Talk:Isaac Brock

Untitled
I can't believe how small this page was. I have overhauled its format and fleshed it out, although it probably needs editting, and more images could be added. I'm going to continue to work on it, but if anyone wants to help (especially in countering the positive bias I have), they're more than welcome- Scimitar
 * I've tinkered with it a bit more, putting in a new section, although I'm not really comfortable with the title (attitudes). Perhaps something a little more appropriate could replace that title. Scimitar 16:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The majority of information on this page has been taken from Ferdinand Brock Tupper's book, with a few exceptions (battle, political history and the like are taken from the larger War of 1812 books, and I owe Pierre Berton a considerable knowledge debt). If anyone knows of any other reliable books about Sir Isaac, I'd give a shot at hunting them down and going through them. Thanks.--Scimitar 23:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Possible NPOV
Nova Cygni has suggested that this article is NPOV. Can it be improved? Anything that shows Sir Isaac in a less glowing light, maybe? Metaeducation 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, one significant problem is that the only real source on Brocks career is the book by his nephew, which every researcher whose done work on Brock seems to base their opinion on, and it's quite glowing. Additionally, I really couldn't find much that criticized him.  His recklessness at Queenston Heights is criticized, and given that he was a confirmed bachelor I looked fairly thoroughly for evidence that he had committed indiscretions in his personal life, but there wasn't anything.  Were there any specific instances of POV that you wanted to point out?--Scimitar parley 14:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

KCB
When I restructured the introduction I took the order of the bath abbreviation ("KCB") out from after Sir Isaac Brock's name at the beginning of the article. Then someone added it back. I think perhaps that we can just call him Sir Isaac Brock in the article opener, and later elaborate on his various titles without use of abbreviation. It's less cluttered and reads aloud (and in one's head) a bit better. Thoughts? Metaeducation 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections from me.--Scimitar parley 14:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Mutiny/Tupper
From the article:
 * Brock sent the twelve mutineers and the seven deserters to Quebec for court martial. There it was discovered that the mutineers had planned to jail all the officers, save Sheaffe, who was to be killed, and then cross the Niagara River into the U.S. at Queenston. Seven soldiers were subsequently executed by firing squad. Ferdinand Tupper was present at the trial and executions, and wrote about them to Brock. He described how the mutineers had testified that they were forced to such measures by the severity of Sheaffe, and how, had they continued under Brock's command, they would never have taken such action. Brock was evidently much moved by the letter. As a result of his continued competence, Brock was promoted to colonel on October 30, 1805.

According to Wikipedia, Ferdinand Brock Tupper was born in 1795, so would have been ten years old in 1805. Is this right? 172.200.83.19 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that's correct. I recollect one of the sources commenting on Tupper's young age; I hadn't realized he was quite so young, but that does fit the material.  Excellent catch, incidentally. --Scimitar 05:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An excellent but slightly anti-American article
As a history teacher across the border in Ohio, who specializes in military history, I must state that this article about Brock, although excellent, is not without its biases. It refers to the United States as being "colonies" in 1806, which is ridiculous. The U.S. declared independence in 1776 and I have taken the liberty of editing that section of the article to reflect the fact that we had states and were no one's colonies after July 4th, 1776.

Sincerely, Brett Griffith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.252.130 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

^Good eye, Brett. As you correctly pointed out, the United States was a sovereign nation at the time of the War of 1812.

More than just a little anti-American, its quite anti-American. For example, it cites population pressures as a reason the United States invaded Canda. Is that what they teach? The United States still had millions of acres of open land and there was no population pressure. Manifest Destitny came much much later. We invaded Canada because that was believed to be the only way to strike at the British Empire.

Removed orphaned sentence about Mackenzie Brock
I have removed the following sentence, as it references Brock's supposed long-lost brother Mackenzie Brock, the only other reference to whom was removed some time ago as apparently lacking any sources: "When Mackenzie Brock was captured, he was drawn and quartered for his act of treason." If the claim that Mackenzie shot Isaac is not included in the article, this sentence seems superfluous. If someone finds a source for the other claim, maybe this sentence could be re-added. -Sarcasmboy 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
I'm not sure how to correct the second paragraph, so I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable.

Some chuckleheads just never learn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronchristie (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apocryphal last utterance
This passage needs to go: "Brock's last words have been reported as surgite (Latin for 'rise' or perhaps 'press on'), or 'Push on, brave York Volunteers' (in reference to a group of the militia Brock favoured) and even 'My fall must not be noticed or impede my brave companions from advancing to victory.' It has also been reported that Brock died immediately, however, so these accounts are by no means certain."The account in Pierre Berton, Invasion of Canada, page 253 indicates this is most unlikely. The York Volunteers were not involved in this particular battle. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the words as reported 9and the speculation about their menaing) can be definitively sourced, there is no reason to remove it, but we should also add the points you make to counter it. David Underdown (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to prune the external links?
Sandy has advised us to prune external links. Here they all are, with my notes on the ones I think we could do without. I'd get rid of the ones that are more or less parallel to our own article and don't contain much additional that is of interest:


 * Biography of Sir Isaac Brock at The War of 1812 Website
 * Too thin; a shorter and less scholarly version of our own article


 * General Brock History
 * Very lightweight, not much of interest


 * Website for Bold, Brave and Born to Lead, a book about Brock
 * Just a publisher's advertisement for a book intended for kids 12-16. Not good enough quality even for Further Reading, in my opinion.


 * The Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, K.B. online at Project Gutenberg
 * Drop this because Tupper's book in the reference list is linked to this site


 * Information on Isaac Brock's family and geneaology
 * A genealogy page. Seems harmless and it could provide clues for readers who want to track down more information on Brock's family.


 * History of the Isaac Brock Half-Penny Tokens
 * Link is dead due to web site restructuring. Anyone is welcome to try to resurrect it.


 * A website about Brock's memorial
 * I'm fine with this link. This group (Friends of Fort George) publishes one of the books in our reference list.


 * Isaac Brock Conspiracy Theory Site (Humorous)
 * Dead link


 * A site about the Battle of Queenston Heights, from Canada's Department of National Defence, notable for its alternate rendering of Brock's last words
 * Dead link


 * Brock University
 * OK, why not.


 * The Story of Isaac Brock, by Walter R. Nursey, 1908, from Project Gutenberg
 * Not a profound book, but it has some intriguing details

Please let me have your thoughts. If no-one objects, I'll make the changes as listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Extra pictures
Nice pictures of Prevost and Hull. But what are they doing here? I assume they have their own articles. Really an article integrity/boundary problem here. If Brock were included in the image, fine. But by themselves? Sorry, it doesn't make sense. The article doesn't include text that does not pertain to Brock. Nor should it include images that don't directly pertain either. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would keep the pictures of Prevost, Hull and Sheaffe. These men played key roles in the active part of Brock's military career. I checked the Adam Smith article and notice that it has pictures of David Hume and François Quesnay. This suggests that there are at least some articles where pictures of related figures are considered relevant. Inclusion of Prevost might be a hint to us that the George Prevost article could be better than it is. A good source for improving it would be Wesley Turner's 1999 book, British generals in the war of 1812. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of Brock
An editor has requested deletion of the Commons image Image:Isaac-brock.jpg on copyright grounds. (It is a painting by John Wycliffe Lowes Forster, an artist who lived 1850-1938, so it could have been made since 1923). I do not know if it is still under copyright or who owns the rights, so I don't know how hard it would be to get it back. Now as a replacement we have Image:Isaac Brock portrait 2, from The Story of Isaac Brock (1908).jpg.

There is a problem with the new image. It may *not* actually be a portrait of Brock. It is elsewhere referred to as 'the Brock miniature allegedly by J. Hudson'. There is a 19th-century tradition that this is of Brock, but major doubt is cast on that tradition in a recent paper:
 * Google for 'Ludwig Kosche' to find an online copy of the paper.

One problem is that the figure portrayed is wearing a medal given to veterans of the Battle of Waterloo, a battle which took place after Brock's death. Kosche is convinced that the man depicted is not Brock, but is likely to be an officer in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. In his view the miniature was painted close to the time of the Battle of Waterloo (1815), and shows a man who would have been young then.

A different image, the one shown at http://clarke.cmich.edu/detroit/brock1812.htm, https://www.cmich.edu/library/clarke/ResearchResources/Michigan_Material_Local/Detroit_Pre_statehood_Descriptions/Entries_by_Date/Pages/1812-Brock.aspx is believed by Kosche to have a good chance of being a likeness of Brock. (For details see the paper). He believes it was painted by William Berczy (1748-1813) and shows Brock from the period of 1808 or 1809. I suggest we add the Berczy image to the article, in place of the one that could be a painting of someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I updated the image link in the above comment in July 2018}. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Berczy miniature was an authentic likeness of Brock as a comparatively young man, copied from something originally painted before 1800, and that rank badges and other uniform differences were added to the portrait as he advanced in rank; a common practice with impecunious officers. Unfortunately, I do not have the source to hand. HLGallon (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood
There's repetition of the fact that he died before learning of his knighthood. I suggest removing the first of the two statements of this fact. I suggest changing "For his actions in the capture of Detroit, Brock was knighted, though he died at the Battle of Queenston Heights before news of his knighthood reached him" to just "Brock was knighted for his actions in the capture of Detroit."  In a later section it says, "He was appointed a Knight Companion of the Order of the Bath (KCB) on October 10, 1812 for his victory at Detroit, although word did not reach Canada until after his death, so he never knew he had been knighted." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks to references
If there's no objection, I think I'm going to add wikilinks from the Footnotes section into the appropriate entries in the References section, as I did at Che Guevara and at Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). (Remind me if I forget to do this.) See Citing sources/Further considerations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly make the notes section more useful to the reader. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brock's dying words
Tupper, 2nd edition, page 331, has his dying words as "Push on, the York volunteers". It has been noted (higher up on this Talk page) that the York Volunteers were not present at this battle. I suggest that we remove all the different accounts of his dying words from the main narrative, and only include them in a later section on Brock's posthumous reputation, if we can put one together. Brock became a sort of mythical figure after his death, and the account of the dying words might belong there. Tupper's 1847 account (written 35 years later, and providing no source for the final words) is hard to believe. From previous reading I think there were some contemporary newspapers published that talked about his final words; those could be quoted.

There is a very serious primary source called Documentary History of the Campaigns Upon the Niagara Frontier, volume 4, page 114-116, that quotes a letter by Lieutenant Archibald McLean, who was within sight of Brock at the battle of Queenston Heights. He describes Brock as dying without uttering any final word. I don't have access to a library that holds this work. The citation of the work is:

Let me know if anyone objects to my removing discussion of his final words from the main narrative. I don't mind if a 'posthumous reputation' section is added later when good references are pinned down. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the details on Brock not having any last words, from Jon Latimer (2007), page 79:"According to George Jarvis, a 15-year-old gentleman volunteer who was with the 49th's Light Company close by, 'Our gallant general fell on his left side, within a few feet of where I stood. Running up to him I inquired, 'Are you much hurt, Sir?' He placed his hand on his breast and made no reply and slowly sunk down.'"Latimer (2007), p. 79, quotes a second eyewitness. "Militia Pvt. John Binney also saw Brock fall, saying '..he was past human aid and never moved or spoke.' "


 * C.P.Stacey's article provides a step-by-step chronology explaining that Brock could have uttered the words about the York Volunteers *before* he received his final wound: "A more plausible account is given in a letter written at Brown’s Point on 15 October, and published in the Quebec Mercury of 27 October: “The York volunteers to whom he was particularly partial, have the honor of claiming his last words[;] mediately before he received his death wound he cried out, to some person near him to push on the York volunteers, which were the last words he uttered.”" EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Irony
I'm confused by the part where it says: ''A series of private half-penny tokens were issued bearing Brock's name and the title "The Hero of Upper Canada". This was somewhat ironic, as private copper tokens had become common in Canada due to initial distrust of "army bills", which were paper notes issued by Brock.''

I first read this as meaning that the writer of the article found it ironic. However, it can be read as meaning that the makers of the tokens were satirists who were deliberately poking fun at Brock. I think this part should be either removed or changed and referenced. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Brock a Freemason?
Following up on something claimed by Donald Graves in the December 2007 issue of Fortress Niagara, the newsletter for the Old Fort Niagara Association. on page 5, when referring to Joseph Willcocks, he writes "He [referring to Brock] was possibly assisted in this endeavour by the fact that both men were members of the Masonic lodge in Newark". Not that this would have been terribly surprising at the time for a man of Brock's position but has anyone else heard this suggested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Placement of Brock Myths?
Yesterday I found a collection of urban legends concerning Isaac Brock. They were inside a paragraph in a factual account of his burial, which seemed highly inappropriate. I moved it to the Legacy - In Canada section. Now that does not seem to me like a very good fit either. Rather than do more damage myself, I want to bring this to the attention of the people who have been putting this article together. Perhaps you could find a better place for it. --Geometricks (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like where you put it. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd concur. It's one of those things that would stand out like a sore thumb pretty much anywhere else in the article. Natty10000 —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Speed of promotion
"The fact that his promotions occurred in a time of peace, and that Brock had no special political connections [...]" Did he have money? Back in those days, two-thirds of the promotions were by purchase; especially in peace time, the non-purchase promotions were very rare.

As can be seen from the following text in the article, his promotions have nothing to do with skill, at least not military skill:

"At the age of fifteen, Brock joined the 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot on 8 March 1785 with the rank of ensign,[10] and was likely given responsibility for the regimental colours.[11] His elder brother, John, was already an officer in the same regiment. As was usual at the time, Brock's commission, was purchased. On 16 January 1790 he bought the rank of lieutenant,[12] and later that year he raised his own company of men.[13] As a result, he was promoted to captain (of an independent company of foot) on 27 January 1791,[14] and transferred to the 49th (Hertfordshire) Regiment of Foot on 15 June 1791.[4]"

"He purchased his majority on 27 June 1795,[16] and rejoined his regiment in 1796, when the rest of his men returned from the West Indies.[4]"

"On 28 October 1797 Brock purchased the rank of lieutenant-colonel [...]"84.23.155.84 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This very accurate information has stood unchallenged for over a year. Isn't it time to remove the objectionable sentence? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Image added again which is probably not Brock
In a recent edit the rumored miniature of Brock was restored. See (above) for the 1985 article by Ludwig Kosche that debunks the claim that this is a likeness of Brock. According to Kosche, the young officer depicted in the miniature is wearing a campaign medal given to veterans of Waterloo, a battle where Brock was not present. I suggest the image be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014
Please change

"to honor the bicentennial of Brock's death"

to

"to honor the bicentenary of Brock's death"

The sentence requires the noun, not the adjective. Thank you.

Wikijaymac42wiki (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing that out

The Isaac Brock Society
This might be included as a legacy or external link in the article. While the organization is small and not a historical society, it does show Brock is still relevant to current Canadians.

The Isaac Brock Society

The Isaac Brock Society consists of individuals who are concerned about the treatment by the United States government of US persons who live in Canada and abroad.

http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/14/about-the-isaac-brock-society/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.4.209 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Isaac Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605184034/http://www.cbc.ca:80/greatest/greatcanadians/index.html to http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/greatcanadians/index.html#21
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208163809/http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org:80/exhibit/web/Display/article/35/10/;jsessionid=C0A9947D5365E2DED5583C2D8B75DBB4?lang=en to http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/35/10/;jsessionid=C0A9947D5365E2DED5583C2D8B75DBB4?lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207231059/http://ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_MNO/Plaque_Outside05.html to http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_MNO/Plaque_Outside05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015
I need to edit because of bad grammar

Helborne (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change to the grammar, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isaac Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725042206/http://www.riverraisinbattlefield.org/the_battles.htm to http://www.riverraisinbattlefield.org/the_battles.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/35/10/%3Bjsessionid%3DC0A9947D5365E2DED5583C2D8B75DBB4?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731175319/http://www.niagaraparks.com/heritage/plaques.php to http://www.niagaraparks.com/heritage/plaques.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050710081754/http://www.friendsoffortgeorge.ca/bm.htm to http://www.friendsoffortgeorge.ca/bm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018
there is "in the order of the bath" that should be "of the order of the bath" 2605:E000:9149:A600:CC3E:AEF9:B84:F95F (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "membership in the Order of the Bath" is the correct phraseology because it isn't specifying the rank. HTH Natty10000 &#124; Natter  02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Rank in the Order is always of Knight regardless which rank. And it is really not a "membership" in the sense of a special interest group as it is a honor that is at the pleasure of a the bestower. You are of the Order, not in the order. And you are always a Knight although the distinction has classes. This is bourne out by the preponderance of hits for one over the other. ZSome may say it is grammar and some may say it is only style but it does reflect on how others look upon how it is expressed. Cousin Liz would never say, "Knight in the Order of the Bath." Just as pertrubed would be her grandfather about her grandmother coming down to dinner wearing a particular medal of an Order on what is traditionally reserved treating it as jewelry rather than an honour that is it.2605:E000:9149:A600:9CA0:455C:F518:2D1 (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Companions are knights. DrKay (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018
"earned him a knighthood, membership in the Order of the Bath," should more accurately be reflected with the following: "he was appointed Knight of the Order of the Bath,"

the order of the bath is not one distinction but several levels of distinctions within the same order. Every person appointed to the order is not a knight but every person appointed to the order is of the order. 2605:E000:9149:A600:AD5C:6551:85D8:948D (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to "knighthood in the Order of the Bath". DrKay (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018
You are appointed a Knight when you are "of the Order of the Bath" but never are you appointed a knight "in the order of the Bath" You are a knight of the Order", not in the order. There are various classes of knights. It is not a matter of a knighthood coming with the Order of the Bath. 2605:E000:9149:A600:9CA0:455C:F518:2D1 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with "knighthood in the Order". DrKay (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.svg

Wrong regiment
The link for the 49th foot leads to the Royal Berkshire Regiment which would only have been correct after amalgamation in 1881. Brock's regiment was the "49th (Princess Charlotte of Wales's) (Hertfordshire) Regiment of Foot". He has mentioned in that article. I have tried to correct this but the multiple parentheses upset the code. Could someone with more experience please fix this? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was linked further down, so I've moved the link up to the first mention. DrKay (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Family commemoration
I have contact information for Brock's family in Guernsey i want to publish on the page that the family and friends still to this day celebrate his death by placing a wreath in the water in the harbour not sure how to add to the page though i'm am amateur Brock historian, went to Brock University and was the master of ceremonies, portraying and walking as Brock in the 1991 Niagra Grape and Wine Festival Parade Don4mancanada (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Such material would not a reliable source to be added to Wikipedia, as it would otherwise be difficult (if not impossible) to verify the statements from Wikipedia contributors. If there is a newspaper or other media that has covered the commemoration, link to it (or provide details for offline sources) so that we can evaluate it. Mind  matrix  17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)