# Talk:John Winthrop

Given John Winthrop's footprint, both in Massachusetts and in what became an emerging American powerhouse, this biography has a paucity of information about the first governor and one of the prime movers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Winthrop's 'city on a hill' speech is still widely quoted today, and this bio is a disservice to wikipedia. I hope others will pick up on contributing here, and I will try to do my part. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible that he arrived in Massachusetts in 1630 then was elected as governor in 1629? Dates should be checked into to prevent accidental time travel of historical figures. -- 174.58.41.2 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone should fix that.  Besides, if time travel is posible, then in this case a paradox would be created.Noghiri (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no paradox, and no need for time travel.  The dates are correct as given. -- Zsero (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article needs expansion.  There is little information about his governorship. Noghiri (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern American politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, continue to cite Winthrop as a source of inspiration. However, those who praise Winthrop fail to note his strident anti-democratic political tendencies. Winthrop stated, for example, "If we should change from a mixed aristocracy to mere democracy, first we should have no warrant in scripture for it: for there was no such government in Israel ... A democracy is, amongst civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government. [To allow it would be] a manifest breach of the 5th Commandment."[9]
The author is suggesting that Winthrop was speaking against what America would soon become.  This is not true.  Winthrop was speaking out against what is now know as direct democracy or rule by the majority which has throughout history led to abuse of the minority and the short, violent existences of nation states.  The Founding Fathers were cognizant of the pitfalls historically associated with direct democracy (Federalist Number 10), and therefore adopted the structure of a representative republic that operates on democratic principles.  This may seem like historical splitting of hairs, but detailed explanations such as this give correct historical perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.234 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 

Winthrop, in my opinon, is refering to scripture when Jesus said, "Let your light so shine among men."  The colonists adopted Old Testament vision of Isreal conquering the promise land.  America was the promise land for the colonists. The Native population were the pagan people that needed to be conquered and the use of violence was part of that subjection process. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an earlier section where his opposition is better qualified as being to a direct, unconstrained democracy.  It's not really clear to me how happy he was about the fact the colony had a democratically elected general court; his view seems to me to have been that the "godly magistrates" (to pull a phrase from Bremer) should have all of the real power. Magic♪piano 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Indians in the article?  If they are mentioned, then there is minimal if any information on the Indians and the colonists.  Withrop mentioned Indians killing colonists in 1634. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, because I forgot, sort of.  Winthrop was out of power during the Pequot War -- his role in it is actually apparently not large because he was not governor during the main years (1634-7).  I suppose the war deserves a mention, along with colonial policy on land acquisition, and other more general words on colonial Indian policy that he would have influenced. Magic♪piano 12:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning the Perquot War would be good in the article.  Also, did Winthrop have any contemporary views on Native Americans?  I would say the Indian-Colonial relation deserves a brief paragraph mention, just so the reader knows hostility between the colonists and Indians existed. Violence was part of colonial life in the 1600's. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a few paragraphs on Indian matters. Magic♪piano 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Indian policy section you added, Magicpiano, really adds to the article. Good job! Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavery and the slave trade was practiced in the Massachusetts colony.  This may be a controversial subject but I believe that this issue needs to be addressed in the article.  Winthrop allowed African slavery and the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Perquot were used as slaves or traded as slaves to the West Indies in exchange for African slaves.  An alterior motive or cause for the Perquot War for the English colony, who needed a labor force, was to capture the Perquot and use them as slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are the source links:
African Americans and the End of Slavery in Massachusetts
Slavery in Massachusetts
The evidence (after poking at this a little) on Winthrop's personal involvement with slavery and the slave trade appears to be extremely fragmentary.  One source I saw suggested he opposed making war for the purpose of acquiring slaves.   Another source suggested that there were enslaved Indians on one of the islands he owned (probably Block Island, but it didn't say).  It's also unclear what his role was in adopting official statements and law addressing slave ownership: he was opposed to the adoption of the Body of Liberties in general.
A discussion of slavery in colonial Massachusetts (and role of the slave trade in its economy) is better placed in Massachusetts Bay Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, both of which are lacking information on many subjects.  One source argued that Massachusetts labor and slavery laws made it expensive (relative to other colonies) to own slaves, despite the role the colony's shipping played in the trade. Magic♪piano 14:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned slavery because Winthrop was governor of the colony.  Slavery was legal under the colony while Winthrop was governor.  The importation and exportation of slaves was permitted.  Is there any evidence that Winthrop stopped the slave trade in Massachusetts while he was governor?  He may have owned Indian slaves and his brother in law told him slavery would make the colony profitable.  Slavery started in the colony around 1624 and ended after Massachusetts became a state in the early 1800's. I mentioned that this may be controversial, because the motivations of the colonists may be in question.  Was religious liberty the only reason to settle in the New World? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is an op-ed article link by C.S. Manegold in the Boston Globe:
New England’s scarlet ‘S’ for slavery.  Winthrop was the first governor to make slavery legal and he held Indian slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is another link: Ten Hills Farm: The Forgotten History of Slavery in the North  Manegold even wrote a book on the subject.  I believe Manegold has enough weight as a source to mention slavery in the Winthrop article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I repeat: the explicit evidence of Winthrop and slavery appears to be fragmentary.  This makes it difficult to make meaningful statements about his role (for or against) in the development of slavery and the slave trade.  If you think Manegold's book might be useful, feel free to get it from a nearby library and add some relevant content.  I didn't, which is why it is only used sparingly in this article.  Ten Hills Farm is used by her because it was home to Isaac Royall, a major slave trader, in the 18th century (the Isaac Royall House has surviving slave quarters).  I find Manegold's assertions that Winthrop "helped to write" the Body of Liberties, which condoned the practice, difficult to accept in the face of his acknowledged opposition (documented by Bremer) to that work.
When you write" I mentioned that this may be controversial, because the motivations of the colonists may be in question", are you including Winthrop among those colonists?  This article is about Winthrop and his motivations, not about generic colonists or even his children who were known to be involved in the business.  Whether or not there were motivations other than religious is only relevant here to the extent that Winthrop shared those motivations.  The preponderance of evidence is that he (and most of the Puritans, but not necessarily all of their hangers-on, or individuals like Samuel Maverick who preceded them in the area) migrated for religious reasons.  I'm not sure what that has to do with slavery -- you'll have to do a better job of connecting the dots.
If you feel strongly on the subject, do the research and contribute to the article. Magic♪piano 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your insight, Magicpiano, into the subject of slavery and John Winthrop.  I have no intentions of putting any motivations of any colonists, including John Winthrop, into the article.  I refer to Winthrop as a colonist because he was governor of Massachusetts colony. That is another interesting subject, how did the colonists refer themselves?  On returning to slavery, the sentence I wrote on motivations only applies to any northern slavery controversy and was only meant to be in the talk page.  I am suggesting that the institution of slavery was practiced by Massachusetts colonists.  Winthrop, according to Manegold, was the first governor to make slavery legal.  I believe that is signifigant enough to be in the article.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
However, any view that Winthrop was against slavery needs to be in the article also.  Slavery was just beginning in Massachusetts while Winthrop was governor.  Manegold even goes as far as saying the community was segregated and that colonists requested the Governor to be given slaves. What I would intend to put in the article was that first slave law that was passed by Winthrop, that he owned Indian slaves, the practice of trading Indian slaves for African slaves, and a brief description of the importation of African slaves while Winthrop was governor.  I am not sure if Winthrop himself divided slaves among the community.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Any slavery issues would only be concering Winthrop.  I am attempting to get Manegold's book.  Much of this is new to me and in an effort of good will, I can put any slavery paragraph(s) in the talk page first for suggestions before putting in the article.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


### Slavery and slaves trade section
This is a potential narrative for a slavery and slave trade section.

African slavery already existed in the Massachusetts colony one year prior to John Winthrop's arrival in 1630.  During the Perquot War, Gov. Winthrop enslaved captured natives, sending the  male warriors deemed dangerous to the colony, to the West Indies on the ship Desire and dividing the females and children among the colonists.  Winthrop kept three Perquot slaves, a male and two females.  In 1639, these exported male Perquot slaves were traded for, according to Winthrop,  “salt, cotton, tobacco, and Negroes.’’ These exchanges for African slaves in Massachusetts became a routine practice during the Perquot war.  In 1641, Winthrop particpated as a member of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, in legislating the first law sanctioning slavery in New England.  The law legalized the practice of enslaving natives captured in war, volunteer slavery, and purchasing slaves.

^ Manegold (January 18, 2010), New England’s scarlet ‘S’ for slavery; Manegold (2010), Ten Hills Farm The Forgotten History of Slavery in the North, 41-42 Harper (2003), Slavery in Massachussets

Please check your spelling: there is no 'r' in Pequot.  Second, I believe Manegold is incorrect on Winthrop's role in the enaction of the Body of Liberties.  Bremer (whom you should read on this subject, pp. 304-306, limited Google Book preview) is clear that Winthrop was significantly opposed to their passage, and they were passed when he was out of office.  Bremer does not think his opposition has anything to do with slavery, though.  (Winthrop did sit on committees that drafted the laws, but Bremer characterizes him as an obstructor to the process.  This is a nuance Manegold may not have been aware of.)  Bremer also is of the opinion (p. 314) that slavery was a small part of 17th century Massachusetts, as compared to other colonies, but does record Winthrop's ownership of the Indian slaves (pp 313-315 discuss slavery).
Furthermore, it is a stretch to say that "Gov. Winthrop enslaved captured natives".  This decision was almost certainly made in a council.  (Keep in mind that the governor during the first charter lacked the prerogatives of the appointed royal governors, and was not as powerful a figure.)  A more suitable phrasing would be "The Massachusetts council, headed by Governor Winthrop, approved the enslavement of captives taken in the war.  Male warriors, deemed dangerous, ..." Magic♪piano 20:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read of the enslavement of Native Americans in a few instances. But when it comes to slavery in regards to blacks, it is correct to say that slavery was a small part of 17th Massachusetts. First and foremost, the economy of Massachusetts, with its small farms and cottage industries, did not lend itself to the practice of slavery, as did, for instance, the raising of tobacco in a colony like Virginia. Further, the Puritan mindset does seem to have played a part, in my estimation, in the mixed feelings toward the practice of slavery. I could come up with some sources, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now, and will try to find some later. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate these suggestions.  Slavery was practiced in Massachusetts colony under Winthrop and comparisons between slavery in the south and north does not negate this fact. Scope of slavery is not relevant to the existence of slavery. Again, I am attempting to be impartial as possible in the segment. If there is evidence that Winthrop opposed the 1641 measure, then this should be in the article.  Winthrop was given an extensive tract of land and housing and was given authority in England to be governor of Massachusetts. Being governor had advantages.  Why were colonists personally petitioning Winthrop for Indian slaves?  I apologize for the Pequot spelling error. Bremer's views on Winthrop's activity in the Body need to be in the article segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
From what I read from Bremer, there are no records of council meetings that remain today.  From what I read there is no mention in Bremer of Winthrop advocating a delay in regards to the 1641 slave ruling.  In terms of scope only 3% of the population in Massachusetts were slaves.  Massachusetts, during the late 1600's was the primarily in Massachusetts, according to Harper. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Winthrop repeatedly worked against the development of the Body of Liberties -- this is already in the article.  Bremer discusses (p. 305) him repeatedly working against attempts to codify laws.  This is not "a delay in regard to the 1641 slave ruling" -- there is no "slave ruling", and there was no "delay".  There is the codification of laws, which Winthrop opposed and apparently successfully scuttled twice in the 1630s.  The codified laws that were adopted in 1641, now known as the Body of Liberties, apparently occurred despite his objections.  These laws include the one that condones slavery. Magic♪piano 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that mentioning [African] slavery was not wide spread in Massachusetts during the 1600's is appropriate. However, the legalization of slavery is very signifigant, in addition to mentioning slavery existed in Massachusetts under Winthrop. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am also troubled by the terminology "legalizing".  The Body of Liberties was enacted at a time when no significant formal body of laws existed to govern the colony.  This means that what was "legal" or "illegal" was largely determined by magistrates and judicial process (i.e. common law).  Thus slavery was not explicitly either legal or illegal before 1641 -- however, it did (as you've pointed out) already exist.  The laws (in the case of slavery, anyway) codified something that was already in place. Magic♪piano 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
For the source, New England’s scarlet ‘S’ for slavery, would it be useful to cite the book, but also link to the article directly, since it has since been reposted online? --Stevoisiak (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A religious aspect needs to be mentioned.  Calvinism fit in well with the slave trade.  Blacks were consider cursed and the Old Testament, according to the Puritans, condoned slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


### Slavery and slaves trade section II
Here is a second rewrite verson incorporating suggetions.

African slavery already existed in the Massachusetts colony one year prior to John Winthrop's arrival in 1630.  A consequence of the Pequot War was the institution of slavery over the Pequot people.  The Massachusetts council, headed by Governor Winthrop, approved the enslavement of captives taken in the war.  Male warriors, deemed dangerous to the colony, were shipped to the West Indies on the ship Desire.  Females and children were divided among the colonists.  Winthrop kept three Perquot slaves, a male and two females.  In 1639, these exported male Perquot slaves were traded for, according to Winthrop,  “salt, cotton, tobacco, and Negroes.’’ These exchanges for African slaves in Massachusetts became a routine practice in the colony.  In 1641, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties legislated the first law sanctioning slavery in New England.  Winthrop was a member of the body, and according to historian, C.S. Manegold, participated in making this law, however, records of these meetings are today not in existance.   Enslaving natives captured in war, volunteer slavery, and purchasing slaves were was made legal.  A slave was permitted to join the Church, however, membership did not grant freedom. Slavery, according to Puritan law, was condoned in the Old Testament, and therefore was not considered sinful towards God.

^ Manegold (January 18, 2010), New England’s scarlet ‘S’ for slavery; Manegold (2010), Ten Hills Farm The Forgotten History of Slavery in the North, 41-42 Harper (2003), Slavery in Massachussets; Bremer (2003), pg. 304, 305, 314

May I suggest:
Slavery, according to Puritan thought, was condoned in the Old Testament, and therefore was not considered sinful towards God.  The institution already existed in the Massachusetts Bay area prior to John Winthrop's arrival, since Samuel Maverick arrived in the area with slaves in 1624, and Winthrop supported the practice.  This is most clearly evident in the aftermath of the Pequot War, in which many of the captured Pequots were enslaved.  The Massachusetts council, headed by Winthrop, approved this action.  Male warriors, deemed dangerous to the colony, were shipped to the West Indies, while females and children were divided among the colonists.  Winthrop recorded that the exported male Pequots were traded for "salt, cotton, tobacco, and Negroes", and the practice of exporting captured Indians to exchange for goods and African slaves became a routine practice.  Winthrop was known to keep three Pequot slaves, a male and two females.
In 1641, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties was enacted, codifying (among many other things) rules about slavery.  Winthrop was a member of the committee that drafted the code, but his role in drafting the slavery language is not known because records of the committee have not survived.  Winthrop was generally opposed to the Body of Liberties because he favored a common law approach to legislation.
Note that the whole second paragraph could be merged with the existing discussion in the article of the Body of Liberties. Magic♪piano 17:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Good edit, Magicpiano.  I would change the word "thought" to "law".  The word thought, in my opinion, eludes to the reader that the Puritans were a philosophical society open to other opinions.  Just looking at Winthrop's stern portrait and I get the feeling that one would not want to mess with this man or any other Puritan.  The Purtians meant business and other ideas or ways of life were severly curtailed, such as the destruction of the Merry Mount colony.  I would keep the second paragraph in the slavery and slave trade section, since, there is controversy of Winthrop's participation in the 1641 law.  The Massachusetts colonists tended to enslave Indians over blacks.  Thousands of Indians were enslaved in Massachusetts. I believe the slavery and slave section is ready to put in the article.  Any other concerns? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly using both words, "thought" and "law", would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason I changed it to "thought" was that, to me anyway, "law" implies codification, i.e. it's written down somewhere.  I think "teaching" would also be an acceptable word. Magic♪piano 01:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The 1641 law was the codification of Puritan thought.  There could not be any dissention in the Puritan colony.  I can put thought, however, the Puritans thoughts were often put into action. Enslaving blacks and Indians.  Destroying the Merry Mount colony. Chopping off the head of Charles I under Cromwell. I am not sure if the Puritans in America objected to beheading Charles I. Oh yes, witch burning was a good example of no toleration.  When Indians died of small pox, there was no sorrow expressed by the Puritans, in fact, plenty of rejoicing.   Being Puritan was to follow the law dictated by the Puritan council. I am digressing.  I accept putting "teaching" or "thought" in the article segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The Puritans were tolerant of two faiths, their own, and Judaism. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
"The 1641 law was the codification of Puritan thought." If the law was the codification, then what is the justification for the law?  Probably something not codified (like an interpretation of Bible passages). Magic♪piano 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I agree the Bible (Old Testament) was their justification for codified law.  Much of their theology relied heavily on Old Testment passages.  There is debate whether the Puritans were more Jewish, in terms of faith, rather then Christian or followers of the New Testament. Myself, I have personally read much of the Old Testament and can find no specific verse that justified slavery. God, according to the Bible, emancipated the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promise Land.  The Puritans believed that America was the Promise Land. The Indians were "animals" and the blacks were "cursed", in Puritan thought or belief.  Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
newbite here - i am ignorant of the Wikipedia guidelines - had an edit reverted because when I added to John Winthrop's description in the intro, the reverter stated 'this is not what he is dominantly known for'. can some one point me to the appropriate guidelines Trying to get the hang of this.Thanks!! Sengbe7 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who reverted, allow me to explain.  First, the fact that John Winthrop owned slaves is already mentioned in the body of the article, so it does not need further citation if mentioned in the lead.  Second, in my opinion, slave ownership is not a particularly prominent feature of what we know about Winthrop.  As such it does not need to be mentioned in the lead (the relevant guidelines would be WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE).  If you disagree, feel free to bring additional evidence that his ownership of slaves was a bigger deal. Magic♪piano 20:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles Anderson in the Great Migration series (1995) gives the name of Winthrop's first wife as Mary Forth.  In fact, the couple had a child named Forth. (see pp 2039-2040) Sarnold17 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Mary Worth" thing was either a brain fart on my part or some vandalism that snuck in. Magic♪piano 03:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Current version
"John Winthrop (12 January 1587/8[1] – 26 March 1649) was a wealthy English Puritan lawyer and one of the leading figures in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the first major settlement in New England after Plymouth Colony."
Proposed Revised Version
"John Winthrop (12 January 1587/8[1] – 26 March 1649) was a wealthy English Puritan lawyer and one of the leading figures in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the fifth european settlement in New England."
This removes ambiguity around the order of colonization of north america and implied size issues; as the Virginia colony started at Jamestown was much larger and has been an established community 22 years prior to the granting of the charter for the Massachusetts Bay company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.164.70 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC) 

I've not seen any sort of recent language suggesting that "New England" refers to anything other than its conventional modern meaning.  The proposed language makes things worse, since it it opens a can of worms regarding how you count the other settlements (if all the ones I know of are counted, Massachusetts Bay is somewhere around ninth, in just modern New England, depending on the criteria used).  I've added language clarifying that the intended definition of "New England" is modern. Magic♪piano 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Winthrop/CommentsTalk:John Winthrop/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 20:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

At the very end of the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Winthrop#Arrival" section, it says that "Dudley's lands became Bedford, and Winthrop's Billerica", but that should instead read, "Dudley's lands became Billerica, and Winthrop's Bedford." If you check the source referenced in the article ("Jones, p. 251"), you'd notice it doesn't actually mention who chose which, but as we learn from various other sources, including photos of the historical marker located at the Two Brothers Rocks themselves (found at "https://www.google.com/maps/place/Two+Brothers+Rocks/@42.5150617,-71.3058127,-4a,31.1y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNfLe_007NvEfG0oIb7L3WafqnOvAeHLinJRfSD!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNfLe_007NvEfG0oIb7L3WafqnOvAeHLinJRfSD%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4032!8i3024!4m15!1m7!3m6!1s0x89e3991fda4c9f71:0x3cc1a90218caf9ac!2sBedford+Boat+Ramp!8m2!3d42.5091122!4d-71.3131641!16s%2Fg%2F11c1p812s3!3m6!1s0x89e3990bfce8b10f:0x3714d962799452c!8m2!3d42.5150617!4d-71.3055425!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11g23pvr_j?hl=en-US&entry=ttu"), Dudley chose the land NORTH of the rocks, while Winthrop chose SOUTH of them. Note on the map of the area ("https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Billerica%2C+Massachusetts+on+Massachusetts+map&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"), Bedford is located just SOUTH of Billerica. Finally, note that Wikipedia's own article on Thomas Dudley ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dudley#Anne_Hutchinson_affair"), even while using the exact same source as this article, seems to get it right. (If it's okay with you, assuming you all agree, I'll leave it to someone else to fix it, as I'm afraid I might mess it up.) Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)