Talk:Progress Party (Norway)

Far-right designation

I have found some sources that describe the party as far-right. I know this issue might have some multiple diputes. So I'm making this disccussion on the talk page to discuss whether the party is far-right or not. I hope many users join the talk and reveal their input about the issue. Jeff6045 00:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff6045 (talk • contribs)

The Progress Party is deeply resented by Norwegian socialist left.[1] It has been described with all sorts of unpleasantries, some subtle and some barely printable. Heptor (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me. My sources have no relevant with 'Socialist left'. Here are some sources that describe the party as far-right.Jeff6045 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As with the above-discussed "populist" label, the labels that are mentioned here are controversial and contentious. The policy of Wikpedia is to avoid the use of such labels unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution is recommended. The two articles that were brought forward do not represent the depth of the political debate on the topic. They both are articles in the foreign press written by journalists with little connection to Norway; characteristically, they only mention the Progress Party in passing. Conversely, the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration, and describe their own policy merely as restrictive. An article in Aftenposten by a Torstein Ulserød, a Norwegian jurist, compares the immigration policy of the Progress Party with that of the Centre Party, and finds the differences to be mostly in rhetorics. Heptor (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's well established by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Liftarn. English sources overwhelmingly describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist; in fact far-right appears to be the more common descriptor in English language sources. Whether the party describes itself as far-right is immaterial (no party really does that). Other articles on comparable parties such as Alternative for Germany offer guidance on the best way to phrase the first sentence in this case; Alternative for Germany is described in the first sentence as "a right-wing to far-right political party in Germany", which is exactly what the sources support in the case of the Progress Party too. The edit-warring IP 85.165.169.50, now blocked for persistent edit-warring and "falsely claiming consensus"[2], hasn't offered any reasons for removing these descriptors and the sources. I don't see any consensus for the removal of this material either; the only editors who have participated in discussion since the material was added were Liftarn and myself; there have also been significant developments in the party's political orientation earlier this year with the mentioned "patriotic beacon" resolution outlining a hardline anti-immigrant policy, so older discussions aren't really very relevant to this issue (the perception of AfD has also changed over time). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the claim that the party "describes their own policy merely as restrictive" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not the website of the Progress Party; I'm sure Alternative for Germany wouldn't agree with our or the media's portrayal of them either. The claim that "the Progress Party itself has no stated objective of prohibiting migration" is patently untrue; its largest and most important chapter by far (the Oslo chapter) and several of its elected MPs have explicitly called for a "total ban" on "non-western immigration" and a referendum over non-western immigration, and the Oslo chapter has adopted a policy aimed at making Norway what they call "a patriotic beacon" based on anti-immigration, climate change denial and "Norway first" politics; some MPs are eager to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats too; these views officially held by the largest chapter of the Progress Party and stated publicly by several of its MPs (as phrased by an MP: "Vi vil være tydelige på at klimaendringene ikke er menneskeskapte og ha total stans i ikke-vestlig innvandring"; ["we must be clear that climate change isn't man-made and that we want a total stop to non-western immigration"]) are clearly as far-right and anti-immigration as humanly possible. A phrase like "right-wing to far-right" takes into account that there are different wings of the party, and that some elements are clearly regarded as far-right, while other politicians may have less extreme (right-wing) views; mentioning far-right only as the second, alternative descriptor, after right-wing, is a very mild treatment of the party, based on precedent set in other articles (AfD etc.) and numerous sources. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I do notice that there have been sources saying that the national conservatives within the party have slowly been taking over from the libertarians. Ezhao02 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Taking over would be taking it too far. There was always a tension between the national conservatives and the libertarians within the party. Heptor (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

As a person placed fiercely on the Norwegian left who voted for the Red Party in both of the two last elections, I think I am unlikely to be very biased in favour of the FrP, but I think Egulbrandsen should refrain from adding these labels to the article. Obviously, the FrP doesn't describe themselves as "far-right", but such designations of the party are generally rare in Norway from others as well (including from the left). There is a difference between the FrP and the far-right parties in the rest of Europe. It's more a mix between a traditional right-wing conservative or liberalist party, on the one hand, and a right-wing populist party, on the other hand. The party's actual immigration policy is slightly more restrictive than that of the Conservative, Labour and Centre Party, but actually not by that much. The main difference from those parties is on emphasis and rethoric - the FrP sees a more restrictive immigration policy as one of the most important of its political targets. Many of its politicians are using very typical right-wing populist (yet not openly racist) anti-immigration rethoric. Yet, designating it as far-right is a bit far-fetched. Reports in foreign media is of limited importance as they are far from always accurate, neither on Norwegian politics or on other things. The statements made by the Oslo chapter is not the position of the party as a whole. Designating the party as a whole as extremist based on an analysis of the views of a minority within the party is not something an encyclopedia can do - this would be POV and OR, and hence unacceptable. Furthermore, the Oslo chapter appears to be sort of a "rebel chapter" within the party - this summer, they attempted to stage some sort of "coup" against Siv Jensen, which led several other chapters to demand that the party leadership abolished the Oslo chapter. Its views on climate change has also changed during the last decade, and practically the entire party leadership acknowledges it (although it doesn't appear to be a main issue for the party). Furthermore, I am not certain that environmental questions are appropriate to grade on the right/left spectrum. The far-right designation is also mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction: "It is often described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foriegn media". I think that should be sufficient. If a label like "far-right" should be introduced, it must be backed by a considerable consensus, and it isn't. --Te og kaker (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What matter is what reliable sources say, not what you think. // Liftarn (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion many times before, there is no consensus in the sources for the label that you propose. There was an RfC on this, please establish a new consensus. Heptor (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you need to discuss first. Although, since your edits are apparently based on your personal opinions and ideas rather than the sources, I doubt there is much to discuss. When the vast majority of English language sources describe the party as either far-right or right-wing populist, that's the descriptors that we use. Regarding your description of the party as "liberal": Some of its own key politicians, MPs, its largest chapter, its principal founding figure vehemently deny that the party has anything to do with liberalism. It is not commonly regarded as liberal in a scholarly context either. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you comment on the section above and the references cited therein? Heptor (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This was addressed already in the more recent discussion, and your three sources, not of very high quality, one of them self-published by the party, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of English reliable sources describe the party as far-right, anti-immigration and/or right-wing populist, not as "liberal." --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How did you arrive to the conclusion that these sources were not of the highest possible quality? As mentioned there, these are articles by a Norwegian professor of public policy from a reputable Norwegian university (titled "Don't call the Progress Party Populist"), an evaluation the leader of a major Norwegian think tank and a few others. You can also check a somewhat dated Hagelund, Anniken (May 2001). "A Matter of Decency? The Progress Party in Norwegian Immigration Politics". Sussex Migration Working Papers.. Citing a relevant passage Adjectives such as anti-immigration, rightwing, populist, new right are often used to describe the party, and can certainly provide the first few indications of what kind of political party this iss. But [...]. Heptor (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's also the issue of WP:WEIGHT. The sources denying the "far-right" descriptor are in the minority here. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also an issue of wp:label. Heptor (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Which ideologies should be listed in the infobox?

​​​​(see section title for the question I'm addressing here) From what I gather, there is a divide between libertarian members and nationalist/right-wing populist members of FrP. Widfelt writes, "By the early 1990s three factions could be detected. There was a liberal/libertarian wing, a Christian-conservative wing and a populist wing." Later, Widfelt also writes, "Since [1994] the party has, if anything, become less libertarian." Other sources also note this divide within the party. Additionally, at least one source has explicitly argued that the FrP is not "right-libertarian".

With that in mind, there are a few issues I believe need to be addressed:

• First, there is no clear mention of the (right-wing) populist factions the party. I believe that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be added to the infobox to make this clearer.
• Second, how should the ideologies be listed overall? Should both "libertarianism" and "populism" be put under a "factions" header (similar to the infoboxes for the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States)), or is it clear enough to just list "libertarianism" and (right-wing) "populism" without a "factions" label?
  • If we end up deciding to use a "factions" label, should there be a single ideology that would fit under a "majority" label (the label of "majority" wold not strictly be necessary, however) listed in addition to those factions (such as "national liberalism" or an equivalent)?

I look forward to reading your opinions on this topic. Please ask if any part of what I wrote does not make sense. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ezhao. Looking at the general policies of the party and the rhethoric they use on norwegian TV, i think it is clear that their policies remain of a national liberal character, with their campaigning and issue related focus being highly right-wing populist in nature. However, much of the factional landscape has changed within the party since the 90s. Since the founding of the more right-wing party The Christians in 2011, much of the christian faction has left FRP to join that party instead, although some religious rhethoric coming from a more populistic perspective have remained. Similarly, most of the generally libertarian faction has left post 2014 after the founding of the Capitalist Party, though some classical liberal and right-libertarian elements remain, including regarding FRP's view on welfare and state interventionism. Lastly though, many disillusioned members have over the years since 2002 left the party to join the Democrats in Norway, and in late 2020, a fair amount of members including most of the Oslo chapter, all with mixed nationalist and economically centrist views left FRP for the Democrats. As the party stands now, it has retained national liberalism and right-wing populism in most aspects, although classical liberalism, right-libertarianism and some conservatism still arguably remains, especially apparently among their youth. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Vif12vf. Does that mean that you think "right-wing populism" should be added without a "factions" label? Ezhao02 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, they have always had that kind of rhethoric, so I would say yes. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, we can get some others’ opinions too. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ezhao02, I also strongly support adding right-wing populism to the ideology part of the Infobox, and without any "factions" label. Although I support listing it first, before other ideologies. (It is irrelevant that the party itself does not like the "populist" label, incidentally, as we are here to write objective articles based on reliable third-party sources, not act as the party's public relations.)--Autospark (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: Thanks for the response. As mentioned below, FrP is slightly different from (i.e., more moderate than) other radical right parties, so what would be your opinion on the section Heptor quoted from the article and on potentially adding an explanatory footnote to the infobox? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vif12vf, Ezhao02. The article presently states that the progress party is described as populist by some authors, while other authors consider this description to be wrong:

[The progress party] has been described as populist, right-wing populist and sometimes far-right by academics, political commentators and foreign media.[18][19][20][21][22] Other academics say that describing the progress party as populist is wrong;[23][24][25] the term "populist" has itself been criticized as ill-defined[26] and unstable.[27] The party does not label itself as such."

Do you propose that this presentation should be amended? In what way? Heptor (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Heptor, thanks for bring this to our attention. First, I'd like to note that the first part of the sentence (the descriptions for populist/far-right) only cites media sources; I would prefer that these cite academic sources (which shouldn't be too hard to find). To address your point, I think we should look into it a bit more before coming into a conclusion. It's clear that FrP, more so than other parties associated with the radical right (Europe), has controversy over how populist it really is. As such, I would like to look into how many academics dispute the claim of "populist". For example, if a majority of academics describe the party as populist, with a relatively small minority that dispute this claim, then I think that "populism" or "right-wing populism" should be listed in the infobox, potentially with an explanatory footnote (as is done with "social democracy" for Direction – Social Democracy). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we share an enthusiasm for using academic sources. I will be happy to examine the matter further together with you. First, may I ask you to clarify the terminology that you are using? As noted in Gagnon et al, the term Populism/populist is not well-defined. Worse, it is often abused: in public discourse, it is often thrown in as a general insult, without substance. Other times people really mean something akin to a good old-fashioned demagogue. Perhaps we can include a discussion about why some scholars consider the Progress Party to be populist and some others disagree? Heptor (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: I would have to do some research to see if a note is warranted. First, I don't think the note about a minority of scholars disputing the term "populist" in general is warranted—I'd say that belongs in the article for right-wing populism, not in the article for the FrP. If there is a greater dispute over the term "right-wing populism" specifically for the FrP (i.e., more scholars dispute the characterization of "right-wing populist" for the FrP than for parties like the RN or AfD), then I believe a note would be warranted in this article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your main disagreement is over using the term "populist". Would you prefer "national conservatism" (i.e., listing both "National conservatism" and "Libertarianism" in the infobox)? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If third-party sources consistently describe FrP as a right-wing populist party, then the article (and the Infobox) should reflect that, as we are here to write objective encyclopaedic articles. Of course the party may reject that label, but then that does not make it different from many other 'populist' parties who also dislike being describe as such.--Autospark (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: I certainly agree with you, but I think Heptor's disagreement isn't about the party itself disputing the description (which, as you rightly point out, doesn't matter) but rather about some scholars disputing it (which does matter). Ezhao02 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ezhao02 it looks like you know the policy on neutrality as well as I do. If third-party sources were to consistently describe it as populist, then Wikipedia should as well. The sources I've seen so far are not good, and do very little to demonstrate a consensus in academia. What can we make out of this article in Politico about Christians’ crisis of faith threatening Norwegian government? I think the best thing we can do for this article is to expand the material on party's policy and ideology, how it is described in political research, by the media and by the party itself. The conclusion you ask for will come by itself. The party itself is also vague on disputing the description. They call themselves "libertarian" on their home page, however Siv Jensen said that she is proud to be a leader of a populist party. This term is so vague that it can really mean anything. What do you mean by it? Is populist a reference to Julius Ceasar and his populares, or to the same old demagoguery that had plagued democracies since the beginning, or perhaps to Adolf Hitler and his use of the said demagoguery in his rise to power? I'd certainly prefer "National conservatism" in the info box, Ezhao02 thanks for asking. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

​​​@Heptor: I agree that the sources currently used aren't very good, but as seen here, there are a good number of sources that do describe the Progress Party as right-wing populist. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's find ones that deals with the Progress Party specifically and improve the article? Heptor (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, Bjerkem (2016)? Heptor (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's a good idea. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's do it then! Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a page from a book that looks at some of the current research, where some scholars (including well-known ones like Cas Mudde) have been hesitant to classify the FrP as populist, while ultimately concluding, "it was surely amongst the mildest versions of right-wing populist parties in Europe." Ezhao02 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​Hi all, I added right-wing populism to the infobox with a footnote. Could you let me know whether the footnote is acceptable to you? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thats a good footnote in my opinion! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This footnote is very subtle, and suggests that Wikipedia supports the position that the Progress Party is right-wing populist. Such summary does not agree with the discussion in the section Progress_Party_(Norway)#Ideology_and_political_positions, which describes a variety of opinions in the sources. The situation hasn't changed since the previous RfC. I don't think it would be very extraordinary of me to ask that another RfC be conducted to establish consensus. Heptor (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: How would you propose rewriting it? Certainly, the footnote should reflect a summary of the discussion in Progress_Party_(Norway)#Ideology and political positions. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to add, I don't like how this article has been changed. We should not be writing articles that say "political party X is described as ideology Y, but rejects that, and sees itself as ideology Z" (or similar) in the lede. We should be presenting political parties objectively, but how third-party reliable sources describe them. Otherwise it comes across as unofficial PR.--Autospark (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: I agree with your general viewpoint on that. The issue here is not that the party disputes the label "right-wing populism". The issue is that there are academics (not members of the party) who dispute the label. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: I think Ezhao02 answered it very well. If a party sees itself as representing ideology Z, but reliable sources agree that ideology Y fits much better than ideology Z, than we could clearly state in Wikipedia's voice that this party has ideology Y. This is not the case with the subject matter presently discussed. Heptor (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Hope you will forgive the delay in response. I think we both understand that it is difficult to find a right way to formulate this footnote. So if I may ask you, why should it be so vital for this article to summarize the position of the progress party in a vaguely defined and vaguely negative word in the info box? Considering the edit history and the talk page, there had hardly been any interest about anything else in this article. Heptor (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: Sorry for the late response, but thanks for the question. I believe it's important to note "right-wing populism" because FrP is generally associated with that party family, and reliable sources often describe FrP as "right-wing populist". Even though FrP is one of the most moderate parties described as such, which may make the label somewhat more difficult, I believe it important to represent the (quite common) viewpoint that FrP is "right-wing populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Expanding the section Ideology and political positions

I'm trying to expand the discussion about populist aspects of the progress party in section Ideology and political positions. I'm now comparing definitions of "populism" in Bjerkem (2016)and in Gagnon, Beausoleil (2018). It would be nice to have some examples of specific policies that are considered populist. I do get an impression that the Progress Party is rather skeptical towards what they consider to be the elites, but I struggle top put a finger on any specific policies that can be used as examples. I hope to anchor this discussion in something specific. Is it a good idea? Any suggestions for policies that could be listed? Heptor (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Heptor: If I remember correctly, the Progress Party's immigration policy (or at least the ideas of factions within the party) has been described as "populist". Ezhao02 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more correctly described as national-conservative? Heptor (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. Do you know which description is more common? Ezhao02 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

They certainly don't describe themself as national-conservative. Citing Siv Jensen, It's fine to be national-conservative and be a member of the Progress Party, as long as one recognizes that the Progress Party is a liberalist people's party. This is a moderation of her earlier position, that those who wish the Progress Party to become national conservative should find themselves another party. The description Right-wing Populist is certainly more common, but it is disputed. Citing the article, The Progress Party is sometimes described as right-wing populist,[126][127][128][129][4] a categorization that is rejected both by the party itself and by other observers including the current Prime Minister Erna Solberg and some academics.[130][131][132][133][134] It has also been described as Europe's most moderate populist party. Heptor (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Fatherland League De facto predecessor to the Progress Party -Info Box-

From what I read on this article it seems like the Fatherland League (Norway) is the De facto predecessor to the Progress Party (Norway). Because of this I think this should be included in the info box. Keep in mind Defacto isn't the same as by law.

@Vif12vf You seem to disagree with this statement. May I get your opinion on the matter?

Zyxrq (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

FRP was founded over 30 years after the Fatherland League was banned, by a person who never held a central role in the league as a whole. Aside from this lack of any real connection between the two, they also diverged ideologically. The League was corporatist and ended up favouring a more New Deal-like approach and a more planned economy, whereas FRP is right-libertarian and opposes taxation and social welfare, and supports increased privatization of the public sector. The only real similarities are conservative and anti-communist values, several other parties founded during and after the cold war has held such values, making FRP far from unique. Even de facto would be a rather big stretch. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Far-right descriptor

In Special:Diff/1173915485, language has been reintroduced to the article explaining that the Progress Party has also been described as far-right. I agree with this content addition, since the neutral point of view policy requires the article to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there was no valid policy-based argument for excluding the far-right descriptor from the article.

I've removed the text describing the Progress Party as "most moderate" in Wikipedia's voice in Special:Diff/1176484626/1178021777, since that language is contradicted by the reliable sources that describe the Progress Party as far-right. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote like on the political position (similar to Swiss People's Party's page) could be added in the future? Perhaps it could be added now too if you feel it could be with the appropriate sources you've found. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the addition and I've attached the same inline citation to the footnote. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Why clog up the Infobox (which already has too much listed in the adjacent Ideology field)? The mention of the party’s description as far-right by some sources is already mentioned in the lede and “Ideology and political position” section.— Autospark (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that the "Political position" field reads "Right-wing to far-right", I've removed the footnote to simplify the infobox. "Right-wing to far-right" does appear to be the most common way to indicate in the infobox when a political party is described as both right-wing and far-right; see Brothers of Italy, Freedom Party of Austria, and Greek Solution for a few examples. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a recent trend, sticking footnotes in Infoboxes when the same information can and should be communicated in the article lede and relevant subsections, and one I think needs to be reversed.— Autospark (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

At least in this article, it seems like footnotes were used as a half-step or equivocation when there were sufficient reliable sources to support a descriptor, but enough editors opposed that descriptor despite the presence of these sources. It doesn't look like we have that issue right now. — Newslinger talk 05:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not about rejecting a "descriptor" or not, it's about whether to place it in the Infobox. Infoboxes should be kept as minimal as possible. The far-right descriptor is a perfectly valid one in this case, based on reliable sources – the issue is whether it should be in the Infobox as well as the article body.-- Autospark (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark: stuffing infoboxes with ideologies, positions and sources is not a good idea as the infobox serves as a summary of the article, whose sections can gather all the useful, sourced and consensual infos on the party. Also, I think that the "far-right" label is too frequently used: as for "far-left", it should be used only for fringe or authoritarian parties—the Progress Party is neither of them and, yes, it is arguably one of the most moderate parties of its kind. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)