Misplaced Pages

Talk:Antifeminism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:52, 20 November 2006 edit209.129.49.65 (talk) →point of view check← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:16, 26 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,219 edits →top: Chapter URL 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
==Adolf Hitler==
{{controversial}}
We must bid ''Auf Wiedersehen'' to Hitler as it is impossible to call him a specific opponent of feminist ideology, Frau Steinem's completely undocumented opinion notwithstanding. He simply held views on women which where very common in his era. If he stays, then every significant historical figure from the birth of Christ to WWI should be added as well. ] 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:Antifeminism/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 8
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Refideas
| {{cite book |editor1-last=Ging |editor1-first=Debbie |editor2-last=Siapera |editor2-first=Eugenia |title=Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism |date=2019 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-319-96226-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url-access=registration |via=]}}
| {{cite book |last1=O’Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=109–138 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter=The Militaristic Discourse of Anti-feminism |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
| {{cite book |last1=Ribieras |first1=Amélie |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=Emily K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=Alex |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=Chelsea |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |series=Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right |date=2022 <!--|edition=1st--> |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |pages=67–93 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter='I Want to Thank My Husband Fred for Letting Me Come Here,' or Phyllis Schlafly's Opportunistic Defense of Gender Hierarchy}}
}}
__TOC__


== Excessive United States perspective ==
==Article name==
Shouldn't this article be at ]? ] 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
:Yes. ] 01:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Odd how feminist minded wiki users have objected to the neutrality of this article, but not to the neutrality of feminism - could it be a simple case of blatant bias? {{unsigned|Karlmathews}}


I've just removed several references to US antifeminism for UNDUE. Looking through this article, I think it definitely skews to a US-centric perspective, although feminism is a global issue. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 12:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::The neutrailty of feminism? Feminism is about women, period, and is biased in everything it writes, says, advocates and does. Normally this bias is expressed as simple misandry, although it is often hidden in postmodernistic rhetoric. Here are a few feminist slogans.


== Men's rights movement ==
::If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send em all?


This has been inserted and removed and re-inserted in the lead; it probably ''should'' be covered in the article body, if only in a summary-style section linking to ], but it currently isn't. It'd be easy enough to cover - just a little bit summarizing ], with a toplink to that article. But where should it be placed in this article's structure? As a top-level subsection? Or does it fit into one of the existing subsections? -- ] (]) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::The best man for the job is a woman.


:The men's rights movement was placed in the 21st century section so it is in the body, although I'm also not sure exactly where it should go because it originated in the 20th century. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::Neutrality? It's not to be found and where present is seen as sexism against women and attacked.
::Well, we could always move it to the 20th century. If we did that we might add a sentence about how it started in the 70's as a generally pro-feminist men's liberation movement and then split into pro- and anti-feminist strands (which is covered in the history section of its own article.) --] (]) 03:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Heh, Cute quotes there, I have a page full of ones that are worse ] 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Yep that sounds like a good idea. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


== Feminism infobox ==
==Criticism of an antifeminist argument does not automatically make the critic a feminist==
Just as John Winthrop's opposition to Anabaptism on its anti-intellectual groundings didn't make John Winthrop an intellectual. ] 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Some points of potential interest. ==


:I believe that "Opposition to feminism" is bolded not because it is a section header but because it redirects to Antifeminism. Compare to the infobox on <nowiki>]</nowiki> ] ] 17:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Article needs some major meat IMHO.

I encourage editing some lines.

"Anti-feminist groups particularly point to the dramatic increase in the divorce rate and breakdown of the family since the rise of feminism, and note that crime statistics, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes . Their critics point out that correlation does not imply causation, that anti-feminist groups fail to consider social factors besides feminism, that social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions, and that feminism is not to blame for role models and gender roles that predate it.”

I'd argue that "critics point out..." should be changed to "critics argue...". There are strong statements of fact here that fail to account for potential responses of the antifeminists, particularly the claim about them FAILING to consider social factors. They may very well have taken them into account, but this article, as it is, will leave you in the dark.

"Antifeminists are fond of reports that conclude the Violence Against Women Act hurts men and does little to help women. (Let the Violence Against Women Act Expire Charlotte Allen)"

Again, while referring to the VAWA may be common among antifeminists, it is somewhat suspect to say that they are "fond of" such reports. After all, this research is believed to prove injustice, and while pointing out injustice may be a blast, this section could equally well be interpreted to say that antifeminists like to know that the VAWA supposedly hurts men.

So, it should read more like this; "Antifeminists often point to/have pointed to..." or so, if they indeed discuss that, in such depth.
--] 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

: Those seem like reasonable edits to make. ] and make them yourself! ] 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned those is to make it easier for others to spot inaccuracies and/or controversial presentations. --] 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== "For instance violent bullies often bring up violent bullies." ==

This doesn't make sense in the context of "social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions." All this "bullying" stuff added by <s>]</s> ]just sounds bizarre. And Adolf Hitler??? ] 03:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:It makes as much sense as this...

:<i>Many anti feminist groups are just attention seeking bullies who want to put forward deliberately offensive viewpoints to hurt the feelings of decent people.</i>

:If feminists get to write the anti-feminist article, perhaps anti-feminists should write the feminist article?
:] 17:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

::This doesn't really have anything to do with whether you're a feminist or an anti-feminist. Feminists and anti-feminists alike may edit any article they please, as long as they conform with the ] policy and other Misplaced Pages policies. As a feminist and someone who believes in the important of Misplaced Pages presenting a neutral point of view, I removed this text. You could have done the same yourself. ] 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:::First off, feminism is not neutrality, and it never was.

:::Secondly, I'm still kinda new to this and still learning how editing works on Wiki. I'm one step past observer but am not sure I want to edit articles yet. Perhaps soon.

:::Thanks for removing the text. But if you don't see it as something a feminist would say about anti-feminism and not something which describes anti-feminism or the reasons behind it, there's not much I can say. Do feminists call women "whiners"? Not that I've ever seen. Feminists do spend an inordinate amount of time and effert calling any man with issues a whiner, I know this from direct experience. Feminism is clearly not about equal treatment, as feminism itself does not treat men and women equally.

:::] 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

All of the "bullies" material was added by the same user, ] (look at the history of the page to see who added what). So, you're right, both quotes make the same sense, i.e., none. As for who gets to write the articles, the answer is, everyone does. If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree. Everyone has a POV, but it needn't show up in the article. —01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:<i>If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree.</i>

:I'd say that there is an inherent bias that makes objectivity implausable, at best. Feminism has claimed the victim high ground (and made it pay), so even admitting that men are victims (usually of policies crafted with or by feminism) would be giving up the bias feminism has built against men in the name of political favoritism.

:There are many examples, look at the Duluth model, or the Violence Against Women Act, penned by feminism.

:If I get the time, I may start adding to the article, there's no shortage of material.

:] 13:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

::If you identify as being an antifeminist, you're not exactly proving with your comments that antifeminists are somehow more objective, either (though there's no ''need'' to be objective on talk pages, you're not exactly taking the moral high ground here.) ] 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you then claim that feminism did not pen the Violence Against Women Act?

:::Of the evicence I listed above, which do you factually dispute?

:::] 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

::::Feminism doesn't "pen acts". Feminism is a movement; people pen acts, not movements. And no, even if the Duluth model or VAWA are flawed, it doesn't follow that feminists are biased against men or that feminists can't be objective; those are absurd claims. ] 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::The VAWA was penned by N.O.W. The Duluth model defines the abuser as a man and the victim as a woman. Being a feminist I probably cannot explain to you the problem.

:::::And why do you make everything into deductive logic? If I say flowers are pretty and lions eat meat, the second statement does not follow from the first. But this is sophistry as the second statement is not dependant on the first, nor was it ever claimed to be. The absurd thing is your claim that anything has to follow to be true.

:::::As for feminist objectivity, perhaps you can show me some. Feminism has a built-in bias that cannot be eliminated. It's about women, and only women, it's sexist from the get-go and always will be. Feminism <b>is</b> sexism. This is not hyperbole, it's a simple fact.

:::::Hell, during the Take Your Daughter To Work Day debates, I saw that not only do feminist moms know nothing about how well their sons are doing, they don't want to know anything.

:::::] 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich

:::::: I'm not really interested in debating this in this forum. If you'd like to work on the article, you're still welcome to do so. The talk page really should focus on discussions that are necessary for improving the article. ] 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Funny you didn't seem to mind debating him in this forum before he completly shut you down eh? ] 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== They should make a distinction between old antifeminism and contemporary antifeminism ==

Contemporary anti-feminism is very different from the way it was back in the 50's. But since Adolf Hitler is listed as a anti-feminist, it pretty much destroys the credibility of contemporary antifeminism, because no distinction is made.

I'm a feminist in that I'm pro women's suffrage and all that good stuff, but I'm antifeminist in that it seems that instead of blanket equality, it's politically correct to be misandronous (prejudiced against men). I mean I'm here at UCLA and there are tons of anti-spousal/relationship abuse but it's all targeted towards men, how men can stop it. To be able to say that since the majority of relationship abuse cases are commited by men, this kind of advertisement can be done would be like saying that since the majority of people in prison are black, we can start printing literature on how to fix black people. {{unsigned|169.232.111.114}}

: Feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit, so long as you include ] to support what you say, and so long as you are willing to edit in accordable with Misplaced Pages's [[WP:NPOV|
neutral point of view policy]]. ] 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


==Fatherless citation==
Saw this tadbit had a citation tag
"teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes ."
Here are some links. Are these good enough?
http://fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/org/nccp/portrait.htm
http://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/divorceddad.pdf
Not sure if these count as original research or not.
] 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Masculism references ==

I have removed comparisons of masculism to anti-feminism. They are two completely different things. masculists are concerned with men's issues, which might include criticism of feminist ideas, but all movements should accept criticism without labelling the critics in such a manner. I'm sure there are many anti-feminists who are also masculists, but that doesn't make them the same thing or even similar. There are many feminists who criticize masculism, or are even anti-masculists, but one does not necessarily follow from the other. The connection is spurious.

To an extent, I think the comparison is a ] - an attempt to discredit masculism by associating it with anti-feminism. I think it would be better to see the positive aspects of masculism and criticize the negatives, rather than making such a blanket umbrella statement. ] 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

==NPOV Dispute==
Is this article still considered not to be written from a neutral point of view (])? If so, perhaps people might like to discuss precisely which parts of the article need to be improved here. If there is no further need for it I will remove the NPOV dispute tag in one week. --] 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Since no-one has objected to the NPOV tag being removed during the past 7 days I will assume there is no longer a dispute about the ] status of the article and remove the tag. --] 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=="Neoconservative"==

The label 'neoconservative' is applied to some of the critics of feminism on the article, such as Hoff-Sommers and Fox-Genovese. Is this label appropriate to describe them? Christina HS is a member
at the Independent Women's Forum, which is a conservative and explicitely anti-feminist think tank, but Genovese is a member at the Women's Freedom Network, which is a libertarian-leaning "moderate feminist" group. If Genovese doesn't define herself as antifeminist or neoconservative, this latter label should be dropped in her case. I believe we shouldn't call one a 'neoconservative' because he/she opposes left-wing feminism until we get to know his/her other political views (sorry for the bad English).] 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:No problem. I moved it to another section, out of Neoconservative.] 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Moreover, ] is a specific ] ideology, and while Sommers may be conservative there is no indication that I'm aware of that she's a neo. ] 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


==point of view check==

One of the ugliest tactics that ideological feminists use to silence their enemies is character assassination and personal attacks. This entire article is one such attempt. There is no distinction between people who are critical of SOME (shameless) feminist ideologies versus those who are critical of ALL feminism. We need to make a distinction between ideas (which can and should be questioned) and the people who do the questioning here. In addition the term 'anti-feminist' in one I have never seen in print so I wonder who coined it and who is propagating it.

Another red flag for me is the very definition 'anti-feminist' which is far from clear here. Who (the inane ideological wing of the Sisterhood I imagine) decides who is an Anti-feminist here.
Who are the sources for these perjorative characterizations and definitions or do wiki editors decide who is or isn't 'Anti-feminist' here. Shameless personal labeling shows how afraid ideological feminists are of having their ideas tested. Such mean-spirited attempts to silence potential opponents is typical of Stalinist states, not democratic encyclopedias.
For those who think I am imagining things here, please glance at the content I pulled in from ]

Karen Lerhman criticizes the state of women's studies as summarized below. She quotes Patai and Koertge who say that the feminism espoused in the vast majority of women's studies departments "bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of it's ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism..."
Lerhman goes on to say that feminist writers "by squelching all internal dissent" have "allowed hyperbolic rhetoric, false statistics, politicized scholarship, reverse sexism, and general silliness free reign".

*Orthodoxy and ideological policing
*Ostracization and/or termination of female dissidents
*Exclusion of male authors from course syllabi and scholarly papers
*Politicized scholarship and "thinly disguised indoctrination"
*Faculty appointments based on political rather than professional qualifications
*Questionable methodologies, statistics, and conclusions
*Advocacy diguised as research
*"Womb-like" classroom atmospheres where expressing unpopular opinions or asking unpopular questions is suppressed and where critical thinking is discouraged
*"Unremitting emphasis on women as oppressed victims"

(anonymous editor for good reason!)

Latest revision as of 05:16, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifeminism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists at the Reference desk.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Excessive United States perspective

I've just removed several references to US antifeminism for UNDUE. Looking through this article, I think it definitely skews to a US-centric perspective, although feminism is a global issue. BrigadierG (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Men's rights movement

This has been inserted and removed and re-inserted in the lead; it probably should be covered in the article body, if only in a summary-style section linking to Men's rights movement, but it currently isn't. It'd be easy enough to cover - just a little bit summarizing Men's_rights_movement#Antifeminism, with a toplink to that article. But where should it be placed in this article's structure? As a top-level subsection? Or does it fit into one of the existing subsections? -- Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The men's rights movement was placed in the 21st century section so it is in the body, although I'm also not sure exactly where it should go because it originated in the 20th century. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, we could always move it to the 20th century. If we did that we might add a sentence about how it started in the 70's as a generally pro-feminist men's liberation movement and then split into pro- and anti-feminist strands (which is covered in the history section of its own article.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep that sounds like a good idea. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Feminism infobox

In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. DuxCoverture (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that "Opposition to feminism" is bolded not because it is a section header but because it redirects to Antifeminism. Compare to the infobox on ] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: