This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shubinator (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 13 September 2009 (remove redundant parameter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:56, 13 September 2009 by Shubinator (talk | contribs) (remove redundant parameter)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 30, 2007. |
Biography: Peerage and Baronetage GA‑class | |||||||||||||
|
LGBTQ+ studies GA‑class | |||||||
|
Comments
Interesting and curious. Was Sir Ewan intersex and assigned as a baby to the female gender only to discover that he felt male or was he a "true" woman, who simply decided to become a man? pmcray 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know. My source was a Telegraph obituary, which was very discreet about such matters. Ewan's quote suggests intersex, though - his comments seem to imply that the doctors could have registered him male but decided on female. Shimgray | talk | 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
also this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/01/nest01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/01/ixportal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.56.156 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be quite interested to find out his/her actual (physical) gender... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.209.49 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Rated
I rated this article as a C. It would be B, if he was only famous for his gender, but he was also an aristzocrat, so would be notable for that anyway. Currently the article reduces him to only his gender. Sources shuold exist for all aristocratic debutants, so expanding other areas of his life should be easy. Similarly for the Barony. I'm sure there must be more to him than his gender. Yobmod (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Woah, that was a quick improvment! I've re-rated it to B, which it clearly is now. GA beckons, although a portrait would make that a much easier pass imo (maybe a scan of the biogrpahy cover would make fair-use?). Great job1 Yobmod (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Like I said, your timing was perfect...
- I've had real trouble tracking down a photograph. There's a small number (mostly low-quality) in the book - none on the cover - but the only copy of it I have access to is in the Bodleian, and there's no way I can practically make a copy of the images in it as a result. I've not found any contemporary newspaper photographs that I can easily get at, either, and there's nothing in the NPG.
- As for online images to scavenge under fair-use, again, a blank. I've only turned up the one, and it's so grainy as to be of virtually no use. Still, plenty of time to keep looking... Shimgray | talk | 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
I've been mulling over these changes ("Pronoun issues resolved", 18 April) for a while, and on the whole I'm not comfortable with them.
The pronoun issue is one where stylistic preference varies, and I concur the MoS does suggest we should use masculine throughout, but the rest of it is less good. With these changes, we're consistently using "Ewan" rather than "Betty" to refer to the subject before 1945ish; I've never seen anything suggesting "Ewan" was used at all, by the subject or anyone else, before that date, and it seems a bit anachronistic to use it in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the subject wanted it that way.
(Forbes's biography is charmingly vague, omitting any details of personal identity in early life, even when you're looking for it. There really isn't much to draw on.)
I've removed the one part that actually changed the meaning of the text - the legal challenge to inheritance was not based on anatomy alone! - but I'll leave the other edits standing for the moment. Any thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (peerage) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (peerage) articles
- Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of peers
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles