Talk:Eugene V. Debs

P.O.V.
After a while, you can only laugh at the way anarchist editors swarm every Wikipedia article related to anarchism. Eugene Debs' relationship with the Socialist Party of America is reduced entirely to the conflict with the anarchist I.W.W., and indeed we must know this was bad, bad, bad. So much does this single episode consume the anarchist mind that a reader has little idea what role Debs' even played in the party.

No reason to even try to put lipstick on this pig. Read a Debs bio, not Wikipedia. AECwriter 00:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)


 * This page is for improving the article, not for this sort of rubbish. -- 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Vonnegut book
Moved from the article:
 * Hey the Vonnegut book you are thinking of is actually "Jailbird," not "Hocus Pocus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.88.39 (talk • contribs) 14:20, October 23, 2006.

Reading the associated articles for each work, it appears that the article's original text was correct. Slambo (Speak) 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC) I read Hocus Pocus recently. That was the right book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.213.151 (talk • contribs).

Violent Pullman strike
Removed from article:


 * [[Image:Pullman strike guard harpers.jpg|thumb|300px|National Guard fires on Pullman strikers, from Harper's Weekly (1894)]] By the end of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded.

This image and sentence implies that soldiers opened fire on strikers (which would usually be unethical); that the soldiers murdered a dozen men on the orders of a pro-capitalist government.

It sounds awfully one-sided to me. Is it meant to conjure up the image of Kent State student protesters being shot by National Guard in 1970? The latter is a clearcut case of overreaction (guardsmen committed manslaughter at best, in my opinion as a former US soldier).

Overreaction? That is how you describe murder? Sure, they wouldn't have killed the protestors if they weren't sent there, but you can't be holding an automatic weapon, use it on someone unarmed and claim self-defense. It is murder, but not pre-meditated murder. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to say how many guardsmen were attacked or wounded during the Pullman strike. Most importantly, we must reveal the motive of their decision to start firing. Did they fire in self-defense, or what?

Without a description of what preceded the shooting, it smacks of an anti-army position on the matter, even an anti-government position.

We should not be anti-US or anti-socialist but present a neutral account. --Uncle Ed 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These opinions are not relevant to Wikipedia. -- 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The strike turns violent

 * The reaction of the strikers to the appearance of the troops was that of outrage. What had been a basically peaceful strike turned into complete mayhem. The mayhem began on July 4, with mobs of people setting off fireworks and tipping over rail cars. The workers started to tip railcars and build blockades in reaction to the presence of the federal troops. ... At this time in the Chicago vicinity, there were 6,000 federal and state troops, 3,100 police, and 5,000 deputy marshals. However, all this manpower could not prevent the violence from peaking when on July 7, national guardsmen after being assaulted, fired into the crowd killing at least four (possibly up to thirty) and wounding at least twenty.

Here it seems that (1) the guardsmen were assaulted, and after that (2) they fired into the crowd.

We can compare this to the incident in Iraq (dramatized in the Samuel Jackson film Rules of Engagement). A crowed of Iraqi civilians, including some armed men, opened fire on coalition forces. U.S. Marines returned fire. The press accounts at the time discounted or entirely ignored the order of events; or directly denied US reports that the first shots came from the crowed. In both the movie and the real incident, the propriety of the US forces shooting into the crowd depended on whether they were "shooting back" or "opening fire" - two distinct ethical categories. --Uncle Ed 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This opinion is not relevant to Wikipedia. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Socialism and world peace
Article displays pro-socialist bias by implying that "capitalism" is anti-peace or otherwise "bad".

Isn't it the case that free market economies and democracy contribute more to peace than socialism and totalitarianism? See Rummell's democratic peace theory. --Uncle Ed 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the bias. If you are referring to this sentence:
 * In 1924, Eugene Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the ground that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I, mainly because he considered the war to be in the interest of capitalism."[2]
 * then I'm afraid I have to disagree. Stating that Wiik believed that Debs believed that the war was in the interest of capitalism really isn't the same thing as stating that the war actually was in the interest of capitalism. Or even that Debs believed it was, for that matter.
 * Or am I missing something? Hemmingsen 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This opinion is not relevant to Wikipedia. 72.205.126.89 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you are all missing something. The record of 19th century capitalism. Panics and overproduction crisis, which we now call recessions, were much more severe than they are today for a number of reasons. They were frequent and devastating. Governments responded to these with imperialism. The European countries conquered much of the known world by the turn of the century. There was nothing left to conquer, but the problem that led them to turn to imperialism was still there. That they would eventually break into a fight with each other was inevitable, seen as though there was no more world to conquer. Also, there is not a single socialist, certainly not Mr. Debs, that was an advocate of totalitarianism. Socialism is an economic theory of organization, building on capitalism, based on a Labor Theory of Value and Labor control of Capital. There is no way that labor can control capital in a totalitarian society. On the contrary, corporations are totalitarian entities, although there is no law of capitalism that says they have to exist. Free Market economies certainly don't contribute more to peace than socialism. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to concur that bias is lacking in this quotation. It's not saying that capitalism=war, but that a cothinker thought that Debs felt that World War I was for capitalism.  As to your question, I disagree, but an encyclopedia has no business determining whether socialism or capitalism is better for peace.  The quotation is good for an encyclopedia biography of Debs and that's all it should be.  Cadriel 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for clarifying that. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, since this seems to be settled, I'm going to remove your hidden comments in the article. Hemmingsen 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Material added April 2010 - - - - Debs was a supporter and signer of the St Louis Socialist Party Resolution, passed a few days after America's entrance into the war. It branded the war as "a crime against the people of the United States" forced upon the people by "the capitalist class". Conversely, the resolution caused other socialist leaders to quit the party, e.g. Upton Sinclair and Jack London.

Paul Blanshard writes in his autobiography "Personal and Controversial" that Debs was sent to prison, not for opposing the war but rather for OPPOSING THE DRAFT. Presumably this means advising young men to avoid or evade, as was the case with Bertrand Russell.

Very misleading paragraph in article
The article states:


 * Yet Debs was equally uncomfortable with the apolitical syndicalism of some within the Industrial Workers of the World. While he was an early supporter of the IWW, helping organize it in 1905, he was later appalled by what he considered the IWW's irresponsible advocacy of direct action, especially sabotage. He quit the group in 1908.

Taken statement by statement, it is all somewhat true. However, it is also very misleading.

Debs quit the IWW for a very different reason than his being "appalled" at the IWW's use of sabotage. The real reason is alluded to in the first sentence. In 1908 the Wobbly "overalls brigade," what DeLeon referred to as the "bummery," used their numbers to rewrite the constitution to forbid direct participation in electoral politics as an IWW method of action. The overalls brigade were lumberjacks who had tired of political infighting between the two socialist factions, and wanted an "industrial action" union (which the organization remains to this day.) DeLeon and Debs both got the hint, and both left the IWW in 1908.

The IWW didn't begin to consider sabotage as a tactic until 1910. At that time, the IWW press  praised a group of strikers in Chicago who had used "sabotage," which at that time was still defined as "malingering or inefficient work."  The broader definitions of sabotage didn't come until later, and  were brought to public notice by the fight over section 6 article 2 of the Socialist Party's constitution.

But the disagreement that resulted in Section 6 article 2, and caused Haywood's expulsion was most likely a more direct result of a speech that Haywood gave in which he called for "overthrowing the capitalist system by forcible means if necessary."  A number of Socialists were getting elected, and this speech embarrassed them.

In his autobiography Haywood did describe disappointment with Deb's criticism of the IWW's tactical polemics, and argued that Debs, DeLeon & O'Neill were criticizing tactics that the IWW had never adopted.

But i think that the paragraph in the Debs article appears to suggest that Debs quit because of this issue; in fact, that isn't the case at all.

I also believe that in its use of the word "appalled," the paragraph overstates Deb's opposition to what the IWW was preaching. Haywood said that in spite of criticizing the IWW for being "anarchist," Debs had previously been friendly to the organization, and was friendly to the IWW afterwards. 

At the time of Haywood's being thrown out of the Socialist Party, Debs used language such as,


 * I regretted to see Haywood's recall but it was inevitable... I should not have put section 6 (article 2) in the constitution but it is there and put there by the party and Haywood deliberately violated it.

But he also declared in the same letter,


 * Certainly I approve of some of the practices that go under the name of sabotage, for almost everything goes under that name. The answer is the same as to law-breaking... I must know what the circumstances are... 

These excerpts are a little out of context, but serve to illustrate my point. I contend that Debs was opposed to how far Haywood and the IWW pushed the question of advocating sabotage. I contend that Debs was not "appalled." A more accurate descriptive term, then, would be "opposed." And the sentences need to be re-arranged to introduce some clarity about the timeline of events. Richard Myers 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:American anarchists
I deleted this category as it seem misleading. Debs was not identified with anarchism politically. If the editor made the categorization as a result of his early involvement and continued support for the IWW, this is also inaccurate. Debs endorsed the IWW as an industrial unionist organization, not on account of adherence to syndicalism. DJ Silverfish 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this decision.


 * best wishes, Richard Myers 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs some fact checking.
I'm in the middle of a project right now for history, but it seems to me that the math doesn't quite add up when it comes to his life and age, in particular the part discussing his early employment at the age of fourteen.

Greylance 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The math is actually correct, maybe you forget it the late 1800's there were no laws against child labor. The age fourteen is even considered old for child labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.94.246 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Scarter22 13:24, 20 September 2010 (EST)

Contradict
"...he underestimated the lasting power of racism" but at the same time denounced it more than any other important public figure in American Socialism? Seems to contradict itself to me. VanTucky 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't mention this Adversary in the House, namely that his wife hateed his socialistic activities. Trevor GH5 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the contradict tag off. I seems to me this has been addressed, as the phrase "more than any other" now reads a more modest "Debs was more advanced on this issue than many others in the Socialist Party"--Bookandcoffee 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote Numbers
Don't add up... maybe I'm misreading this but it appears to say that 3.4 percent in more than six.

--No it doesn't. 6% in 1912 meant less votes than 3,4% in 1920 due to the increasing of voters. Debs got a higher percentage in 1912, but more votes in 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.91.88 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV Worry
Isn't it POV to say that Debs underestimated the lasting power of racism? I happen to agree with that statement, because I think racial issues are more fundamental in explaining some racial phenomena than class issues are. But surely this issue is a matter of opinion, one on which scholars disagree. Some scholars do remain convinced that economic factors like the ones Marx pointed to are much more fundamental, and thus they would think Debs was correct to focus on economic issues, with problems of racial disparity being solved by resolving class differences. That's still the standard Marxian view, even if many on the left and the right disagree with it. At any rate, it doesn't come across as encyclopedic in tone. It comes across as opinion-laden commentary. Parableman 13:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Leadership Style" section includes non sequitur
In the section "Leadership Style", the final paragraph ("He was sent to the Woodstock, Illinois City Jail to avoid being killed in the city for his radical involvement in the Pullman Strike.") just doesn't belong. I'm not familiar enough with Debs' bio to know where this sentence belongs, but it sticks out like a sore thumb where it is now. You'd think it belongs in the Pullman Strike section, but I have no way of knowing whether this Woodstock imprisonment happened during that strike, or years later as a result of enduring bad feelings. Additionally, if it does belong in the Pullman Strike section, it needs to be harmonized with other statements in that section. I don't want to delete this offending sentence and lose a valuable piece of information, but hope that someone reading this comment may be able to do the requisite surgery. Douglas Barber (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in the midst of a page over-hall, but I'm only on the early portions of the page. When I get to that section, I'll see what looks good. Mastrchf (t/c) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review

 * Archived review

GA passed
Congratulations! This article is a Good Article.--ragesoss (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Subscript text

As president, what would he have done?
It's unfortunate that the article does not address what platforms and "planks" Debs put forward in his presidential campaigns.

We get a good general impression of his background and spirit, as a person, and his attitudes and overall commitment. But we don't learn what his policy or program directions would have been, had he and his running mates actually been elected in any of the campaigns.

I've heard that many of Debs's ideas, from the early portion of the 20th century, eventually have been adopted as U.S. federal policies & programs. But this is a vague assertion (not mentioned in the article), and the article does not in any way attest to this or contradict it. Essential things are left in the dark.Joel Russ (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are very good ideas for if the article ever makes a push to FA. Even if not, I'm sure the article could benefit from the addition of these items.  As long as it's verifiable fact, I say go for it! Mastrchf (t/c) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes — well, somebody who has the knowledge should "go for it." I came to the article wanting to learn something, and I did.  But not about Debs's program or policy ideas, or the legacy of those ideas.  That aspect left me disappointed.Joel Russ (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than some nebulous notion 'for the good of the working class' called "socialism," does nobody know what Debs wanted to do and proposed to achieve? I mean, for gaud sakes... the man ran for president of the U.S. more than once!  There are books about him, aren't there?Joel Russ (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo from a rally in Chicago not Canton
I have changed this a couple times and somebody keeps changing it back. I have even reviewed actual photos of the event at the Indiana State library in Terre Haute. While the 1912 rally in Chicago was very large and numerous photos of it exist, the famous speech that Debs gave in Canton was small in comparison and no photos of it are known to exist. See the OTHER PHOTOS link I added to the Debs page. There are pictures of Debs at a gazebo that may have been the Canton rally, but that cannot be proved of verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.247.28 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pesidential bids: substance of his campaigns?
This article, while having much merit in certain respects, still does not address this: what platforms and "planks" did Debs put forward?

I expressed this above. I suggest there must be reference books — ones that Wiki contributors are already using for the info that is currently included in the article — that say something about Debs's campaigns, something beyond his general, fundamental beliefs (principles).

He was a "socialist" — so what? What did he propose to do??

Think about the fact that there was a recent presidential election in the U.S. and that each main (Republican and Democrat) candidate did have a platform, and the platform was made up of planks (supposed to appeal to "Joe the plumber"). Without being able to articulate the platform, neither McCain nore Obama could have even hoped to have garnered much support at all, right? Same thing I'm sure back in the early 20th century.

Spell it out.Joel Russ (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, if you feel this is so necessary, go ahead and do some research, and add it! This encyclopedia isn't about one person maintaining an article to pure specifications.  You stated earlier about lacking the "knowledge", but when I made the push for the article to become a GA, the only knowledge I had on the subject was practically something along the sorts of "Eugene Debs was a Socialist Presidential candidate in the early 1900's."  Go out to a library, pick up a few books, do the research, and just add!  Others can work on linking, formatting, any of those technical things.  Mastrchf (t/c) 16:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your dialogue on this.


 * Yes, I would do what you suggest, but for a couple of things: A) I live in Canada, and we do not always have access to the same standard biographical books you have in the U.S. (books about U.S. historical figures); and B) the nearest town with a public library is a smallish one (population 9500) and is an hour's drive away from where I live — might or might not have anything in its shelves germain to Deb's platforms.  So it's not so convenient to do what you're suggesting.


 * I've contributed to several dozen Wikipedia articles on topics I've been interested in, when I've had ready access to the reference material.


 * It's clear that people have, to date, felt motivated to contribute to a generally good article on Debs. It shouldn't be hard for someone in the U.S., amongst this group of enthusiasts, to find these little essential bits of info.Joel Russ (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the 1912 platform, which was their most successful campaign. The site should hold other years' platforms as well.  I don't think the individual planks are important, what mattered was worker control of society.  Many of the planks would not be seen as radical today and others are obsolete.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship
Why is there nothing in this article about his citizenship? Somewhere along the line he lost his citizenship, since there were two bills in the 94th Congress (H. J. Res. 780 and S. J. Res. 127; I can't figure out how to link them directly, but they're at the top of these lists: House and Senate) aimed at restoring his citizenship posthumously. 129.79.38.107 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2013
The Eugene Debs page misquotes a source in [35] saying that Wilson 'later called Debs a "traitor to his country."' according the quote to the book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me..." but it is not there in the 1995 edition of this book as is presumed.

The quote however appears to be mentioned later in the Wikipedia article in source 44, stating '"While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them....This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration."' in a book by Burl Noggle.

So, I think source 35 should be removed and replaced with source 44.

Thanks

76.183.193.166 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks for spotting the error--JayJasper (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

additional sources for IWW split
Richard Myers above gives some useful information. Debs quit paying his dues to the IWW in 1908 long before the sabotage business came to head in the SPA. His differences with the IWW were, yes, over its stance against political action, but also his feeling that the IWW had failed to form a real alternative to the American Federation of Labor. Debs had hoped that the some existing industrial-organized unions would form a stable membership for the IWW --especielly the United Brewery Workers and the Western Federation of Miners. This didn't pan out and he didn't see the organization growing because it wasn't playing the part of a typical union, e.g. signing contracts. Here are some citations:

"Debs joined the IWW in the hope that it would organize the unorganized and become a socialist-oriented center for the existing industrial unions. He was disapointed in both expectations. Not even the Socialist-led, industrially organized United Brewery Workers Joined the IWW; instead it returned to the ranks of the AFL in 1908. At the same time the IWW failed to build stable locals and a growing membership because of its refusal to bargain collectively during strikes or to sign time contracts when victories were won. This, aggravated by the growin tendency to reject political action and to indulge in factional squabbling, prompted Debs quietly to drop his membership around 1908." (Weinstein, James The Decline of Socialism in America, Monthly Review Press 1967 p.33)

"The membrship of the IWW was centered in the western states, where many working men scorned the establihed principals of trade unionism. This tendency had been held in check by the influence of the Western Federation of Miners, which founded stable local unions, signed contracts with employers, and fought for control of working conditions in the factories and workshops. The imprisonment of Haywood for fifteen months and the involvement of his supporters in his defense compaign permitted his enemies to capture the Western Federation of Miners. They promptly withdrew it from the IWW. Having lost its membership among those workers with stable employment, the IWW ceased to function as a trade uion. Its' ranks held a select corps of organives and strke leaders but not a single business agent. It becmae an organization which was geared to meet crises but which did not offer guidance to the workers on a stable, day-to-day basis. "This new trend was simply nonsense to Eugene Debs, who well understoodthe value of collective bargaining." (Ray Ginger, The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene V. Debs, 2007 Haymarket Books --originally 1947, Rutgers-- p.255-6)

Debs didn't publicly criticize the IWW until later 1912-15 when he felt that their tactics were undermining the UMWA and WMF. (Weinstein p. 33-5)

Hopefully, I added this correctly. Apolagies if not. I've never meddled with Wiki before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.153.1 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Handedness
Was Debs left handed? I have herea quote that describes him as motioning with his left hand. I think that should be mentioned. --The Dracommunist (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think this should be mentioned? For the sake of a truly awful pun? Because it's the most trivial and irrelevant thing you can dredge up? TheScotch (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is it?
Recently someone changed the act that Debs was convicted under from Espionage Act of 1917 to Sedition Act of 1918. These are two different articles and both say that he was convicted of violating the act and sentenced to 10 years and released after President Wilson commuted his sentence. Was he convicted of violating one or both? I am leaving a message on both talk pages directing them here. -- GB fan 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalia Railroad
The section of the article on his "early life" says he was born in 1855. It goes on to say that he dropped out of high school at 14. Next sentence states he worked for "Vandalia Railroad (1905-1917) and then mentions 1871. Am I the only one to see a certain inconsistency here?

Philologick (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Pro forma COI declaration
I thought I had left one of these already, but I'm not seeing it. I just wanted to link up my real name, Tim Davenport, with my WP handle, Carrite, here. I'm the lead editor of the six-volume Debs Selected Works project and thus have at least the appearance of a distant COI on the matter. For the record, I receive no royalties from sale of volumes in this series, with the non-commercial, non-profit, volunteer-run Marxists Internet Archive the designated recipient of any royalties that may potentially ever accrue — although that outcome seems distant, ha ha! In short, I have no real financial connection to the topic but wanted to make this statement anyway, in the interest of transparency. I will also note that I am the creator and operator of the www.marxisthistory.org website, which was cited here in at least one footnote. Again, this is a non-commercial, non-profit, advertising-free, small site and there is no commercial benefit to me from any traffic there. I again make the statement here in accordance with WP best practices. Thanks. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, just spotted my previous declaration above. Duh. Now removed. It is in the history if anyone wants to see it. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this really qualifies as a conflict of interest, but thank you for disclosing anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Education
All the literature confirms that Debs attended business classes, which I don't question. It is unclear which business school he attended. The article currently states that Debs attended "a local business school at night" circa 1875. This was most likely Demorest Business College, Terre Haute, though there was also a "Terre Haute Commercial College" in town. Kenneth Burr Fouts' 1968 Eugene V. Debs: Champion of Free Speech identifies the school as "Garwin's Business College" (p.63). Mitchell K. Hall's 2018 Opposition to War: An Encyclopedia of U.S. Peace and Antiwar Movements also states that he attended Garwin's Business College between 1872 - 1873 (p. 201). I can only find three references to a "Garwin's Business College" in all of GoogleBooks and only two references to Demorest Business College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.172.15 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Voice
I am so bad at wikipedia, but i have an interest in eugene debs as i ak related to him and one of his ancestors, however i lack the ability to properly figure out how to add a voice file to his wikipedia infobox, could someone please help me or add the audio file i have for me?

https://historymatters.gmu.edu/audio/2034a_MSTR.mp3 2601:1C2:1C80:C50:B00D:C7E5:D4E0:8371 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide the webpage which contains this file, as opposed to just a direct link to the file? –Vipz (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , the webpage seems to be . As it indicates, this was a reading of a Debs speech by Len Spencer, not Debs himself. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)