Talk:Chapo Trap House/Archive 1

New separate article for episode list
Hey everyone (mostly, who updates the episodes list most frequently, and also ):

I just created a new article at List of Chapo Trap House episodes. The episode list is long, and only getting longer as our Dry Boys (and Amber) continue to deliver so much of that fire at such a consistent basis. It's mostly the same, but just a few usage notes for updating the new page:


 * Instead of a single episode number column, I created a new "Overall No." column and "Given No." column. Why? Because there are now 10 episodes that have been given the ".5" numbering, meaning that someone might assume there are 140 "total" episodes when there are actually 150. This just clarifies the "true" overall number of episodes (including the earlier premium episodes and more recently the "bonus" episodes), as well as still showing the individual number given to any particular episodes. Going forward, |EpisodeNumber= is the parameter for Overall No. and |EpisodeNumber2= is the parameter for the Given No.
 * The intro to the new list has a sentence that says (as of today) "As of September 11, 2017, 150 episodes have been released." If you edit the page, it will look like this: " As of, 150 episodes have been released. " This formatting means that the date shown will always be current. Additionally: as long someone updates the number between the and tags, this article (the actual main Chapo article) will also always display the correct number of total episodes in the infobox at the top, without having to be separately edited.

To any current watchers or other editors who see this, thanks for helping to maintain the page. —BLZ · talk 20:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks great, nice work!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * awesome! thank you--Negativejunk1987 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chapo Trap House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025060442/http://www.din.gov.kz/eng/press-sluzhba/spisok_zaprexhennyx_organizaci/ to http://www.din.gov.kz/eng/press-sluzhba/spisok_zaprexhennyx_organizaci/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

CTH Article too long?
Not sure if this is an issue but this article seems to go way too long, especially with the quotes. There also seems to be problems with WP:UNDUE regarding criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty long for what the podcast is, but that isn't really an issue on WP. If you find something irrelevant to the podcast you could edit it out, if someone doesn't agree they can revert (or discuss on the talk page). As a fan of the podcast I think the weight of the criticisms are fine - there were enough negative reviews of the book, for instance, that make such reviews notable. What could be done though, is to break the criticism into its own section. As CTH gains notability there will inevitably be more criticisms, so it will need its own section anyway. Lordbedo (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of Russian influence without evidence
Chapo Trap House has been accused to links to the Russian FSB. The show is largely funded anonymously through Patreon, and some believe that this money can ultimately be traced back to Russian straw accounts. The proposed purpose of this funding is to undermine Hillary Clinton and the broader progressive movement from the Left. I have questions about the notability and NPV aspects of including this, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldjhughes (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

obvious bullshit is obvious EznorbYar (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This account's only edit is for this page, hmm very suspicious --CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The account posted this to find a way to make baseless accusations without having to try and post it on the main article. I'm unfamiliar with policy per deleting things from talk pages, but reader beware. Lordbedo (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's many, many reliable sources on Chapo's Russia funding. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * it's me im the putin plant fundimng chapo -- ama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.165.144 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * we do nyet fund the chapo trap house. I mean, russia does not fund chapo trap house. --TheBigManHimselfMrPutin (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have kompromat on all the chapo's large sons PutinFBaby (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I pay fine U.S. dollar for mocking of Amerika imagery. The Amerikan ball crank is good joke, yes. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Everybody who I don't like is a Russian troll." 67.80.164.161 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Far-left label and attempted trimming
"original research" was cited as a reason for reverting all my edits. The first was based off a source that listed them as hard-left, and it assumed that the wikipedia definition of far-left (wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics) was correct. The second reason was to support the first claim, I did not use original research" as my reasoning.

The edit to try and balance praise and criticism, changing the ratio from 4-1 to 3-1.

I'm relatively new so can someone explain how the edit-warring is my fault? First revision was done with no explanation, second was done based on a misunderstanding of my source and no explanation for removing the other edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , please try to be more correct. The source did NOT identify them as "hard-left", not even as "far-left". If there was a "misunderstanding" of your source, it was yours. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My source identified them as "the leftwing alternative to Breitbart" and the commentators as "hard-left". And you still have not justified undoing the other changes. We should be trying to avoid blatant political bias, not encourage it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. Your source said "It has been called the leftwing alternative to Breitbart". Who said that? What value does it have? You can't avoid or encourage anything until you read carefully and represent truthfully. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And what about the other two edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you recently banned this user Totonto2005! because he was suggesting that Dinesh D'souza shouldn't be called "far-right" because all the sources merely NAMED him as far-right. What's the difference? Both D'souza and CTH have both been named "far-right" and "far-left", respectively. But you're saying that my source doesn't count? Can you explain yourself? I'm very disappointed dude, you have way too much time on here to basically just be a bully who pushes bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. (Ah where to start...that editor wasn't banned, they were blocked for edit warring...) I'd ask you to drop this BS about bully and bias, but since you can't be bothered to read properly you're just wasting my time. "Dude". And please sign your messages. It's not hard. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that everyone can see what you're saying, right? We're however many posts in and you still haven't addressed why the latter two edits were reverted.

That does not answer my question. What's the difference between "CTH is far-left, my source is this piece that labels them as far-left" and "D'souza is far-right, my source are these pieces that label him as far-right"? I went through all of the D'souza articles and they all merely label him as far-right.

As someone with admin priveleges, you need to explain yourself and your actions rather than just banning and blocking anyone who challenges you. I understand after a quick search that you're notorious for bias, I would advise as a person with lots of experience with nonprofits violating constitutional rights that you try and do your job and not using your position as a way to silence those you don't agree with.Milewoman (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, here to weigh in. First, as to "far-left" and "far-right". Wikipedia's far-left politics page is a bit under-developed compared to its twin far-right politics. It's difficult to glean a rigorous, consistent, satisfactory definition of what is meant by "far-left" using just that page. However, the far-right politics page is itself comparatively under-developed next to another page that could be considered a subtopic, alt-right, which is a massive article subject to immense scrutiny. There are plenty of other well-developed articles on fascism, etc. so all in all, we have a lot of understanding of what would constitute a "far-right" politics.


 * What Wikipedia does have on the "far-left" page is a broad definition relying on one professor, which includes anything from democratic socialism (i.e., advancing socialist policy through reform and nonviolent electoral politics within an existing government framework, rather than violent revolution) to left-wing terrorism (i.e., violently agitating for overthrow of the government at any cost) may count as "far-left". I'm a little skeptical of taking that one professor's definition as gospel. He's basically labeled anything further left than a First-World post-Cold War centrist perspective as "far-left". That definition means essentially anything to the left of market liberalism would be "far-left", which means anything leftist (anything to the left of centrist liberalism) would also be "far-left". Kinda seems silly. Just as not everyone who is right-wing is far-right, not everyone who is left-wing is far-left. Needless to say, the hosts of Chapo Trap House don't advocate like, mass lawless violence, so I'd be a little wary of labeling them "far-left". They're leftists.


 * So what about the use of the phrases "hard-left" and "far left" in one source to describe Chapo? It has to be understood in the context given in the article. In the article, that phrase (and "far left") is basically used to mean "further left than the standard American of the last 20 years, which is Clintonism" (see New Democrats, or Third Way generally, for context here). The things the article equates with "far left" include Bernie Sanders, DSA, and Al Gore, who was Bill Clinton's vice president. There's no evidence the author intended to equate Al Gore with Pol Pot, only to convey a relative further-leftness than normal American liberalism. —BLZ · talk 17:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Chiming in to mention the lede already mentions the show is known for leftist commentary. There is no need to add "far-left", especially since no reliable source explicitly stating they are "far-left" has been provided. Labels like "far-left" and "far-right" generally have no place on Wikipedia anyway. They are arbitrary definitions with no objective meaning, and are really only used derogatorily. I would also caution the OP to be civil, you made several good edits here already, but sometimes your edits will be reverted, and that's okay. Lordbedo (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * But why is there not a problem in labeling blatantly innovent people like Dinesh D'Souza far right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The AV Club article in the lead is one of three (counting Milewomen's source) currently used to characterize their politics, and it describes them as "very far left". Now, the AV Club is not known for political science, so it is certainly not the best source, but there it is, being used as one. If it's not deemed reliable, and its characterization of the podcast isn't being used, then that AV Club Article shouldn't be linked as a reference; but if it is an essential reference, then the language used in the reference should be used. I don't care either way, but make it consistent, please. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just reviewed your changes and it looks good to me. Props for clearing it up! Lordbedo (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Political descriptors again
The description of Chapo Trap House ' s political orientation in the lead has consistently been a problem. It's currently sourced, but not very well, and the sources say "far left", "dirtbag left", "Weird Left", etcetera. There was a previous attempt by Milewoman to add another source, but it was disputed and so was removed. In the meantime, casual editors frequently edit the description to paint the corners and change the description to merely "left-wing" or the like, which is not reflective of the sources in the article. There needs to be some agreement on how to source the political description and what that description should be. A summary of existing sources:

https://aux.avclub.com/aaron-rodgers-stops-by-you-made-it-weird-to-talk-about-1798287872 This is a low-quality source, a summary of the podcast by contributors not known for in-depth political science expertise. Moreover, the current incarnation of The AV Club is somewhat biased toward the left itself. It describes the podcast as "very far left".

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/chapo-trap-house-are-the-vulgar-brilliant-demigods.html This is an interview with podcast members, by Paste Magazine, and is reliable insofar as it reports those members' self-descriptions. Reported self-descriptions include "Left-wing", "dirtbag left", and "Weird Left".

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/23/chapo-trap-house-leftwing-breitbart This is a media review by a contributor to The Guardian, a reliable source with an explicit leftward bias in its coverage. It describes the podcast as "hard left", "dirtbag left", and "Left-Wing Breitbart". The addition of this source was contested, and it is not currently used in the article.

Now, I want to be clear on something, I do not personally care what the political description in the lead is. What I care about is that the description ought to have good sources, and that it ought to match those sources. So I'm hoping that there can be a discussion about how to manage that part of the lead. In the meantime, the sources in the article don't say that CTH is center-left, so the article text shouldn't be softened to imply it either. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Some more sources

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/what-will-become-of-the-dirtbag-left Refers to them as "the dirtbag left" and says they do "vulgar leftist commentary".

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/09/chapo-trap-house-guide-to-revolution This is an interview with the shows hosts, who themselves say that they are "left of the Daily Show", says that people are "unserved by capitalism", confirms when the interviewer refers to them as "socialists", that they are "identical to the alt-right", and that they are "artiqulating a criticism of capitalism".

https://psmag.com/news/the-radical-cheek-of-chapo-trap-house The author describes them as "leftist", makes the clear distinction that "leftists" (which he says CTH are) are different from liberals. He also says that one of the hosts, Matt, calls Karl Marx's work "essential reading". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilometerman (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker article is an excellent find, and the other two at least confirm that the podcasters don't consider themselves to be in the mainstream left. I'm going to replace the AV Club source with the New Yorker and rewrite the lead to suit. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Vulgarity
I don't want to stand in the way of any genuine improvements here but I have had to revert a recent edit which attempted to replace "eschews civility-for-its-own-sake in favor of subversive, populist vulgarity" with "abandons civility in favor of vulgarity" without any reference to support the claim of "abandoning civility". Also the removal of "subversive" and "popularist" has the net effect of making the article substantially less informative. If anybody would like to try an alternative rewording (with appropriate references) then please do so but I strongly do not recommend trying the exact same edit again. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "eschews" phrasing is clearly better at capturing their style, I agree with you. I don't think it needs rephrasing, the other editor seems to be pushing a phrasing that casts them in a bad light.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Far-left"
Upon reading the cited sources, the only sources that use "far-left" verbatim seems to be A.V.club and the Advocate, against all other 27, including far more reliable sources NYT, Politico, Guardian and New Yorker. This is the textbook definition of undue weight and synthesis. As this is an article that is about living persons and the work they created, displaying such ill-founded contentious label is a violation of Wikipedia's fundamental Biographies of living persons policy. , I am not your enemy, but your effort to add this label onto the page using sources that doesn't even mention "far-left" is something most people would consider disruptive and tendentious. At least, you should display a capacity to listen to other editors. Please self-revert. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All the sources don't need to say "far-left" verbatim in order for an objective article to list them as so. You clearly have not actually read the talk page yet, I will wait until you do so.Kilometerman (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly is meant by "far left"? The only sense in which Chapo are "far" left is that they are further to the left than standard American Democratic party social liberalism, which is a centrist or center-left political ideology. Which is to say, they are on the left—not the far left, just the left. More precisely, they are democratic socialists, or just plain socialists. But they're not far-left, which suggests something further left than the left (not merely further left than the center or center left), or else it suggests advocacy of violence or major upheaval in favor of leftism; Chapo is neither. Within the left-wing proper, they'd be called reformists, as they take the relatively moderate position that a socialist agenda can be enacted "from within the system" i.e. through electoral politics. "Leftist", "left-wing" or "socialist" would be more accurate descriptors and—as the previous discussion on this talk page demonstrates—there's greater agreement on these terms among the sources. —BLZ · talk 21:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I see what the problem is here. Most of the sources aren't trying to explicitly state that CTH is far-left since it's pretty obvious based on the show and its audience. The ones that do either refer to them as far-left or some equivalent ("left-wing breitbart, hard left, etc").


 * You make a good point about whether or not being socialist is being far left. However in American politics, the Dem party (which CTH is clearly very left of) is the center-left to left, and therefore anything beyond that could safely be assumed to be far left (since its far away from the standard "left"). Kilometerman (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * They are to the left of the Democratic party, but by no means could one "safely assume" that makes them "far left". There's a broad spectrum of leftist politics, and it things don't immediately ratchet up to "far left" as soon as you leave the realm of what's palatable to your typical Dem.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again in the terms of the left-right political spectrum generally opinions differ but as I said in terms of American politics, which most viewers of the show are going to be, they are very solidly far left, this is supported by the sources. Kilometerman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever the personal beliefs of the hosts may be, they rarely stray beyond relatively tame Democratic Socialist talking points.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I am not obliged to to read that wall of text you compiled last year. You initiated the "far-left" edit. The burden of proof is on you. You misunderstood. There must be enough numbers of reliable sources saying "far-left" verbatim for us to describe the podcast as such, because otherwise it fails Verification and constitute original research. Sure, it is your prerogative to automatically equate Socialism or Progressivism with the term "far-left" (many experts would disagree with that), it is grossly inappropriate to add your opinion here and use the term as a pejorative. As this article is under BLP protection, such unverified contentious labels constitute libel and may get us sued. Please self-revert, or I'm taking this discussion to a noticeboard. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make yet another noticeboard thread under false pretenses that quickly gets ignored. In the meantime, the articles that specifically talk about their politics refer to them as far-left or some variation of the term. Kilometerman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The most baffling thing to me is that your own work combing thru sources (above, at Talk:Chapo Trap House) either debunks your own premise, or only supports your premise through your editorializing and buttressing.
 * The New Yorker: you cited this source for saying Chapo are "the dirtbag left" and "vulgar leftist commentary". The "dirtbag left" is a neologism coined by Amber, one of the hosts of the show. It's not so much an ideology as a rhetorical strategy to reclaim vulgarity and crass language. The tweet in which she coined the term is long-gone, but here's a selection from an essay of hers titled "The Necessity of Political Vulgarity": "Yet to dismiss vulgarity as a tool for fighting the powerful, to say that being mean is 'ridiculous,' is to deny history, and to obscure a long and noble tradition of malicious political japery. In fact, 'being mean' not only affords unique pleasures to the speaker or writer, but is a crucial rhetorical weapon of the politically excluded. ... Forget snark, the pamphleteers of France were all too happy to satirize and smear the upper class with the utmost malice. Clergy, royals, and anyone else in power were slandered and depicted visually in all manner of crass and farcical political cartoons." Coarser language does not make one's ideology more extreme; Bill Maher would still be a liberal centrist if he toned down the language, and South Park is not an extremist television show despite the satirical elements and potty mouth.
 * Jacobin interview — Here's what you pulled from this:
 * "left of the Daily Show" — is anyone to the left of the Daily Show "far left"? Once you are further left than the Daily Show, you're under the same label as anarchist terrorists and violent insurrectionists?
 * "unserved by capitalism" and "articulate a critique of capitalism" — leftist is critique of capitalism. Anti-capitalism alone is not "far left", it is the essence of the modern Left.
 * "confirms when the interviewer refers to them as 'socialists'" — If you believe any socialist is far left, you don't understand political ideology enough to know what you're talking about. Socialism is left-wing ideology; a far-left ideology would have to be something more left than that.
 * "confirms ... that they are 'identical to the alt-right'" — Not true. The interviewer asks about Chapo's appeal to "young men with pretty bleak life prospects, extremely angry, extremely online, and they’re looking for someone who can speak to that anger", and Christman says in his answer "Of course, for some people, that's proof that we’re essentially identical to the alt-right, because we appeal to the same demographic." The interviewer then says "That’s like people saying that Bernie is the mirror image of Trump"—in other words, neither accepts the association as a mirror of the alt-right, let alone being "identical", they consciously reject it as inaccurate.

In short, absolutely none of this supports, let alone proves, that Chapo is "far left". —BLZ · talk 02:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PSMag: You repeat several times that the author calls them "leftist" and distinguishes them from liberals, but that has nothing to do with being far left—again, that just is leftism. You said "one of the hosts, Matt, calls Karl Marx's work 'essential reading'". Again—so what? Marxism encompasses a broad range of philosophical and political positions, and that's not including Marx's broader influence on people who don't identify as Marxist. Marxism, or praise for Marx, or recommending a book by Marx—not one of these is inherently "far left".
 * I have started an ANI discussion on this editor. Love spending my Friday night at the HAPPYPLACE. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

POV Template
Good evening folks,

I added the POV template to this article. It was clearly written by someone with a positive opinion of the podcast itself.

This is pretty visible in the "Reception" section -- the entire section consists of seven paragraphs. Six of those are entirely positive - I'd go as far to say "gushingly" - and the only negative portion is the shortest paragraph out of all of them.

Honestly, this doesn't feel like it needs more explanation -- this is painfully bad. The entire article reads like it was written as a promotional piece.

KingForPA (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear me. Check the dates on most of those reviews; I wrote the bulk of the article back in 2016–17, shortly after the podcast launched, during their first wave of critical reception. For obvious reasons, at the time they hadn't received many negative reviews. They didn't have a big enough profile yet to attract significant attention (negative or otherwise) from people who disagreed with them, as they have in the intervening years. Because who bothers to shoot down an obscure podcast that's barely a year old? If this sounds a tad defensive, just note that I'm not defending the present condition of the article—it really could be improved in many ways—only my motives.
 * Sure, I like Chapo. I also like OK Computer, and I wrote most of that article too, but there's still plenty in there (in proportion) about how it's overrated-like and how Christgau thinks they sound like humorless Pink Floyd copycats dying of thirst in the desert and all that. The bad reviews are not missing from Chapo because I would fight tooth-and-nail to keep them out; I'm just too lazy to add anything (or rather, my priorities lie elsewhere). Notice that there's nothing in there about how they've toured Europe—if I were an unrelenting mega-fan, I would surely have added that flattering detail and fought to keep out bad reviews, right? But I've done neither. I'm just not keeping up with the page that much at all (and it's not like other people have really added all that much new text, either). I'm a fan, yes, but I don't have any secret agenda. Plus: I have feelings too! "Painfully bad"? Sheesh!
 * Defensive phase over. You are certainly correct that there have been negative appraisals of Chapo in reliable sources from all sorts of perspectives, and you are also right that those are largely missing from the article. Off the top of my head, Jeet Heer's essay about the show in The New Republic would be a worthwhile critique from a liberal, even somewhat-lefty point of view. I worked reasonably hard at writing it in the early days and, other than some minor maintenance, I've hardly edited it much in the last two years. But there should be a shift to newer sources, positive and negative alike (all things in proportion), and trimming or removing some of the earlier reviews accordingly. I welcome productive collaboration, contributions, and improvements from anyone who wants to take a stab at it. Please: do it for me, so I can go back to writing about 1970s avant-garde poetry in peace. —BLZ · talk 06:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the pov template. thanks. User:KingForPA just a complaint that it's too positive doesn't warrant a template as you showed no evidence and made no suggestions as to how to fix it. Now you've been told how it's up to you to do that and thus again there's no need for a template. Just make sure you make it NPOV.  Doug Weller  talk 09:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Houston
The article says: "The podcast is typically recorded and produced in Houston." This then links to Houston ("hue-stin"), TX. They talk about all living in NYC a lot, so is this supposed to mean Houston Street ("how-stun"). Also, the cache of the cited link does not mention Houston at all, so is there even a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4D80:1300:ECED:C0BB:D19:954E (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)