Talk:People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The PDPA wasn't a communist party, it was a left-wing nationalist party. From William Blum's Killing Hope:

After the April revolution, the new government under President Noor Mohammed Taraki declared a commitment to Islam within a secular state, and to non-alignment in foreign affairs. It maintained that the coup had not been foreign inspired, that it was not a “Communist takeover”, and that they were not “Communists” but rather nationalists and revolutionaries. (No official or traditional Communist Party had ever existed in Afghanistan.) But because of its radical reform program, its class-struggle and anti-imperialist-type rhetoric, its support of all the usual suspects (Cuba, North Korea, etc.), its signing of a friendship treaty and other cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union, and an increased presence in the country of Soviet civilian and military advisers (though probably less than the US had in Iran at the time), it was labeled “communist” by the world’s media and by its domestic opponents.[1] (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A few edits[edit]

I tried to make some clarification edits throughout the article. I filled out some of the Kalqi-Parchami split and the events surrounding the day of April 28, 1978 of the Saur Revolution, etc. Most of my sources came from Neamatollah Nojumi's work, The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan--Mikepope 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The head of the PDPA was Taraki. Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, Babrak Karmal, Khyber were the people who created the Party in the 60´s. When the Saur Revolution was succesed, Taraki were the President. He created in just 8 Month 800 Schools, 5000 Teachers in the Universitys, 500.000 Jobs and humaniterian laws like Marriage protection for woman etc.

Taraki was murdered by Amin because Taraki tried to murder Amin but he failed. Amin was only 100 days president of the State after he was murderd by an Special Kommando by the KGB.

Karmal and Najibullah were the last presidents.

At the moment this is in my view a dreadful article. Democratic Republic of Afghanistan is much better - though too long. --Henrygb 15:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it is dreadful, but it needs some editing to the arrangements and sections to conform to the conventions, but I'm still very much a novice at those tasks. I did fix some spelling and grammar because it bugged me and I was confused reading it. Mulp 00:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 1990 the partyname was changed in Watan Party (= Fatherland Party) and Marxism was officially abolished as party ideology in the period 1987-1990. Some former Watan/PDPDA-officials, like General Shahnawaz Tanay, later joined the Taliban. Nicklaarakkers (Dutch Wikipedia)

The PDPA was divided in two (later 3) wings,

  • a national-communist wing, called Khalq (People, or Masses);
  • a pro-Soviet wing, called Parcham (Banner, or Flag);
  • and a pro-Soviet wing, formed after the Soviet-invasion called Kar (Labour).

KHALQ-members were Pashtuni's/Pashtun-nationalists who wanted a Marxist state, combined with some nationalist elements. Leading figures: Taraki/ Amin/ Tanay. Amin the leader of the 'black Khalqi's', or nationalists, while Taraki was the leader of the 'red Khalqi's', or the communists.

PARCHAM-members were well-educated and sometimes from rich ancestory, like Karmal (son of an General) and Najibullah (son of a Chief of a Pashtun-tribe). Most of them weren't Pasthun's, although the last president, Najibullah was a Pashtun. The Parchami's wanted a broadbased 'National Front'-government, just like in the fourties in Easter-European countries. Some of them were quite loyal to the king and joined the Daoud-administration (1973-78). Leading figures: Karmal/ Khyber/ Najibullah

KAR-members were former 'red Khalqi's' who supported the Soviet-invasion, while the 'black Khalqi's', sometimes joined the Mujaheddin, and later the Taliban. Leading figure: Dastagir Pansheri

Nick Laarakkers (writer of the book Afghanistan 1919-2004)

The enthusiasism at the revolution bit might by true, but other than that this article is full of appallingly blatant POV -- sorry, but a party that was Soviet puppet (especially post-1979) had no chance of popularity in Afghanistan, as evidenced in the war. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

This article once had the progressive accomplishments of the PDPA listed (abolition of peonage, national literacy progam, universal healthcare, unprecedented gains for women). The redaction of these passages is clearly unacceptable and demonstrates a clear political bias on the part of the person who deleted this information.-- Nicky Scarfo

maybe you didn't read my edit summaries and what I said. the PDPA were never especially popular in Afghanistan, especially not in rural areas that were generally religiously conservative -- i would think even Russians would acknowledge this based on how bogged down the Red Army got in the country. most Communist states have enacted the kinds of reforms you're talking about, but if they are restored with John Pilger as the sole source and give the article a clear pro-Soviet bias again the article can and will be reverted. J. Parker Stone 21:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John Pilger is not a reputable source in your learned opinion, then? Well, where are your sources? Furthermore, resistance to a foreign occupier propping up its client regime has nothing to do with the PDPA's progressive accomplishments (whether popular or not)-- those stand independent of the mujahadeen struggle against the PDPA. Or would you edit out the attempts of Radical Republicans to bring about racial equality during Reconstruction simply because they were "unpopular" amongst most Southerners? Faulty logic, Mr. Stone. --Nicky Scarfo 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colonel Abdul Qadir Dagarwal

The name of this individual includes what appears to be his rank (Dagarwal) as his last name. Dagarwal is an Afghan rank which translates as "Colonel," thus his name appears to be Colonel Abdul Qadir Colonel - this seems unlikely (despite coverage at the time of the Saur Revolution that so names him). A reference to him at junior rank would clear up the issue. DavisGL (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I have an interest in the history of the far left, and quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia articles on the subject, so I'd be interested in giving this a review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Unfortunately, problems litter the prose throughout this page. Examples of problematic wording include "The Soviet Union set in Moscow...", and "On the 1 January 1965 Taraki with Babrak Karmal established..."
In other instances, the wording is acceptable for GA purposes, but could still be edited for clarity; for instance "The PDPA was known in Afghan society at that time as having strong ties with the Soviet Union..." could be simplified as "The PDPA were known for their strong ties to the Soviet Union..."
The prose could have done with a thorough peer review from a fluent English speaker before being brought to GA.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section, though generally suitable, fails on several points; for instance, the opening sentence announces when the party was formed, but not when it was dissolved. It also focuses to a great deal on the historical situation in Afghanistan at the time in which the party existed, to the detriment of discussing the party's policies and specific ideological affiliation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Certain sentences, such as "Most of the government's new policies clashed directly with the traditional Afghan understanding of Islam, making religion one of the only forces capable of unifying the tribally and ethnically divided population against the unpopular new government, and ushering in the advent of Islamist participation in Afghan politics", are completely unreferenced.

Most of the references do not follow the guide to layout, being incorrectly formatted and lacking page numbers.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It fails to discuss the structure of the party, or go into detail regarding such issues as its dissolution.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. There are a few words, such as "excessive" and "an ill-conceived land reform", which betray a POV bias on behalf of the author.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The images are of some relevence.
7. Overall assessment. Some good work has gone on here, and the editors responsible deserve to be congratulated, but I'm afraid to say that this isn't up to GA quality yet, due to the multiple reasons outlined above. Still, good luck with it! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideology (2)[edit]

There seem to be disagreements and/or misunderstandings around an eventual ‘ideology' of the PDPA. The word 'ideology' can be understood in at least two ways:

  1. The multitude of ideas that somehow form or influence the policies of a political party. In that sence of 'ideology' have I constructed the present section 2 'Ideology' in article PDPA on 10 April 2018.
  2. The perhaps more philosophical idea of 'a set of ideals, principles, etc., that pretend to explain how a society works and/or how it should work'. This seems more or less the definition (without reference sources to it) that is followed in the Wikipedia article List of political ideologies which lists many great words like Conservatism, Liberalism, Buddhism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc. etc..

The problem for us with such terms (listed under that second definition) however is that they seem always open to multiple interpretations (our article List of political ideologies therefore calls political ideology "the most elusive concept in social science").
Take for example Communism in the Wikipedia definition: "the philosophical…ideology whose goal is…a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership(...)". In that sense, we can only call PDPA 'Communist' if PDPA acknowledges itself as such, of which we have no information yet. Or Marxism–Leninism: the ideology with the "purpose…revolutionary development…into a socialist state(…)". Again, we have no information yet that PDPA ever confessed to that political ideology. If we go by the word of the PDPA itself – which seems the proper thing to do in matters of either religious or political belief – we can only call the PDPA "national democratic" (see People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#Ideology).

Colleague Vif12vf however, on 13 April 11:54, introduced a PDPA-ideology "Communism (;) Marxism-Lenism" in the so-called Infobox on top of the page. His stated motivation is: "It states the party ideology in the article's ideology-section". Which of the two meanings of the word 'ideology', as I've given above, does he want to follow there? Or does he want to follow yet another definition of the word? Anyway: that section People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#Ideology tells us not that PDPA confessed itself to be 'Communist', 'Marxist-Leninist' etc. ; and it would be (arbitrary) Original Research (or individual interpretation of a Wiki editor) to 'deduce' from that section that they were 'Communist' etc..[struck, --Corriebertus (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)] --Corriebertus (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't introduce the ideologies to the article, they are a long-time part of the article that people have removed and re-added for a long time. However you as several others removed the ideology without acctually trying to receive any form of concensus first. The Khalq-faction, the founding group within the PDPA had a strong Marxist-Leninist tendency, whereas the later Parcham-faction were usually regarded as somewhat more reformist, though still retaining most of the party's primary goals. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@(Tiberius=Vif12vf): You reproach me here on talk page for not seeking "consensus first" in this issue that you claim to have been controversial before:
  1. How was I to know it had been controversial before? Is there a rule that things may not be changed without first acquiring consensus? Is there a rule that things may not be edited when they have been "removed and re-added" before?
  2. The first thing however I did about this controversy was adhering a [citation needed] tag to the alleged 'ideology' in the Infobox, on 17 March 2018 and again on 18 March, which is a constructive form of seeking discussion/consensus. Toddy1 first (disruptively) removed the tag, and only after my second attempt came up with source Amstutz, p.34. Close study of that source resulted in my adding the present section 2 (Ideology) in the article on 10 April and motivatedly removing the old mention in Infobox of 'Communist/Marxist-Leninist' (C/ML).
  3. Wikipedia:Consensus indeed states that we must address "legitimate concerns" from other editors. I agree – but what are Tiberius' substantial (legitimate) concerns about this issue? He did not (yet) bother to give a clear and corroborated opinion in this talk section on the only issue at stake: is there enough evidence to mention 'Communist/Marxist-Leninist (C/ML)' as ideology of the PDPA?
  4. Under your pseudonym Vif12vf, you've alleged in an edit summary on the article on 13April2018(11:54), that 'the article's ideology-section' mentions the PDPA's ideology to be Communist/Marxist-Leninist (C/ML). I'd like you to specify that: I can't find that mention in that section, as I've stated already in my edit summary on 15 April. If you don't come back on the issue, we may assume you rest this case. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be quite safe to use the term Marxist-Leninist, at least for the period 1978-1988. There are multiple references to PDPA as a ML party, like
  • "Before and after the 1978 coup, including the first five years of Soviet occupation, the PDPA eschewed calling itself communist, preferring instead the term "national democratic." Yet its internal documentation made clear its Marxist orientation. A pamphlet printed in Kabul in 1978, A Short Information about the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, described the party as the "vanguard of the working class" and "Comrade Taraki" as an "experienced Marxist-Leninist" who had worked"
  • "The model called for the creation of an educated class, especially through Soviet training, that would become the primary political and economic force in Afghanistan. Soviet aid and state directed development would determine the growth of such a force in Afghanistan. Although publicly the PDPA did not advocate socialism or communism for Afghanistan, their constitution does declare the PDPA as the Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class of Afghanistan with the goals of "
  • "The PDPA after the Invasion In A Socialist Oriented State, Chirkin and Yudin classify the PDPA as a “revolutionary vanguard party of the working people.” They suggest that it can be considered to be in the process of evolving into a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. They note that “the 1982 Rules of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan define the PDPA as a new type of party, the highest form of political organization, the leading and guiding force of society that unites advanced"
  • "The PDPA was founded on January 1, 1965, by Nur Mohammed Taraki and Babrak Karmal, and soon thereafter split into its two factions, both of which published journals in the late 1960s. Given the traditional ant i -Communism of large sectors of the Afghan population, the party went to great lengths to hide its orthodox Marxism-Leninism. This tactic evidently worked quite well, since many observers were labeling it a "reformist-nationalist" party even after it took power in April 1978."
  • "PDPA Goals Taraki's supporters described him in 1976 as a 'long-standing Communist' and said the founding congress set the party goal of 'building a socialist society in Afghanistan based on adapting the morals of general truths and the Marxist- Leninist revolutionary principles to conditions in Afghanistan'. They said the congress 'established our Marxist-Leninist party."
--Soman (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There’s only one controversial issue on article 'PDPA' since 13 April 2018: can/should we designate the PDPA in the Infobox as Communist/ Marxist-Leninist (C/ML)? In your posting here, you don't express an argued opinion on that issue. Instead, you give a reasoning about 'safety' in using some term. What has the concept of safety to do with us making/altering the Wikipedia encyclopedia? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tiberius Jarsve (an alias of Vif12vf) noted/suggested that Khalq had a M-L tendency and Parcham was more reformist. Soman gave a list of arguments why PDPA would/could have been ML (in 1978–88). If such facts are true, relevant, and can be sourced, those editors are free to add them in the article – but those notes seem beside the point of THIS discussion. The controversy since days on the article(and reason for this talk section) is: what do we fill in as 'ideology' in the Infobox—if anything at all—and why: what is the corroboration (ref source) for it? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source cited in the infobox for PDPA being Marxist-Leninist contains the following on page 34: "Before and after the 1978 coup, including the first five years of Soviet occupation, the PDPA eschewed calling itself communist, preferring instead the term "national democratic." Yet its internal documentation made clear its Marxist orientation. A pamphlet printed in Kabul in 1978, A Short Information about the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, described the party as the "vanguard of the working class" and "Comrade Taraki" as an "experienced Marxist-Leninist" who had worked to spread Marxist-Leninism about the country." Later on the page it refers to the "Marxist PDPA". There are many other references in the book to the PDPA being Marxist, for example: "1978 Marxist coup" (page 240), "April 1978 Marxist revolution" (page 283), and to the "increasingly undependable Marxist government closely identified with the Soviet Union" (page 373).-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. In your posting here, you quote Amstutz as saying: "its internal documentation made clear its Marxist orientation". What is 'orientation'? This is speculation of Amstutz. To state in our article that PDPA was Communist and/or Marxist-Leninist (C/ML) we’d simply need a source saying they were (as I asked for with my [citation needed] tag, on 17 March and on 18 March 2018). Preferably, we'd need a source stating that the PDPA themselves have declared them to be C/ML, because being a follower of some religion or ideology is something a person or group can only decide for themselves (this is called freedom of conscience and religion). Source Amstutz does not provide either of such assertions.
  2. You speak of that book of Amstutz referring to the "Marxist PDPA", to the "1978 Marxist coup", to the "undependable Marxist government", etc.. But that's name-calling, labelling (a form of indoctrination of the reader), not stating, proving or arguing they were Marxist (see also point 1).
  3. In your edit summary of 16 April 2018, you speak of 'backing up', which means: further confirmation of a conclusion that was already drawn by someone somewhere. So I ask you: where in the article then do we find the original conclusion drawn that PDPA's ideology was Communist and/or Marxist-Leninist (C/ML), which was further confirmed ('backed up')—to your idea at least—by remarks in the book of Amstutz? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC) [ adapted/summarized Corriebertus (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) ]Reply[reply]
Corriebertus, I believe the "Ideology" section is good as it is now. There are many references (some were already present, plus more can be found with few minutes of Googling, such as this or that) showing that PDPA was considered as either "Marxist" or "Communist", this includes local population and not only Western sources. Since both of "Marxism" and "Communism" are part of the political ideologies and since this is how VAST MAJORITY of sources described PDPA it is pretty logical to use them in the "Infobox" under "Ideology" (especially since someone already added a citation to those claims). This is my personal opinion, though, and if you still disagree - perhaps you should start a formal vote on this "Talk" page and invite more participants though WP:RfC.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There’s only one controversial issue on article 'PDPA' since 13 April 2018: can/should we label the PDPA in the Infobox as Communist/ Marxist-Leninist (C/ML)? You state: it is ‘logical’ to mention them as such because a “VAST MAJORITY” of sources ‘describe’ them so. ‘Vast majorities’ that don’t get somehow substantiated, corroborated, are ofcourse no valid argument in a discussion (and you give us NO source describing them as such. You also say that references in section 'Ideology' show that PDPA "was considered" as Marxist etc.: I don't see anyone claiming in section 2 that anyone "considered" them so.) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox (ideology)[edit]

An Infobox should present a summary of the contents of the article, not invent/present new 'realities' that contradict the article. Now, clearly the section 'Ideology' in the article does not state the PDPA to be Communist/Marxist/Leninist. On the contrary, the section contains an explicit denial of that suggestion by a PDPA leader (in 1978).
Having intensive contacts, possibly even some common interests, with a powerful political party in a strong neighboring country (as PDPA had with the Soviet Leninist party) is far from equivalent (and not implying) to agreeing to all ideas of that foreign party, or to adhering to the ideology that foreign party adheres to.
(As for ref source Amstutz p.34: it does not say PDPA is Comm./M/L, it only suggests that. See discussion in previous talk section.) --Corriebertus (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If the party is far-left the ideology shouldn't exactly be Afghan-Nationalsm or any right wing nationalism. Either it should say something like Farleft of the PDPA was until 87 of that was when the party switched ideologies, unless the party was seen as nationalist since the beginning. Kommune12 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taraki and Karmal as Soviet agents[edit]

User Soman reverted my edit and gave the reason WP:RS. The book cited is written by a historian based on KGB documents. Would you like to explain why you think it's not reliable? See also:

Mitrokhin, Vasili (July 2009). "The KGB in Afghanistan". Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved July 4, 2022.

Maley, William (2021). The Afghanistan Wars (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-352-01100-5.

One was the Khalq (‘Masses’) faction, prominently led by Nur Muhammad Taraki (1917–1979) and Hafizullah Amin (1929–1979), both Ghilzai Pushtuns. This faction was Pushtun-dominated, with few Kabulis at the top. Taraki had been recruited as a Soviet agent in 1951 (Andrew and Mitrokhin, 2005: 386). The other was the Parcham (‘Banner’) faction, led by Babrak Karmal (1929–1996), a Persian-speaking Kabuli of Durrani Pushtun background. Karmal was also recruited as a Soviet agent in the 1950s, with the code name MARID (Andrew and Mitrokhin, 2005:387).

Sands, Chris; Qazizai, Fazelminallah (2019). Night Letters: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Afghan Islamists Who Changed the World. London: Hurst & Company. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-199-32798-0.

Babrak Karmal, the exiled head of the Parcham faction, was readied to be sent to Kabul as Amin’s replacement. Like Taraki before him, Karmal had been recruited by the KGB in the 1950s, working under the codename ‘Marid.’

--Jo1971 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]