![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Just wanted to say thanks for all the support on the Zachary Quinto article. I decided to go for a user name. It seems only fair after all the effort folks here put into trying to keep that from becoming a total disaster. If all LGBT articles come under as much attack from the Christians as that one, I think I may have to learn quite a bit about wikilawyering in order to just survive around here. Goodness. Is there any particular policy page or FAQ which LGBT editors can read? It's not easy to work with people who consider their hatred of us NPOV and our demand for human status and full civil rights 'advocacy'. Thanks again Pauci leones ( talk) 08:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone please just run through the rationale behind grouping the serial killer Albert Fish under WikiProject LGBT studies? In what way is a sexuality and gender identity-based cultural approach, a concept itself stemming from the 1990s, applicable to a figure known to the public purely for his cannibalistic and paedophiliac crimes in the 1920s? Whether or not the overall aim was to find causation between the former and the latter, as I suspect it may have been, is neither here nor there; the very connection here on Wikipedia serves as implicit confirmation.
To put it more simply, 1. how is it possible to define Albert Fish using terminology and cultural concepts developed over 60 years after his death? 2. why is this necessary when we consider his notability, i.e. the reason he has an article on Wikipedia? 3. and by making this connection, is it not encouraging a casual, lazy connection between our definition of LGBT and his crimes, most seriously paedophilia? Would love to hear your views. 83.244.230.115 ( talk) 22:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal and this is absurd. But it is also absurd co-opting famous people who are not activist and editing their biographies of homosexual famous people like it was done to the Brazilian singer Cassia Eller. She was a lesbian, made public her steady relationship and that is all. She was not an activist and Brazilians don't see her this way because she was concerned with her music. Maybe she will become an activist in America because some people want so.-- Justana ( talk) 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a blog and did an interview with a transgender woman. It is heartbreaking and I will fight for transgender's right doing what I can. -- Justana ( talk) 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone would be willing to give their views on the following topic regarding the scope of this Project. There has recently been a divergence of opinion and it would be useful to see what other people think.
Does 'WikiProject LGBT studies' cover sexual behaviour that could very broadly be called 'antinormative'? Here I include castration (either to oneself or to others, with or without consent), paedophilia, rape, necrophilia or cannibalism. To name a few.
Some examples:
Westley Allan Dodd molested, raped and killed several young boys before his arrest and execution in 1993. Richard Chase derived sexual pleasure from drinking the blood of both men and women, and young children of both genders, performing both necrophilia and cannibalism.
If we find that these practices stem from sexual desire, and therefore call them 'antinormative', are we ultimately obliged to include them under this Project and give them the relevant banner? 83.244.230.115 ( talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there is-- perhaps in the WikiProject Biography somewhere I can't find-- guidelines on the use of terms for same-sex relationships? That is-- in a lot of cases you can go off what someone has identified their relationship as, sure-- but are there actual stated guidelines? I could see this being a theoretically contentious issue, so I'd like to have some kind of recognized policy. mordicai. ( talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I have wandered into a morass. An editor is repeatedly challenging pretty much every aspect of the article Pray the Gay Away? for a bunch of different really ridiculous reasons. I don't understand what this guy's problem is but he seems determined to rip big chunks out of the article. Can someone please look at the article and the talk and see what you think? 76.201.145.83 ( talk) 03:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
One user [1] is trying to delete the Dallas Voice. After I looked at his edit, he has also added suspiciously notability tags to the Bay Area Reporter, the Southern Voice, The New York Blade, the Windy City Times, Between the Lines. Please help reverse these tags. This may be the perfect opportunity to flesh out these pages and add more references. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This could help coverage on UK LGBT History WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone join the discussion regarding the intro to said article before another edit war happens? I have tried to make it as neutral as possible, but would appreciate any other voices. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed on this talk page before ( here and here), but I'm unclear on whether a decision one way or the other was made.
I propose that, as a general rule, there be one article for each jurisdiction (such as a US state) titled recognition of same-sex unions in X, where all information on domestic partnership, civil unions, and marriage in that jurisdiction can be found.
For many jurisdictions, especially US states, this information is divided into separate articles. For example, we have the following articles for Oregon:
Same thing for Maine:
Regardless of whether you're talking about domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage, the question is the same: How are unions between same-sex couples legally recognized in [insert jurisdiction here]? Any information on this question could be divided into separate articles based on whether or not you're talking about marriage. And perhaps there are certain cases where that should be done. But in general, I don't think that helps the reader. On the contrary, someone who wants to read about recognition of same-sex unions in Oregon has to know, before they can start looking, the following things:
The LGBT community doesn't push for domestic partnership or civil unions as end goals in themselves, but rather as part of a larger movement towards equal marriage rights. The big question that's always asked is whether same-sex couples should be able to marry; any separate institution is usually an afterthought mentioned only as a compromise. Everything does, however, boil down to one topic: legal recognition of same-sex unions.
Therefore, I think the topics domestic partnership in X and same-sex marriage in X should be addressed under the article recognition of same-sex unions in X more often than not.
Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There are many areticles which have for a while had names of "LGBT topics and [Religion X/healthcare/whatever]". The Transhumanist has recently moved bunches of these to "LGBT orientation and [whatever]", apparently with no discussion. I find that phrasing problematic. Perhaps we can think of some improvement over "LGBT topics and...", but we need wider discussion before a mass move. Ladyof Shalott 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Does anyone object to deleting this stub I created? The person who added the speedy deletion tag removed some info I added, about Judith Butler sitting on their Advisory Board, and about the location of its editorial office. Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Correction The article was never tagged for speedy deletion, it was PRODded. Although nobody used the time provided by PROD to improve the article and add reliable sources, it was dePRODded, so now it is at AfD (not PROD). -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC in Talk:2011 in LGBT rights#RFC: The scope of this article. Some users think that this article (and all similar articles) should only include events when some right is gained or lost. Others think that this article (and all similar articles) should document all major events that affected LGBT rights. Your comments will be welcomed!-- В и к и T 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Curious if any folks are attending this year's Creating Change conference for LGBT organizers/activists this January in DC/Baltimore. Considering a booth for LGBT wiki outreach efforts. Wondering if others are interested in that and/or perhaps a meet-up at the conference? For folks in the DC area, might be possible to do some things as non conference attendees, if you're interested, let me know - I'd have to check on details. -- Varnent ( talk) 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at the Village Pumps suggests that having WikiProjects call their advice pages "guidelines" is confusing at least some editors into thinking that they're the same as the "official" community-wide guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, rather than advice from the members of the WikiProject. WP:POLICY#Naming generally discourages the use of terms like "guideline" or "policy" in page names even for regular policies anyway. So some of the WikiProjects are renaming their pages to something like "Article advice", "Recommendations", or "Style advice". This is just a friendly suggestion that your group consider doing the same. There are templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages if you want to tag the pages that way.
While you're at it, if it's been a long time since anyone overhauled those pages, this might be a good time to do that, too. I don't know what the history is for your group, but it's pretty typical for a page to get written and then neglected for a long time. If you happen to find anything that no longer matches up with the community-wide Manual of Style or other general guidelines, then perhaps it would be good to fix it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
At the moment we say (in item 3b of the "Guidelines"): "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando." That criterion makes sense for identifying people as LGB, but it doesn't apply to TI. Thoughts on the circumstances under which we should identify deceased people as transgender or intersex? - htonl ( talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on the Melanie Phillips talk page, Talk:Melanie_Phillips#Stonewall_Award about including the fact that she was awarded the Bigot of the Year title by Stonewall. In connection with this, mentions of the award have been deleted and restored from articles on other recipients, Jan Moir, Iris Robinson and Anthony Priddis, and the nominee A. A. Gill. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought so but there's no mention of it in the article at all. Am i wrong? Thanks Jenova 20 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just written Carmen Rupe, could I get someone to check it please? I'm mainly after correct use of names in the body and lede; balance; handling of links to non-reliable sources; etc. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on the talk page for the proposed renaming. CTJF83 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
One user removed File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg from template and added File:Same_sex_marriage_Europe.svg. It's absurd. The template is about recognition of same-sex unions in europe, not recognition in the European Union member states and others. This distinction is dispensable. Ron 1987 ( talk) 22:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the map Ron prefers has been restored as of Dec 26. Those concerned might want to monitor the template. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This discusses the changing attitudes towards LGBT Americans, and LGBT issues involving CNN staff. WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Greek love has been nominated for a GA review. The nominator has commented that It probably wont make it, but it is important to try. The article can certainly use more eyes on it and GA nomination is a good way to start, so I'm posting a notice to all projects that have a banner there. Cynwolfe ( talk) 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings - as a follow up to my above post about Creating Change, I wanted to share that the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to provide funding for a Wikimedia presence at Creating Change. Members of the Wikimedia DC Chapter will be volunteering, and we're still looking for more if folks are interested. Additionally, we'll have materials on Wikimedia projects. I think it would be fantastic to have at least a one-sheet flyer promoting this WikiProject. Does such a flyer exist? The conference begins on January 25th, any info before then would be greatly appreciated. :) -- Varnent ( talk) 14:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just opened a discussion on this categorization. Please feel free to participate. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
CNN posted an interesting article about MLK and views about LGBT issues
WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Soliciting comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Eldridge (since the nominator didn't add a notice here.) AV3000 ( talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin, so I'm putting this out there for help from other editors.
In the past, I've worked on six or seven lists to get them to WP:FL status. I've recently been working on List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, to that same end. At the moment, everything is ready to go *except* it needs a lede. Three or four paragraphs explaining what the list is, with references.
I'm not great at writing, and in this case, I'm not even sure where to begin. I've taken a look at Homosexuality in sports, but that article needs quite a bit of help.
Does anyone feel like helping me put something together? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
See here - comments welcome.-- Smerus ( talk) 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the "LGBT rights in FOO" are being discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#LGBT_articles. Peachey88 ( T · C) 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in creating a "People Task Force" as a sub-project of this one? Specifically to deal with BLP issues, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and associated lists, etc? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:LGBT will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in LGBT studies. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Something about the list of List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction that i find off compared to other list articles and not just the huge compilation of medias the characters come from. The list is justified per what the show theyre from, not the actual characters (and alot of them dont lead to individual characters). What i find this the most troubling is, compared to real people, how much of their sexuality is exposed or their role in the given series? What separates the "just happens to be LGBT, minor character that rarely reoccurs" to the "Clearly LGBT, constantly reoccuring character"? I think the issue i see now is that the list article as it stands is more of "list of TV series and films that feature LGBT in some way" rather than "List of LGBT characters in TV series and Films" and also it will vary to "they just happen to be the LGBT achetype" and "character that revolves around LGBT".
Basically, i think the list will vary significantly by role, by relevance, and by notability of the character. Its very broad, and i dont think the list is actually useful then people made it out to be in the last AfD nomination. I think a list more concrete such as "List of TV series with LGBT themes" would be much more narrow searches to show entries that have significant LGBT rather than having small bit.
This is also more of an issue to bring up anything that is what should we restrict and what should we look into more? Articles such as LGBT Themes in comics and various similar articles look well written and well researched. However unlike the list mentioned. It appears longer list of LGBT characters in comics. Im starting to wonder if theres a good reason behind it. Anyways i hope maybe we can discuss this issue and maybe others similar to it. Lucia Black ( talk) 09:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont think removing verified information considering its a list article and its entries are dependent on the existence of the series its shown in. I find it to be too broad and thats with splitting the list with separate media. I myself find it wrong because its too ambiguous, people will be looking for anything lgbt. And yes editors have agreed, but then again other editors stayed away fearing of being accused of homophobia. And also the last counter argument was odd as someone tried to trump guide over rules. Others also used Wp:otherstuff exist. But i dont want to use previous discussions. Plus the article will never be finished, lgbt has beeen used alot more in comedy or parodies and even as an archetype. Its like making a list of "protagonists" in given media article.
A more settling article would be "LGBT themes in TV and films" or "LGBT themes in radio". Basically, a prose format of all the characters that have made significant part in history of the given media. Most of these are categories. I think theyre best suited so. But i find the issue of how ambiguous these list are, and i dare say "shallow". Lucia Black ( talk) 11:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, it shows lacking "studies" part of the wikiproject. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This article about rather controversial Russian LGBT author was the subject for few attacks in the past (see the first and the second attempts for deletion); now one of the users who participated in the latest attempt is persistently cutting the article to clean out any supportive quotations and references: see Talk:Dmitry Kuzmin#Deletion of the relevant content and links. Andrei Romanenko ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As a heads-up, there's a discussion going on about the map of same-sex marriage laws in the U.S., and when and how to update it as legislation is passed/signed/comes into effect, if anyone wants to contribute their thoughts on that. Textorus ( talk) 09:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! A couple people have been discussing the possible deletion of "LGBT sportspeople by nationality". The closing admin basically said WP:OTHERSTUFF, mentioning that there are several categories in Category:LGBT people by occupation and nationality. User:Bearcat and I pretty much agree that a bunch of those don't need to exist - especially:
I'm not convinced that some of these need to exist, mostly because they violate WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location:
What does the project think? Should the first three be brought up for CFD? All of them? None of them? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There can be better done. I honestly think the scope of this project should expand/restrict. Things to "anything that happens to be LGBT to something with a more narrow aim". By occupation should be enough. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Can u guys look at this. Its about the timeline of same-sex marriage. Thanks (: -- DrkFrdric ( talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see question raised at here re two similar articles gay bashing and Violence against LGBT people -- Noleander ( talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to tell wikipedia that the article about the song " I Will Survive" has been constantly re-editet in order to erase all references to the music as a 'gay anthem'...
There's an ongoing RFC at Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual label on how to categorize her sexuality. Siawase ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I lowered the rating to start, but this may be to low to some so, please feel free to adjust as the project sees fit. The article had a great deal of unsourced material, but some may still see this as a possible C class. Unsure, so I am making note on all the projects for input.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed this user's edits and AfD nominations almost exclusively on LGBT issues? Just wondered. Altairisfar ( talk) 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow WikiProject LGBT members! Anyone want to help me in my purge of all the brochures? NYyankees51 ( talk) 03:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else noticing misleading edits like this from User:Lionelt(see above) with the edit summary of "merge non-notable", although the content was simply blanked rather than merged and a redirect put in place of the article? It possibly did need to be merged, but no merge proposal was made and nothing was merged from the article into the target. Doesn't exactly conform to WP:MERGE. Altairisfar ( talk) 19:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
User:RayneVanDunem has just created Category:Same-sex marriage in fiction. Let's help populate it! – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
List of LGBTQ Related Suicides meets critia of WP:CSD. please help to prevent deletion Dexpp ( talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm unhappy with the current Sexual intercourse lede because it seems to give an overly heterosexual feel to the first sentence, as if to say "penis-entering-vagina is whats normal". I have been reverted by good-faith editors though. but i think they are sucking up to societal views, hence want heterosexual sex to be the central in the opening sentence. I personally think our society is too obsessed with maintaining a penis-vs-vagina norm, and think the opening sentence should give a more varied view. Do i have a point? Pass a Method talk 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, there is a long term dispute about these articles. Some users believe that these articles should contain only the rights that were gained or lost, while others believe that the articles should contain all the important events of that year. There were two RFCs, the first at Talk:2010 in LGBT rights and the second on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights. However, due to low interest of users, nothing was resolved and the dispute is still alive and well. [3] [4]
I invite all interested users to join the discussion in order to find consensus about this.-- В и к и T 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I am currently updating Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and need guidance. I have been told by one Wiki editor that the term "Homosexual" is a euphemism, outdated, offensive and POV; therefore, it should not be used in the article. I have been told by another Wiki editor that "gay" is still considered informal and would be jarring when related to a 19th-century figure such as Tchaikovsky; therefore, since "homosexual" is still an encyclopedic term, I should use that. Both editors are of same-sex orientation, so this is not a case of heterosexual ignorance. If anything, I'm the ignorant one and feel caught in the middle. What would be the appropriate language to use in this article, as far as this group and WP in general is concerned? Thanks for your help. Jonyungk ( talk) 01:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would generally go with "homosexual". I do not concede that the word has been appropriated by anyone, and that statement directly contradicts the claim that it is a "euphemism". I find "gay" jarring in a 19th-century context. Concert programs routinely refer to T as homosexual and I don't think they reflect any bigotry whatsoever. (On the other hand, I think the word "straight" is at base pejorative and have hetero friends who object to it.) I'll try taking a look and see if I can make suggestions on the talk page. Often the solution is to avoid a war of words by looking at entire sentences and considering their tone. Just substituting one word for another suggests a tin ear. And that seems the last thing we'd want in the entry on Tchaikovsky. Note: terms like "homosexual acts" and "homosexual behavior" and "homosexual lifestytle" are bigoted attempts to establish boundaries for what is and is not acceptable. But I don't think the same can be said of the adjective generally. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Having reviewed the section, I find it unobjectionable. The one use of the word gay is in "He sought out the company of gay men in his circle", which is only a little jarring, but does distinguish them nicely from the conflicted T. Most of the text deals with his difficulties accepting his sexual orientation. "Same-sex tendencies" is rather euphemistic but it matches T's own ambivalence. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Added suicide risk to the lead with a reliable source. Keep an eye on this if possible since it's likely to start an edit war from ex-gay supporting groups (notably supporters and religious themed ones) and i'm not online as much as i'd like. Thanks Jenova 20 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In my view all articles with titles such as " LGBT history in Ireland" -- of which there are many, dealing with both nation states and continents -- should be moved to "LGBT history of [name]". Titles such as 'LGBT history in Ireland' suggest that the article is dealing with the writing and readership of historical works about LGBT issues in Ireland -- whereas what almost all these articles are about is the history of LGBT itself. NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 14:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have another suggestion for the Timeline of same-sex marriage, can you check it here? Thanks (: -- DrkFrdric ( talk) 16:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Some editors have gotten carried away in categorizing articles.
LGBT was a term coined in the 80s or so. Some people have adopted this label for organizations and media attention. That is fine when categorizing. But Plato is not an "LGBT." He may be one or more of those, but not part of that group historically.
Let me give an allied (US) example. Franklin Roosevelt drew together Southerners, union members, Catholics, immigrants, into a successful coalition in the early 1930s. They became the "new" Democratic Party which won many elections. If I identified someone who had recently immigrated and had citizenship in 1938, there is a good chance he would be a Democrat.
But William Bradford (Plymouth governor), who immigrated in the 17th century, could not be classified as a Democrat. It would be anachronistic. Student7 ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Another problem is, without meaning to attack anyone, laziness. Some biographies have been labeled "histories" when they are "people." New categories, to identify people should be made. People are not histories. Please define proper categories as necessary. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You can get lots of verification on "Bruz Fletcher" from the author of the recent book about him, Tyler
[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.152.135 ( talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still working on the last of these articles but now Straight Pride has appeared and is full of bias, POV and inaccuracies, including labelling every LGBT person as an activist. Can someone help out here? I've tagged it but i'm struggling with the workload. Could possibly be nominated for deletion. Thanks Jenova 20 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I want to bring up the issue of corrective rape in the context of LGBT studies because corrective rape is a practice used in South African countries to "turn" lesbians straight. We think this issue is pertinent to describe on Wikipedia because the current entry is lacking in depth and only gives a very basic description. A classmate and I are writing this article together under the mentorship of Dianna Strassman and Anne Chao because we feel that information about this topic is extremely important and hopefully more and more people will learn about it all over the globe. User:TasneemIslam1025 User:Rachelpop- 0:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I want some opinions for this rename proposal here Pass a Method talk 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)