making and then haven't engaged in discussion about.

1. Newspapers are secondary sources, full stop. There are of course exceptions, but if you cannot provide an adequate explanation of an exception in this instance, I'd ask you to stop suggesting the NYT article is a primary source. It's distracting from the conversation.

2. Slavery does not only mean chattel slavery. Slavery is the general category, and chattel slavery is the specific kind of slavery. I have never invoked chattel slavery in this article, and again, I'll ask you to stop suggesting I did. It's a straw man that distracts from the actual conversation.

Please let me know what you think. Delectopierre (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

On point 1, we are on a complete impasse. It is clear from any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines about primary vs secondary sources that secondary sources by historians and scholars are to be preferred over single sources close to the event. You seem to think you've found a loophole around this very clear guideline with the argument "Newspapers are a secondary source." I'll note that downthread, another commenter has noted that you tend to use very old newspaper sources in preference to later secondary sources and that this is not a good practice. And I will note, once again, that you're basing a very strong, contentious claim on a single source, to the exclusion of preferred sources.

On point 2, the use of the term "slave owner" is indeed contentious and clearly implies something along the lines of chattel slavery. I do not see the term "slave owner" in general use when we're talking about other figures who have owned companies that engaged in exploitative, quasi-slavery practices. It is not an appropriate term for someone who employed laborers in the coolie system, as Spreckels and other Hawaiian plantation owners most certainly did. It is also not an appropriate term for someone who hired agents that blackbird laborers into what was ultimately not a situation of permanent enslavement. I'm not trying to cover up the historic negatives of Claus Spreckels labor practices, but your insistance on using the term "slave owner" here is excessive, inflammatory, without precident in existing historical literature, and POV. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Point 1:

You seem to think you've found a loophole around this very clear guideline with the argument "Newspapers are a secondary source." Once again, please AGF. This isn't the first time you've been asked to do so.

I do not think I have found a loophole. The NYT is a secondary source. You cite another editor below who agrees with you, but has not provided any further discussion about their viewpoint.

I will cite Bluethricecreamman here and DN here. In fact DN invited you to take it to WP:RSN if you disagree, which I welcome. Once again, more eyes = better.

Point 2:

The article on the coolie system itself is a "Part of a series on

Forced labour and slavery". You say you're not trying to cover up the historic negatives of Claus Spreckels labor practices but you first removed my addition, reverting the article back to a state where it did not mention anything of his labor practices. You've continued to argue against the term slave owner, but haven't provided any alternative, even when I invited you to do so.

So I'll ask again, what term would you suggest be used if not slave owner? Delectopierre (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to pretend that you are advancing good arguments here. But keep in mind, my words are directed at your arguments, not you personally. If you still feel that this is a civility issue, I invite you to take that up with an appropriate noticeboard. I also feel that your continued avoidance of the main point of my argument, which is why you are avoiding the use of preferred secondary scholarly works as the basis for this topic, raises some civility issues as well, but I feel no need to report it.

The issue at hand - Your bottom line argument, constantly repeated, is "Newspapers are a secondary source. Period". I invite you to have another look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and specifically WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:AGE MATTERS. Also, this specific point under WP:NEWSORG, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." I am, in fact, contesting that this one news story is something you can base a broad contentious statement upon.

The larger point - secondary scholarly sources are preferred and editors should not rely exclusively on earlier sources, especially if it's to add their own interpretations that are not supported by existing secondary sources. I have now several times pointed to secondary sources that address the *exact* event that you point to with your 1900 New York Times article, and contain other contextualizing information as well, as good secondary sources tend to do. You do not provide any good reason why this body of work should not be the basis for any section on Spreckels labor practices, nor why we should follow your alternative and go back to very old news sources that predate the secondary scholarly literature.

"You've continued to argue against the term slave owner, but haven't provided any alternative, even when I invited you to do so."

I'm going to go outside of your framing a bit here and state this: Why does Claus Spreckels need to be described by an adjective *at all*? "Slave owner" or otherwise. Especially when the adjective follows the accusatory words "Claus Spreckels was a _____." Callouts like this are unencyclopedic in tone and POV. What I propose - that Spreckels be described according to his actions, or the actions he is accused of (and keep in mind, many 19th Century news stories about Spreckles are essentially accusations and not established fact). For example, "The labor practices on Claus Spreckles plantations were effectively a form of slavery" would be a proper statement, if that is in fact established by reliable sources.

In any event, there already exists a reliable body of work on this issue, notably "Rebellion in the Bay" and the recent Bonura biography. These sources can be summarized in a single section in the article. I think the language used should adhere to the descriptions of the labor practices given in those sources (which do not use the word "slavery" or "slave owner") and avoid rhetorically going above and beyond the language used in these established scholarly sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I am, in fact, contesting that this one news story is something you can base a broad contentious statement upon. I look forward to the thread at WP:RSN.
• "The labor practices on Claus Spreckles plantations were effectively a form of slavery" While not ideal from my perspective, I think this would be a reasonable compromise.

Delectopierre (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's no point to a RSN discussion. No one is arguing whether the NYT is generally a reliable source. The problem is you're trying to advance the argument that 100+ year old sources are preferred to modern ones, which is patently ludicrous. That betrays a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem is you're trying to advance the argument that 100+ year old sources are preferred to modern ones, which is patently ludicrous

• This is a complete straw man, and you either know it, or ought to know it. I have engaged with contemporary sources in good faith here and in point of fact, asked you to expand on your claims about older sources here. You didn't expand on your statement, for whatever reason, but continue to accuse me of saying that older source are better. I have not said that, and welcome contemporary sources. Just like more eyes on this are better, more sources are, too.

That betrays a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines

• Please focus on content, and refrain from ad hominem.

Delectopierre (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any editor on Wikipedia shouldn't need it explained to them that old sources are not preferred; scholarship gets continually updated. The entire point of WP:PSTS and WP:NOTNEWS is that on-the-ground and of-the-time coverage is not good at determining what is noteworthy for inclusion. One hundred years ago The New York Times was supportive of race riots and coups. How do you not understand that taking their words at face value and presenting that reporting as fact with the benefit of decades of hindsight and new, better sourcing is unacceptable? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

new, better sourcing

Happy to discuss new sources. Which ones, specifically? Delectopierre (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are the one trying to add information. It's up to you to present the sources. But at this point, you're rapidly using up any time I have for this. I get you're new to Wikipedia, but it's not everyone else's responsibility to teach you how to edit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: A key point made in this passage in "Puerto Rican Diaspora: Historical Perspectives", p. 46:

"...Puerto Ricans often moved to other sugar plantations in search of better pay and living conditions....Puerto Ricans were able to move from one plantation to another because after annexation, in 1898, Congress prohibited contract labor. Puerto Ricans were not subject to the labor contracts that had restricted the movements of earlier immigrants."

However exploitative the labor conditions and as coercive as the conditions of initial transport were, this clearly does not describe slavery, never mind the Puerto Rican laborers literally being owned by Claus Spreckels or anybody else. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

At this point I feel the "accusation of slavery" is more accurate as opposed to "confirmed slave owner".

Since there is no consensus for this recent addition I am removing it from the lead for now, per

WP:BRD, and leaving the context in the body.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any solid rebuttals. At what point do enough accusations without rebuttals go from accusations to fact?

In the meantime, what do you think about including something about his labor practices in the lede? Delectopierre (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm open to suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spitballing here, and open to feedback. Maybe something like:

His business and labor practices were controversial in his time.

Although I'm now realizing the scandal that led to his son shooting Mike de Young isn't covered in the article, so perhaps that would need to be added first to include his controversial business practices in the lede. Delectopierre (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have less objection to the above statement, except that it implies his business and labor practices were exceptional for his time. I see very little evidence that his practices were any different from any of the other large plantation owners of Hawaii at the time, but Spreckels just happened to get worse press for it, and that had more to do with rivalries among the elites of San Francisco society than actual practices. Of course, Spreckels and the other Hawaiian plantation owners employed labor and recruitment practices that would be considered absolutely unacceptable today. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Putting the above in the lead requires sources that actually say this aka modern sources. Until that's provided, the entire idea of a separate breakout section for his labor practices, let alone a bit in the lead is undue weight. Labor practices should probably be described inline with the development of the plantations and business dealings if that's how they're being treated by modern sources. User:Delectopierre can you point to passages or organization in modern sources that break out his labor practices and treat it separately? (I'm also going to note looking through your edits that you apparently have a habitual issue with using very old sources like this, i.e. improperly. I get that you likely have easier access to those sources than something newer, but that's not an excuse to ignore WP:SOURCETYPES.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will note that allegations in the San Francisco press that Spreckels used slave labor on his plantations were the source of the Spreckels/DeYoung family feud that was very important in San Francisco's 19th and early 20th Century history, the high point of which was the attempted assassination of M.H. de Young by Claus Spreckels son Adolph B. Spreckels in 1884. So I think these allegations and modern historians assessment of them should carry some space in the biography and that this would not be undue weight. The Spreckels/de Young rivalry should also be discussed, and so far, it's a topic not even covered in this bio. Peter G Werner (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

(here from NPOV noticeboard) There are two seperate issues; an accusation in the 'Slave or Starve' article, and the NYTimes article stating labor contractors kidnapped several laborers.

The first was retracted by the person who made the statement which also featured Spreckels disputing it -

He , however, states unreservedly that he was not employed for, nor ever worked for Claus Spreckels, nor had any dealings with him, either directly or indirectly, but with another planter, thus fully confirming the disclaimer of Mr. Spreckels published above.(source)

The second one I will have to post about when on my computer since I'm out of the house right now. There was sensationalized coverage from The San Francisco Examiner and The San Francisco Chronicle regarding it, but it was also disputed by other newspapers (those are what is on my computer).

Awshort (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are two things at issue - the sourcing for this part of the article and POV issues, but the two issues are intertwined. At issue are some very strongly worded statements (which myself and one other editor have toned down in the current version of the article) based upon a single near-primary source newspaper article.

The near-primary sources (which is what I'll call 19th/early 20th century newspaper sources) are not terribly reliable. The The San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner of that era were owned by the de Young family and by William Randolph Hearst, respectively, both of whom were bitter rivals of Spreckels and were known for yellow press coverage. The San Francisco Call, on the other hand, was owned by Claus's son, John D. Spreckels and a vehicle for his views. A good summary here as well as in the introductory paragraph before the "Slave or Starve" article. Coverage in other papers, including the New York Times and the LA Times was more sporadic, but seems to have followed the sensationalist San Francisco papers.

All of which is further reason to follow the interpretations of modern historians rather than to attempt to base any definitive statement on newspaper articles from that era. As I've mentioned above, I've found several very solid modern sources (none of which describe Spreckels as a "slave owner") and I think it's these sources on which to base this article's treatment of the conditions of Spreckels plantation workers and how that affected opinions of him at the time.

Also at issue - there seem to be two different eras conflated here. 1) Sensationalist stories of slave-like conditions on Spreckels plantations date from the 1880s. And 2) The stories from 1900-1901 of the involuntary transport of Puerto Rican workers to Hawaii. I've been looking at several modern secondary histories of the latter - it seems that the fraudulent recruitment and involuntary transport of these laborers was a real event, but there's also no evidence that the laborers were held under unfree conditions once they were in Hawaii. The details are also murky as to who actually hired the contractors who held the Puerto Rican workers under such deplorable conditions. Some sources name Claus Spreckels (albeit, who is also on record as denying that he had anything to do with it), but others name the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, which Spreckels and his company were not part of, and in fact, who were business rivals of Spreckels. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Peter G Werner I see you made changes to the section on slavery that weren't previously discussed on the talk page, and said in your edit that you were going to be bold (diff here).

Per WP:BRD, I reverted the change to 'accusations'. I see you then reverted it again. I will revert it so that, per BRD, we can discuss here. Before reverting, please engage in discussion, per BRD.

First off, how does it work that the edits *you* want to make are somehow the default, and any changes require other editors to reach consensus with you? Meanwhile, you don't have to reach consensus to make changes? That's not an attempt to reach consensus in good faith. Peter G Werner (talk)

Onto the discussion:

Can you explain how reporting in the NYT amounts to accusations, rather than factual reporting? You've stated numerous times that I am ignoring newer sources; I each time asked you to present the newer sources that you claim refute the NYT reporting.

We have been around and around about this MULTIPLE TIMES upthread. This is reaching the point of WP:BADGERing on your part, and I'll state now that I consider that behavior to be uncivil. I HAVE presented the newer sources, and if you are not clear about what they're saying, then it is likely you have not read them. The consensus of newer sources is that accusations in the 19th/early 20th century press that Spreckels sugar plantations were slave plantations was politically motivated. One of the very sources that YOU CITE [2] says as much, though you seem to ignore the introductory contextualizing paragraph and instead use only the 1881 story to back up your assertions.

I will say again: if you have sources that refute the NYT reporting, please provide them and we can discuss them so that we find the appropriate wording. But you cannot discount a newspaper article from the 1890s/1900s about an event from the same time period, and that has not been refuted, simply on the basis that "Very old newspaper articles ARE NOT a solid source."

At this point, you're merely repeating yourself and are not seriously engaging with the scholarly sources I'm citing. And this is getting ridiculous. My plan is to rewrite this section based entirely on those secondary scholarly sources, using the language they use to describe the labor practices, and their description for the context of slavery accusations. And no more than that.

There is ZERO evidence that Claus Spreckels had practices any different from any other sugar plantation owner of that era. And it is not standard practice either in the historical literature or on any other article in Wikipedia to describe those people as "slave owners", even if their labor practices were highly exploitative by modern standards. You are literally adding a layer of your own interpretation here, and Wikipedia is not a place for novel interpretations or historical activism. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason that the see also hatnote cannot include blackbirding? You stated that it's in the article in your edit summary -- is that a policy? Given the compromises about wording we've been discussing, I find it to be helpful context per the discussion at NPOVN.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is there any good reason to include "Blackbirding" as a hatnote when the term is already used in the article? "Blackbirding" simply describes a concept, and that concept is explained by the link. On the other hand, I think there is a very good reason to include a link to Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii article in the hatnote, because if you have a look at it, in particular in the section on "First immigrants from Puerto Rico", it's describing *exactly the same events* as you've added to this article, which makes in particularly germane to the content of this section. And you might note that article is also not using the POV language you've introduced. Maybe you should take that as an example of standard Wikipedia practices and guidelines, which you really should be following rather than your own idiosyncratic interpretations. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. First off, how does it work that the edits *you* want to make are somehow the default, and any changes require other editors to reach consensus with you? Meanwhile, you don't have to reach consensus to make changes? That's not an attempt to reach consensus in good faith.

In point of fact, you removed intro to the section in question and re-wrote it with a sentence that begins In the 1880s, Claus Spreckels it... and I left that as is, so please don't accuse me bad faith/non consensus edits.

In addition, I invited you to reword the lede, you proposed new wording, and while not my first choice, I said it's fine with me.

2. I HAVE presented the newer sources, and if you are not clear about what they're saying, then it is likely you have not read them.

I am clear about what they've said. It's just that they don't refute the events in the way you suggest. To make this easier, I went through your comments up-thread. Here are the sources I have identified you have provided. If I missed any, please let me know:

• The Sugar King of California: The Life of Claus Spreckels by Sandra E. Bonura.

• I typed up the section from Bonura that discussed the incident here. I do not see anything in it that disproves anything in the NYT article. If there is anything you see that contradicts it, please let me know.

• Claus Spreckels: The Sugar King in Hawaii

• I have not read this. Is there anything specific you'd like to highlight?

• Rebellion in the Bay: California’s First Puerto Ricans

• As I noted here, the only primary source in the secondary source you provided that potentially disputes any of the accounts is the SF Call, which as I said upthread, was owned by JD Spreckels. Additionally, this source says on pp. 86 "Initial reports about the migrants stated that they had been kidnapped from Puerto Rico to work on Hawaiian sugar cane plantations as slaves (Centro 19; “Porto Ricans Prisoners”; “Kidnaping Slaves”)." And then goes on to spend two full pages (minus a graph from the Call) corroborating that perspective.

• Puerto Rican Diaspora: Historical Perspectives

• This includes the same graph from the SF Call that Rebellion in the Bay includes. Is there anything else that refutes the account?
• And on Page 45 "The Examiner, then a leading California Newspaper, accused 'the Hawai'i planters of running a slave system.'"The Coolie System and the Yellow Press: Criticism of the Spreckels Sugar Plantations
• This has a single graph of content, along with the Chronicle article. The graph reads, in part, "The article drew attention to the unacceptable labor conditions on Spreckels’ plantations and highlighted the hardships faced by Portuguese, Norwegian, and German immigrant workers. The Chronicle’s purported humanitarian reporting, however, was underwritten by Eastern sugar refiners, who used arbitrary complaints about Spreckels’ business practices in the islands to undermine the extension of the U.S.-Hawaii reciprocity treaty and to fight Spreckels’ influential position in the U.S. sugar industry in the early 1880s"

• I don't see this as a refutation of the Chronicle's reporting. But even if it were, there are countless other papers that describe similar events, including the secondary sources you provided above. Do you see it differently?

• The Yellow Press: a mini-biography of the Sugar King

• This provides two other papers of the time that call The SF Call part of the yellow press. From the SLC Herald on that page: "Every issue of the Call shows the cowardice and desperation of the jealous John [D. Spreckles] who searches the dictionary for epithets to apply to W. R. Hearst."
• If there is a different part that you want to highlight, please let me know.

3. Why is there any good reason to include "Blackbirding" as a hatnote when the term is already used in the article?

• For the exact same reason as you suggest the inclusion of Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii as a hatnote; it's describing *exactly the same events*. I am not suggesting we get rid of your link, merely adding one that someone on the NPOVN thread suggested described what was occurring in the NYT.

• "Blackbirding is the coercion and/or deception of people or kidnapping to work as slaves or poorly paid labourers in countries distant from their native land. The practice took place on a large scale with the taking of people indigenous to the numerous islands in the Pacific Ocean during the 19th and 20th centuries."

Meanwhile you accuse me of WP:BADGERing?

I have invited you countless times to add the context you feel the section and article deserve, I did not remove the graph you added, and I agreed to add the wording you suggested up-thread. You continue to accuse me of not engaging with the sources you provided, and as you can clearly see here, I have engaged with them quite thoroughly if I might add.

Again, if there are specific quotes from the sources you feel I haven't read or you would like to mention, please mention them. In the meantime, please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Delectopierre (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, also, @Peter G Werner please use the reply function vs. editing my comment and adding your statements in line. It got confusing to read. Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, I think your interpretation is extremely idiosyncratic, to put it mildly. Both the "Coolie" article you link to and Bonura's book quite clearly state that the 1880s claims about slavery on the Spreckels plantations are accusations by in yellow press sources from rival business interests. So what you seem to want have stated as definitive fact are DISPUTED claims. That's POV pushing, by definition, and the article should adhere to NPOV for anything that's disputed.

Similarly, I point to Spreckels denial of involvement in the Puerto Rican laborers blackbirding incident not to say that his is the last word on the topic, but that the claim is DISPUTED in another primary source, as reported in a secondary one. That means your ongoing insistence that these accusations be treated as undisputed fact is uncalled for and POV. And, yes, the author of "Rebellion in the Bay" does note that the Call is owned by Spreckels and that Spreckels might have had motivation to deny the accusations. That's not a "refutation" so much as a contextualization. Nor would I leave that contextualization out if I include that in the article.

You seem to keep demanding that I provide a source that provides a definitive *refutation* of the charges in the primary sources that you seem to regard as definitive. Sorry, but those articles are not to be treated as the default fact until there is some 'refutation' that makes you happy. It is enough to note that historians consider these to be accusations or at least disputed. That means this article cannot make definitive statements linking Spreckels to slavery without pushing a POV that is not found in established secondary sources.

"Furthermore, I've seen other sources on the same incident that state that the labor agents were hired not by Spreckels, but by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, a group of businesses that neither Spreckels nor his company was part of. So that's a disputed detail. You are repeatedly referring back to primary news stories that support the narrative you want to insert into the article and ignoring anything that disputes those claims. Right now you seem to be demanding that the article make some very one-sided and definitive statements linking Spreckels to slavery in Hawaii based on your reading of mostly primary sources. Again, I don't see secondary sources accusing Spreckels of using slave labor, full stop. You need to take a close look at the language these sources are using. They are not making the strong, definitive statements you seem to want included in the article. It is not one editors place to go beyond what is stated in the historical literature.

Also, while I don't dispute that this incident with the Puerto Rican laborers meets the definition of 'kidnapping', but it actually says nothing about slavery on the plantations the workers ended up in (whether it was Spreckels or HSPA ones), since there is no evidence from any source that they were held in an unfree condition once they were in Hawai'i. To say that is another layer of inference, and that needs to come from SECONDARY SOURCES, not your or my interpretation of what might have been their fate after the reported events.

Two more high-quality secondary sources I've found since I last listed sources:

López, Iris (2005). “Borinkis and Chop Suey: Puerto Rican Identity in Hawai’i, 1900 to 2000.” in: Puerto Rican Diaspora: Historical Perspectives. edited by Carmen Teresa Whalen and Víctor Vázquez-Hernández. Temple University Press. ISBN 9781592134137. pp. 43–67. https://books.google.com/books?id=6W7rYQvSK-AC&pg=PA43

Poblete, JoAnna 2014. Islanders in the Empire: Filipino and Puerto Rican Laborers in Hawai’i. University of Illinois Press. ISBN: 9780252096471. (Section: The Long Journey. p. 35-37.)

Both of these source name the HSPA as the ones who hired the labor contractors who transported the Puerto Rican workers under coercive conditions. This further underlines Spreckels involvement with the blackbirding of the laborers as a DISPUTED claim.

I have to say, I'm getting a little tired of your constant aspersions about my supposed civility issues when you yourself are not exactly acting in a cooperative or civil manner. I don't want to belabor this, but you acting in a provocative way and then turning around and trying to police my words is out of line in the extreme. Cut it out! Act civilly and collaboratively and I'll respond in kind. Peter G Werner (talk)

• I am confused as to what you want at this point. You added the disputed template, and I have not made any effort or request to remove it.

• You seem to keep demanding that I provide a source that provides a definitive *refutation* of the charges in the primary sources that you seem to regard as definitive.

• I'm actually not making any demands, though. I was fine leaving the article as it was; after you posted at NPOVN, the 'slave owner' was removed from the lede, you re-worked the intro graph of that section, added the disputed template, and hatnote. I also added a hatnote. Then the conversation died down for a bit.

• Then you made a bold edit, which is of course fine. I reverted, because I didn't find it it to be accurate as is in line with BRD, and started the discussion back up. You've established your view that the facts are disputed, and I've established I don't agree. That's the definition of a dispute, which the template references.

• At this point, I am fine letting it die back down, and as such, won't address your points unless you would like to continue moving towards consensus. Just let me know either way.

Lastly, for the second time, please use the reply function rather than editing my reply, as it makes replying to your posts more difficult. Delectopierre (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not editing your reply. If you’re having browsing issues, it’s nothing to do with me. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anything that's not spoken to by modern scholarship should be dropped entirely; the article shouldn't even directly quote the argued newspapers without context from better scholarship. I'm going to remove the NYT piece entirely; if its quoted in better sources, that's one thing, but otherwise it's absolutely undue weight to extensively quote its assertions and give them legitimacy by dint of coverage. Beyond that @Peter G Werner I recommend ignoring Delecto, as I intend to do otherwise. They're either not acting in good faith since they repeatedly fail to understand why the sources they want to fit in are undue, or they're so obtuse that further argument is pointless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I 100% agree that having that article text reproduced in full within the section was undue weight and should have been dropped. Please go ahead and remove it, perhaps replacing it with some summarizing text if necessary. The story itself is cited in a secondary source, in Bonura's recent biography of Claus Spreckels. She seems rather sceptical of Spreckels involvement in the blackbirding incident. Other secondary sources that I've listed above deal with the same event, albeit, using different primary sources. At this point, I'm going to work on a rewrite from the secondary sources I've been able to find in my own Sandbox page and replace the text in the "Enslaved labor and trafficking" entirely.

Also, my thoughts on treating the 1900 'blackbirding' incident - it probably should be covered in this article only briefly, as it relates to accusations against Spreckels. The incident is historically significant, though, and I think expanding the treatment of that event in the article Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii would be a good idea. That section of that article also has an issue with only working from primary news stories, though it's less problematic than the issues with this article, as those cites are not used in that article as a basis for POV statements. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Contra the assertion that "Newspapers are secondary sources. Period.", newspaper stories can be treated as either primary or secondary. Please review Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS for more on this. The 1881 news story "Slave or Starve", in isolation from the contextualizing information given on the rest of the web page, and the article "Porto Ricans Go to Hawaii" are clearly "reports on events" and fall under the heading "examples of news reports as primary sources". Once again, the guidelines are primary sources are clear - be very cautious about using them and don't add your own interpretation. The preferred source, especially for interpretation of events, are secondary sources. I've listed several. It is those secondary sources and the language they use that needs to be summarized in this article, not one editor's interpretation of two primary sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to you here. Delectopierre (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see no response at all on the issue of primary vs secondary news sources. But it is clear from the above linked section that your assertion that "Newspapers are Primary Sources, period." is in error. And that the newspaper articles you're going on are primary ones. And that you should be adhering to secondary sources for interpretation of the events, not adding in your own interpretations. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply