Talk:Voting behavior

General note on this page and needed additions
Voting behavior is a widely studied topic, and this article stub is a work in progress. Socrates27 and I have been mainly contributing to the sections on this page that relate to the influence of affect on voting behavior; however, the topic of voting behavior is much broader and has a long history in the political science literature. Our hope is that others will help to flesh out other important areas of scholarship in this area, such as the pioneering "Columbia Studies", Downs' rationalist voter model, the so-called Michigan school of thought, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joahero (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporting on Feedback
1) Most of the literature sources are not listed on line. For those retrieved on the Internet there is provision of urls but in cases where the document was accessed on sites like Jstor, this kind of reference would not be helpful as access is not available for everyone. 2) Currently my colleague and I are expanding our knowledge on the topic but did not come across any "voting behavior types" classification. I will research some more and seek to update the article accordingly, if possible. Socrates 27 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the affective states section
Just added a few things on affective influence and realized I was not logged in. However, the additions look good. Will work on the last section shortly.Socrates 27 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate section for voting behavior
My colleague and I are currently take a psychology class and working on political behavior and we feel that the sub category on voting behavior in this article deserves an article on its own. We will go ahead and create a stub article, using the existing section on voting behavior. Within the next two week, we will be adding significant parts of the article.Socrates_27 13.51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a little bit proof-reading
Hi Guys! I just read your article! looks great really! however you might want to proof-read a little (I was going to do it myself but I guess it would be better if you do it yourself). Also add intext citations where you can! if encounter any problem just e-mail and ask :) Zoono92 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for the tip. We have adjusted a few things in the article and hope this makes it more user friendly. If you have any specific suggestions please advice and we will do our best to address them. Working on the intext citations at the moment. Many thanks for your comment Socrates 27 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Zoono92 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of behavioral topics
For an article on "behavior", coverage of relevant psychology, evolutionary psychology, group behavior and related topics seems exceptionally thin. For example, in The Psychology Behind Voting Behavior several solid topics are introduced that have zero or minimal coverage here:
 * altruism
 * egocentrism
 * Self-expression
 * Social pressure
 * Neighbors & yard signs - Some people proudly display their candidate’s logo via a bumper sticker or a yard sign. Our political ideologies are strongly linked to our values, and we use politics as a means of sharing those values with others.
 * Membership in a group
 * Social pressure from parents, friends, romantic partners, employers and religious leaders
 * Status - people who are perceived as credible and intelligent (The role of president of the United States is perhaps the ultimate in status attainment. The candidates are "close" to achieving that, therefore they are in some ways revered.)
 * Physical attractiveness
 * Fear
 * Events just before elections
 * News events
 * Traumatic events
 * "Transformational charisma" - transformational leaders who are confident, have expertise, seem emotionally strong, trustworthy, optimistic, and action-focused,etc.
 * Rational vs. Emotional persuasion
 * Rational persuasion presents information with strong arguments, facts, and logic.
 * Emotional (peripheral) appeals work primarily on attractiveness, likeability of his/her family, tone of voice, etc. People are often pressed for time or do not fully understand the issues and rely on the "peripheral route" as a shortcut.

Here are some possible leads for more material and/or "see also" cross referencing:
 * Astroturfing
 * Authoritarian personality
 * Cognitive distortion
 * Community psychology
 * Contentious politics
 * Doublespeak
 * Evolutionary psychology
 * Exaggeration
 * Experimental political science
 * Group behavior
 * Group development
 * Image restoration theory
 * Impression management
 * Informational social influence
 * Issue advocacy ads
 * List of political catchphrases
 * Locus of control
 * Mass media and American politics
 * Media manipulation
 * Minimisation (psychology)
 * Normative social influence
 * Outrage factor
 * Overview of 21st-century propaganda
 * Party platform
 * Policy by press release
 * Political communication
 * Political economy
 * Political psychology
 * Political_sociology
 * Political symbolism
 * Politico-media complex
 * Propaganda
 * Public choice
 * Reputation management
 * Social identity theory
 * Social media and political communication in the United States
 * Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016
 * Sound bite
 * Weasel words

Some current popular articles might provide clues to the relevant and current academic literature:
 * The psychology of voting behavior: A literature review
 * The psychology of voting: an emotional matter?
 * The Psychology of Manipulation in Political Ads
 * The science of political advertising
 * The psychology of voting
 * Psychology of Voting and Election Campaigns Abstracts
 * the Face of It: The Psychology of Electability

One academic paper Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity (Feldman & Johnston 2013) implies that voting behavior is more complex than liberal/conservative. They favor a two factor model comprised of the following components:

Religiosity
 * Would you say your religion provides some guidance in your day-to-day living, quite a bit of guidance, or a great deal of guidance in your day-to-day life?
 * People practice their religion in different ways. Outside of attending religious services, do you pray several times a day, once a day, a few times a week, once a week or less or never?
 * Outside of attending religious services, do you read the Bible several times a day, once a day, a few times a week, once a week or less or never?

Egalitarianism
 * Our society should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither agree nor disagree, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with this statement?
 * We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country.
 * One of the big problems in this country is that we don't give everyone an equal chance.
 * This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.
 * It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.
 * If people were treated more equally in this country we would have many fewer problems.

Authoritarianism
 * Although there are a number of qualities that people feel that children should have, every person thinks that some are more important than others. I am going to read you pairs of desirable qualities:
 * Independence or respect for elders.
 * Obedience or self-reliance.
 * Curiosity or good manners.
 * Being considerate or well behaved.

Need for Cognition
 * Some people like to have responsibility for handling situations that require a lot of thinking, and other people don't like to have responsibility for situations like that. What about you? Do you like having responsibility for handling situations that require a lot of thinking, do you dislike it, or do you neither like it nor dislike it?
 * Some people prefer to solve simple problems instead of complex ones, whereas other people prefer to solve more complex problems. Which type of problem do you prefer to solve: simple or complex?

Need for Cognitive Closure
 * Do you like unpredictable situations, dislike them, or neither like nor dislike them (branching format with nine possible response categories ranging from “Like a Great Deal” to “Dislike a Great Deal”)?
 * When you don't understand the reason why something happens in your life, how uncomfortable does that make you feel [Extremely uncomfortable, very uncomfortable, moderately uncomfortable, slightly uncomfortable, or not uncomfortable at all? / Not uncomfortable at all, slightly uncomfortable, moderately uncomfortable, very uncomfortable, or extremely uncomfortable]?
 * Of the situations when you see two people disagreeing with one another, in how many of them can you see how both people could be right [All of them, most of them, about half of them, a few of them, or none of them? / None of them, a few of them, about half of them, most of them, or all of them]?

Political Sophistication
 * Now we have a set of questions concerning various public figures. We want to see how much information about them gets out to the public from television, newspapers and the like.
 * The first name is TRENT LOTT. What job or political office does he NOW hold?
 * WILLIAM REHNQUIST?
 * TONY BLAIR?
 * JANET RENO?
 * What U.S. state does George W. Bush live in now?
 * What U.S. state is Al Gore from originally?
 * What U.S. state does Dick Cheney live in now?
 * What U.S. state does Joseph Lieberman live in now?

Improvements of the text
Some changes I would like to add to the voting behaviour page: I would like to make some improvements to this Wikipedia page. I consider the topic of voting behaviour to be an important one. Therefore, I would like to update its content, ensure that the sources I am using are accessible to all.

- What my aim is to improve on the introduction and ensure that the sources used are accessible. - I would also like to edit some of the sections (however many I can get through) so that they site sources which can be accessed easily. - Another idea I had was to create some different headings, so it is easier for people to find exactly what they are looking for.

S Haaberg (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Small update on what I would like to do. - I would like to ensure that the source used in "Voting behavior types" is viewable to the reader. As well as expand on this section and make it more elaborate with by using multiple articles. (this would help the article be a bit more balanced, as there are two short sections and one very long) - if I have the ability I would like to go over the long section as well and see if I can improve on the visibility on some of the sources and paraphrasing

S Haaberg (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed the following because there was no clear citation: "Palfrey and Poole discuss this in their paper on information and voting behavior. These elements have a direct effect on where one's party identification lies. This is largely due to the ability to have the party agendas available and increase the understanding and recognition of the topics which are being dealt with. This in combination with Schofield and Reeves means that the progression of the identification comes from recognition and the loyalty is followed if they find satisfaction in how the party performed, then the likelihood of a re-occurring vote in the next election is high."Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I modified the lead consulting the following removed information: "In a Political Science and theoretical context, Voting behavior is a form of electoral behavior. Understanding voters' behavior can explain how and why decisions were made either by public decision-makers, which has been a central concern for political scientists, or by the electorate. To interpret voting behavior both political science and psychology expertise were necessary and therefore the field of political psychology emerged including electoral psychology.

To make inferences and predictions about behavior concerning a voting decision, certain factors such as gender, race, culture or religion must be considered. Furthermore, a more theoretical approach can be taken when viewing electoral behavior; such as viewing wealth and region in which a voter lives which will impact upon their electoral choices. Moreover, key public influences include the role of emotions, political socialization, tolerance of diversity of political views and the media. The effect of these influences on voting behavior is best understood through theories on the formation of attitudes, beliefs, schema, knowledge structures and the practice of information processing. For example, surveys from different countries indicate that people are generally happier in individualistic cultures where they have rights such as the right to vote. Additionally, social influence and peer effects, as originating from family and friends, also play an important role in elections and voting behavior. The degree to which voting decision is affected by internal processes and external influences alters the quality of making truly democratic decisions. Bruter and Harrison also suggest that the decision is not a mere expression of a preference as they say that voters embrace a role in elections and differentiate between 'referees' and 'supporters'."Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective
— Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed the following section as the statistics aren't supported by text: "Statistics

In the 2016 US Presidential Election, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012. In 2016, turnout increased to 65.3 percent for non-Hispanic whites, but decreased to 59.6 percent for non-Hispanic blacks. 2016 was only the second election ever where the share of non-Hispanic black voters decreased, from 12.9 percent in 2012 to 11.9 percent in 2016. When analyzed together, reported turnout by age, race and Hispanic origin differed in 2016 as well. In comparison to 2012, younger non-Hispanic whites between the ages of 18 to 29 and between the ages of 30 to 44 reported higher turnout in 2016, while voting rates for the two oldest groups of non-Hispanic whites were not statistically different. Meanwhile, for non-Hispanic blacks, turnout rates decreased in 2016 for every age group. For other race non-Hispanics and Hispanics of any race, voting rates between 2012 and 2016 were not statistically different for any age groups."Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There were no citations on the following section so I have removed it and placed it here: "Individuals use different criteria when voting, based on the type of election it is. Therefore, voting behavior is also conditional to the election which is held. Different factors are in play in a national election vs. a regional election based on the voter's preferred outcome. For each individual, the order of importance of factors like loyalty, satisfaction, employment, gender, religion and class may look very different in a national or regional elections, even when the elections occur with relatively similar candidates, issues and time frames. For example, religion may play a larger role in a national election than in regional one, or vice versa. The importance of the location in which these types of elections occur in an urban or rural environment is an additional factor to voter mindset." Additionally, I have noticed copyright violations in the voting behavior types section from the following source: Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed the following due to copyright violations: Loss aversion

"The loss aversion theory by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman is often associated with voting behavior as people are more likely to use their vote to avoid the effect of an unfavorable policy rather than supporting a favorable policy. From a psychological perspective, value references are crucial to determine individual preferences. Furthermore, it could be argued that the fact that loss aversion is found only in high stakes serves as a validation of loss aversion, because it shows that even when people care much about the outcome of their decision they are still biased. This is evident when it comes to elections and referendums, as voters make their choices based on the cost benefit analysis. For instance, it has been suggested that the loss aversion theory can be used to explain why negativity bias played a crucial role in the 2014 campaign for the Scottish independence referendum." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksarethebestbird (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I am placing the extremely relevant section on affective influence here and removing it from the wiki draft because it has numerous copyright infringements from this source http://www.ijirset.com/upload/2016/july/274 An.pdf and I do not have the capacity to go through all of it and reword/modify like I did for Voting Behavior Types, which also previously was copied word for word. I hope that someone works on this and I have made sure to include the work here so it is not lost:

"Affective influence

A growing body of literature on the significance of affect in politics finds that affective states play a role in public voting behavior that can be both beneficial and biasing. Affect here refers to the experience of emotion or feeling, which is often described in contrast to cognition. This work largely follows from findings in psychology regarding the ways in which affective states are involved in human judgment and decision-making.

Research in political science has traditionally ignored non-rational considerations in its theories of mass political behavior, but the incorporation of social psychology has become increasingly common. In exploring the benefits of affect on voting, researchers have argued that affective states such as anxiety and enthusiasm encourage the evaluation of new political information and thus benefit political behavior by leading to more considered choices. Others, however, have discovered ways in which affect such as emotion and mood can significantly bias the voting choices of the electorate. For example, evidence has shown that a variety of events that are irrelevant to the evaluation of candidates but can stir emotions, such as the outcome of football matches and weather, can significantly affect voting decisions.

Mechanisms of Affective Influence on Voting

Several variables have been proposed that may moderate the relationship between emotion and voting. Researchers have shown that one such variable may be political sophistication, with higher sophistication voters more likely to experience emotions in response to political stimuli and thus more prone to emotional biases in voting choice. Affective intensity has also been shown to moderate the relationship between affect and voting, with one study finding a doubling of estimated effect for higher-intensity affective shocks.

Affects of Emotion on Voting Behavior

The differential effect of several specific emotions have been studied on voting behavior:

Surprise – Recent research suggests that the emotion of surprise may magnify the effect of emotions on voting. In assessing the effect of home-team sports victories on voting, Healy et al. showed that surprising victories provided close to twice the benefit to the incumbent party compared to victories overall.

Anger – Affective theory would predict that anger increases the use of generalized knowledge and reliance upon stereotypes and other heuristics. An experiment on students at the University of Massachusetts Amherst showed that people who had been primed with an anger condition relied less upon issue-concordance when choosing between candidates than those who had been primed with fear. In a separate laboratory study, subjects primed with the anger emotion were significantly less likely to seek information about a candidate and spent less time reviewing a candidate's policy positions on the web.

Anxiety – Affective intelligence theory identifies anxiety as an emotion that increases political attentiveness while decreasing reliance on party identification when deciding between candidates, thus improving decision-making capabilities. Voters who report anxiety regarding an election are more likely to vote for candidates whose policies they prefer, and party members who report feeling anxious regarding a candidate are twice as likely to defect and vote for the opposition candidate. Others have denied that anxiety's indirect influence on voting behavior has been proven to the exclusion of alternative explanations, such as the possibility that less preferred candidates produce feelings of anxiety, as opposed to the reverse.

Fear – Studies in psychology has shown that people experiencing fear rely on more detailed processing when making choices. One study found that subjects primed with fear spent more time seeking information on the web before a hypothetical voting exercise than those primed with anger.

Pride – Results from the American National Elections Survey found that pride, along with hope and fear, explained a significant amount of the variance in peoples' 2008 voting choices. The size of the effect of expressions of pride on voting for McCain was roughly one third of the size of the effect of party identification, typically the strongest predictor. Appeals to pride were also found to be effective in motivating voter turnout among high-propensity voters, though the effect was not as strong as appeals to shame.

Neuroticism- This is usually defined as emotional instability characterized by more extreme and maladaptive responses to stressors and a higher likelihood of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, anger, and fear). This has become a big influencer in recent elections and referendums, like the 2016 EU referendum and 2016 Presidential Election, have been run from a populist standpoint, where they have played upon voters fears. This conception of neuroticism as a lowered threshold for detecting and responding to stimuli as threatening or dangerous suggests that individuals high on this trait will be more receptive to campaigns, such as populism, which specifically prey on fears of looming threats and dangers. Research shows that once these fears have been activated, they can affect decisions of all kinds, including voting behavior.

Effects of voting on emotion

The act of voting itself can produce emotional responses that may bias the choices voters make and potentially affect subsequent emotional states.

A recent study on voters in Israel found that voters' cortisol levels, the so-called "stress hormone," were significantly higher immediately before entering a polling place than personal baseline levels measured on a similar, non-election day. This may be significant for voting choices since cortisol is known to affect memory consolidation, memory retrieval, and reward- and risk-seeking behavior. Acute stress may disrupt decision making and affect cognition.

Additionally, research done on voters in Ann Arbor and Durham after the US 2008 elections showed partial evidence that voting for the losing candidate may lead to increased cortisol levels relative to levels among voters who chose the winning candidate.

Moreover, Rui Antunes indicated within a 2010 academic study that a personal relationship created with the political parties in America. This may be due to the strong influence in the USA of the development of this relationship through a socialization process which is somewhat caused by the nature of the individual's background.

Practical implications Weather

Another variable which has been shown to influence voting behavior is the weather. Hot temperatures can have divergent effects on human behavior, due to the fact that it can lead to heightened arousal. As such, increases in arousal due to increases in temperature might impact the result of an election, because of its proposed impact on collective behaviors such as voter turnout. Previous studies have found that hot temperatures increase anger, which, in turn, motivates people to vote.

Political campaigns

The use of emotional appeals in political campaigns to increase support for a candidate or decrease support for a challenger is a widely recognized practice and a common element of any campaign strategy. Campaigns often seek to instill positive emotions such as enthusiasm and hopefulness about their candidate among party bases to improve turnout and political activism while seeking to raise fear and anxiety about the challenger. Enthusiasm tends to reinforce preferences, whereas fear and anxiety tends to interrupt behavioral patterns and leads individuals to look for new sources of information.

Political surveys

Research findings illustrate that it is possible to influence a person's attitudes toward a political candidate using carefully crafted survey questions, which in turn may influence his or her voting behavior. A laboratory study in the UK focused on participants' attitude toward former Prime Minister Tony Blair during the 2001 pre-election period via a telephone survey. After gauging participants' interest in politics, the survey asked the participants to list either i) two positive characteristics of the Prime Minister, ii) five positive characteristics of the Prime Minister, iii) two negative characteristics of the Prime Minister, or iv) five negative characteristics of the Prime Minister. Participants were then asked to rate their attitude toward Blair on a scale from 1 to 7 where higher values reflected higher favorability.

Listing five positive or negative characteristics for the Prime Minister was challenging; especially for those with little or no interest in politics. The ones asked to list five positive characteristics were primed negatively towards the politicians because it was too hard to name five good traits. On the contrary, following the same logic, those who were to list five negative, came to like the politician better than before. This conclusion was reflected in the final survey stage when participants evaluated their attitude toward the Prime Minister.

Military voting behavior

Recent research into whether military personnel vote or behave politically than the general population has challenged some long-held conventional wisdom. The political behavior of officers has been extensively studied by Holsti, Van Riper & Unwalla, and Feaver & Kohn In the United States, particularly since the end of the Vietnam War, officers are strongly conservative in nature and tend to identify with the Republican Party in the United States.

Enlisted personnel political behavior has only been studied more recently, notably by Dempsey, and Inbody. Enlisted personnel, often thought to behave and vote as did officers, do not. They more nearly represent the general population. In general, the usual demographic predictors of voting and other political behavior apply to military personnel.

Technological implications Access to technology

In an era in which reliance upon technology has been increasing, many [who?] have become accustomed to using technology and therefore would find it very difficult to function and make decisions without it. As a result, voting behaviour has been changing significantly in recent years due to these advancements in technology and media, "tracing the rise of email, party websites, social media, online videos and gamification, scholars have shown, since the 1990s, parties have become heavily dependent on digital technology." This portrays just how important access to technology is, as many will alter their views on which political party to vote for, whether to vote at all and whether they encourage the next generation to vote based upon what they learn whilst using technology. Figures show that even in a country like India, ravaged with poverty, the high importance of technology in comparison to the importance of hygiene as: "far more people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet and improved sanitation." Evidently, access to technology is not only important, it will soon become essential to allow a voter to gain a full understanding of their voters rights as well as helping them to make the important decision of whom to vote for since "casting a vote is the main way in which people participate in the democratic process."

Impacts of social media

Research has shown that due to the advancements in technology over the last two decades, politicians and their political parties are becoming heavily reliant on technology and in particular social media outlets such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. Martin Moore supported this view in his book, "A survey conducted amongst British journalists that summer found that seventy per cent were using Twitter for reporting." Therefore voters are now accessing information from less conventional outlets; yet the ease allows for politicians to expand their reach from the eldest generations, right down to the younger generations. Although social media has many positive implications, the lack of monitoring and accessibility opens a gateway for foreign interference in elections and indoctrination of voters.

Loss aversion

The loss aversion theory by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman is often associated with voting behavior as people are more likely to use their vote to avoid the effect of an unfavorable policy rather than supporting a favorable policy. From a psychological perspective, value references are crucial to determine individual preferences. Furthermore, it could be argued that the fact that loss aversion is found only in high stakes serves as a validation of loss aversion, because it shows that even when people care much about the outcome of their decision they are still biased. This is evident when it comes to elections and referendums, as voters make their choices based on the cost benefit analysis. For instance, it has been suggested that the loss aversion theory can be used to explain why negativity bias played a crucial role in the 2014 campaign for the Scottish independence referendum."Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The following is a lead section that incorporates discussion of political psychology and affective influence on voting behavior; it may be useful when that section is reworded and added back into the article: "In a Political Science and theoretical context, voting behavior is a form of electoral behavior. Understanding voters' behavior can explain how and why decisions were made either by public decision-makers, which has been a central concern for political scientists, or by the electorate. The field of political psychology incorporates both political science and psychology. Political psychology researchers study ways in which affective influence may help voters make more informed voting choices, with some proposing that affect may explain how the electorate makes informed political choices in spite of low overall levels of political attentiveness and sophistication. Conversely, Bruter and Harrison suggest that electoral psychology encompasses the ways in which personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors affect citizens' electoral experience and behavior."Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ducksarethebestbird: It would appear that the copyright violation was by the IJRISET paper, not by us: The content in question was present on Wikipedia back in 2015, long before the article was published. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Edited Content on Gender
"Lastly, it is the influence of gender. Women are more likely to support left-leaning parties. One explanation for this is employment, as women are more likely to work in the public sector. Parties on the left tend to support a more involved welfare state and more funding for public sector jobs, and people dependent on a job within government-driven sectors would benefit from a leftist party political agenda."

The following was removed as it represents only one facet of research on gender and was not presented as such. See gender differences in voting behavior, specifically the gender gap in partisan preferences section for an updated section inserted below:

"There is mixed research regarding whether or not a gender gap in partisan preferences exists, and if it does exist to what extent. Research that affirms the existence of this gap emphasizes that women are more likely to support progressive left-leaning candidates than men. The cause of this shift is still being explored, but a prevalent theory indicates that gendered differences in voting behavior can at least in part be attributed to the growing presence of women in the workforce due to structural reform, improved accessibility of women to the education system, and the questioning of traditional gender roles. These developments have led women to be more supportive of left-leaning political parties that tend to prioritize issues especially salient to women. " Ducksarethebestbird (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)