Talk:LGBT topics in Singaporean literature

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 4/3/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Objectivity issues[edit]

Introduction[edit]

Given the alleged paucity of Singaporean literature, this entry shouldn't have been that long. Or Singaporean literature isn't really as pauperised as you claim.

most local publishers were extremely reluctant to print books which dealt with the "hot potato" topic of homosexuality. It was unclear if there was sufficient market demand to recoup the cost of the first print run and the added worry of the publication being banned by the authorities.

Since the real reasons are unclear, let's not resort to mindreading or conjecture. Give citations if you feel these were the probable reasons.

Plays[edit]

It was in the field of drama that creative writers first challenged an officially-imposed taboo on the subject of homosexuality. Give a citation that there was an official rule, and explain how this official rule was allowed to be broken, and then discarded. Otherwise, this is just fiction.

Initially proscribed by the authorities, Singapore’s theatre practitioners persevered You don't really know what proscription means. Give a citation where Singapore's theatre practioners were targetted as a group, as enemies of the state and had their citizenships stripped. Otherwise, this just violates NPOV.

You obviously have no idea of the English language meaning of the word "proscribe". The Wikipedia article which you have provided the link to describes it in a very narrow way. Amongst other things, "proscribe" is synonymous with "prohibit" and "forbid". Why don't you improve your English before making such ignorant comments?

Wong pushes the 'coming out' message and moves closer to activism than Heng or Chiang. Opinionating isn't the same as writing encyclopedia entries.

Fiction - Novels[edit]

Suggestion: move book reviews to their own stubs, please.

The handling of HIV and AIDS could have been dealt with in a more informed fashion but what kind of detailed information was available to youths in the Singapore army in the 90s? Personal opinion does not qualify as encylopedic entry. Rephrase or strike out.

Lee makes a historical impact by creating a new genre as well as a good documentary on how the military bureaucracy reacts when a soldier comes out. However, it also reflects the rawness of a maiden work and skirts too closely to melodrama. This is very subjective editorialising, violates NPOV.

Poetry[edit]

Cyril Wong is not the only gay poet in Singapore.

Homophobic Fiction[edit]

I suggest this section be struck out entirely for violating NPOV. Depictions of homosexuality that do not suit the liking of the author of the article hardly qualify as homophobic. A dismal retelling of Billy Budd is not homophobic.

"...worst possible homophoic book ever", "bad taste with a crude campiness", "one worse than the other" do not qualify as objective writing.

Gwee Li Sui in the eponymous book with the poem Who wants to buy a book of Poems talks about how (most of the) poets are limp-wristed and "ah kua". Gwee Li Sui also writes poems that make fun about how postmodernists tend to believe that there is no truth. The poem is not homophobic, but poking fun - as is a theme running through many of Gwee's poems - at generalisations.

Other poets such as Gwee Li Sui, Toh Hsien Min and Yong Shu Hoong could not master this subtle intricacy That they don't portray homosexuality in terms acceptable and friendly to the author of the article does not make their poems homophobic.

27.04.2006 On 'F.O.C: Freedom of Choice' by Leslie Lung: he is a controversial figure and an 'ex-gay'- does this denote his book as non-accepting of homosexuality?

Non-fiction[edit]

Wait. Non-fiction is not literature. Please move section to a separate article, like "Gender studies in Singapore"

You have obviously not heard of the expression "scientific literature", have you?

Literature on the internet[edit]

Political essays are not literature. Forums and self-help pages are not literature. Gay news, dating websites are not literature. Blogs are... not literature. Akikonomu 18:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Akikonomu[reply]