User talk:Exploding Boy

The Cure

Hi, you may have noticed I reverted your change at The Cure. If you are going to delete information, please explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page. Is this information incorrect? Tuf-Kat 07:55, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for expanding on The Cure. I have made various minor changes to it, and added an introduction. If you have any questions on our music standards or the linking and disambiguation changes I made, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Tuf-Kat 18:03, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Japan

That's a good article! :) --Yacht (Talk)Q 02:01, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Thanks, but it's far from finished! Exploding Boy 08:30, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

AIDS

Your opinion on my reworking of AIDS would be welcome. Also I have redirected poppers to nitrite inhalants which seems a more scientific term.

Interesting collection of articles you have worked on. Could I guess that you are a Japanese gay man living in Vancouver? Adam 11:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree there needs to be a section on AZT and the early search for treatments. I have articles of mine from that period which I can cannibalise for that.

Interesting that you detect an anti-gay bias in my writing. As a gay writer I have always tried to be scrupulous to avoid special pleading for the gay community when writing about AIDS. Perhaps I go a little too far sometimes. Adam 00:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Japanese names

Is there a reason why you insist on moving Kobo Abe to Abe Kobo without having received any support on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese) about what name order should be used for contemporary Japanese figures? - Tlotoxl 17:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's his name
That's how he's known in the west too
There's a redirect page so what difference does it make?
According to the note at the top of the List of Japanese authors page, "Authors are listed by the native order of Japanese names, family name followed by given name to ensure consistency even though some authors are known for their western-ordered name." Abe is listed under A, not K, but the original link opened a page headed "Kobo Abe."

Exploding Boy 02:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

1) True, of course that's his name, but 2) when he's published in the US, Canada or England (dunno about the other English-speaking countries) the covers of his books read "Kobo Abe", not "Abe Kobo". I'm not sure about the List of Japanese authors page -- there are plenty of inconsistencies on wiki to be sure -- but those interested did seem to come to something of a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese). Why not argue your case there rather than change a single entry to FN-GN. Of course the redirect means it's not a huge deal, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me that we agreed to put contemporary authors in 'western convention' GN-FM, but that Kobo Abe's name alone would appear in its native order. -- Tlotoxl 05:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Haven't seen a consensus there yet :) Changed Abe because it seemed to me it made little sense to have him listed as Abe Kobo on the list page but Kobo Abe on the article page, especially given the note (see above). In the end I don't see how it makes a lot of difference either way the names are give, as long as there's a redirect page and name order is noted. Exploding Boy 06:08, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus found several months ago seems to have disappeared ;) Anyway, I hope we come to a new agreement soon. -- Tlotoxl 06:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The word homophobia was coined by Dr George Weinberg in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, in about 1971. Adam 13:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I wasn't the one who wrote that, but it's nice to know.Exploding Boy 13:49, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll Please come participate Sam Spade 03:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

big chunk of definitions

Hi! I don't wish to be rude, but feel a need to be frank and clear. I do not favor the insertion of long definition sections into wikipedia articles. Most of all since it makes the article harder to read, but also since it is a breach of good wikipedia customs. A definition of marriage belongs to a dictionary or possibly to the article of marriage - not in the article on same-sex marriage. I will not (yet) make any radical change of the article, but I hope you will consider to restore it to something more similar to its previous disposition (and other wikipedia articles). Much of what you recently added would in my humble opinion belong to the talk-page.

I might also say that I find the distinction between marriage and civil unions to be of some interest, but to me it seems as the current article is written for and by debators in USA, where that distinction seems much more discussed than in other parts of the democratic world.

Where I currently live (Denmark) the term in use is "(registered) Domestic partnership," and wikipedia's article on Civil union actually directs to the article on Domestic partnership, but in that article there is no relevant information. As conceptualized here, a blessing or maybe a marriage can be an "add-on" for couples who've registered as domestic partners. ;-> The domestic partnership is what carries the legal relevance. The church seremon is more of an ornament and a point where the fight for equality can be continued.

Personally, I would probaly favor a merge of the articles on Civil Union and Same-sex marriage, and turning the redirect at Domestic partnership into a disambiguing between Civil union and Domestic partner.

--Ruhrjung 03:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking specifically about the definition of "marriage"? Myself, I don't find it too long, and it makes clear the difference between legal and religious marriage, which is an important one in the same-sex marriage debate.

Yes, I think the definition of marriage belongs in the article on marriage.--Ruhrjung 12:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the subsequent definition, I felt, in view of the controversy, that it was important to explain the use of "same-sex," however I agree; I will move the bulk of that section to the talk page.

Re: your comments on civil unions, there is a distinction: a "civil union" is not a "marriage." If it's not called a marriage, then it's not a marriage. This view seems to be shared by the majority of those in the debate, both for and against. This distinction, presumably, applies anywhere in the world.

The same applies to "domestic partnership." Basically, a "marriage" can be either legal or religious. A "domestic partnership" or "civil union" can only be legal. But only a "marriage" is a marriage (is this making any sense?). That's why there need to be separate pages for "same-sex marriage" and "civil union/domestic partnership," the same way they're separate for "marriage" and "civil union/domestic partnership."

No, your point of view does not make sense to me. :-) If the difference between "marriage" and "registered partnership" is, basically, that one is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriage" only colloquially, and the content of the two concepts are similar, then the importance of the difference seems somewhat inflated ;)

I would suggest that it lies in the interest of opponents of queer rights to diminish the contemporary international existence of legal recognition of same-sex families, and that's an important reason to stress the marriage with its religious component instead of the legal components which are shared with registered partnership as it has been practicized in Denmark for some 15 years, and somewhat shorter in other North-European countries.

As I understand the NPOV-concept, the separation of the article on same-sex marriages from that on same-sex partnerships is an unlucky concession to one side of the debate in one particular, however big, country.
--Ruhrjung 12:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy that the distinction between same-sex marriages and civil unions / domestic partnerships is an important one, and not just in the US. The same debate went before the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. Civil unions may offer some or all of the legal benefits of marriages, but as has been pointed out repeatedly in these debates, separate but equal is an illusion. Separate unions for opposite-sex and same-sex couples will lead to one being considered "the real thing" and the other a second class substitute. An umbrella article that directs readers to the marriage and civil union/domestic partnership articles may be a good idea, but merging them will only result in confusion, and an article that is way too large as well.

-- Kimiko 13:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See, this is kind of the point. If the difference between "marriage" and "registered partnership" is, basically, that one is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriage," then why aren't they both called "domesetic partnership" or both called "marriage"?

You're exactly right: it lies in the interest of opponents of queer rights to diminish not just the legal recognition of same-sex families, but their recognition as equal by the community at large. Unfortunately, a marriage by any other name does not have the same recognition nationally and internationally as the instantly recognizable "marriage." Exploding Boy 13:34, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've nothing more to add, and I'm not inclined to debate any of these matters. At least not yet. Maybe later - and then on the talk page. It's interesting, though, to learn how other people think.--Ruhrjung 12:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RE: Heterosexuality/****

Exploding Boy, I strongly urge you to seek mediation before you let things get too bad. **** was the first user with whom I ever found it impossible to conduct a civil conversation. Obviously this user is trying to put an unacceptable level of anti-LGBT POV into articles related to sexual orientation. This user does not follow simple precepts of Wiki-etiquette and employs several key tactics to spoil articles, namely editing/rewording others' words in an attempt to change what was said, and making dozens of consecutive edits in order to make it impossible to revert easily, while hiding what changes were made in the multiple edits without summaries. This behavior is not acceptable and I feel confident that mediators will agree. I saw you listed it for peer review, but based upon my experience, I doubt that will be sufficient. I'm really sorry I can't do more to help, but I always promised myself I'd never get involved in an edit war. Good luck, Paige 18:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey

I love your user name. :) RickK 05:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

talk:anal sex

I know what its like to have a bit of Wikistress, and I'm sorry if you took what I was saying on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates the wrong way. I simply don't feel the article is ready for such lofty status, and to be frank, I was so annoyed with whoever wrote some parts of the anal sex article (you can see some of what I am refering to at the top of the talk) that I began editing! It was literally my first edit, and was prompted by sheer outrage at the bias I had found. I'm still a bit steamed about it, altho I wish it showed less :S Anyhow, while we may not agree about how ready the article is for Wikipedia:Featured articles I don't see us having much disagreement over the particulars of the page. Lets see what we can do!

p.s. I am a Members' Advocate and would be happy to assist if you have any troubles with unfriendliness on the wiki. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been involved in repeated disagreements and arguments sometimes becoming unpleasantness across several articles and talk pages with a particular user (see related message above) who, from my point of view, has a biased POV on the subjects in question. Things have become slightly acrimonious from time to time, and perhaps even more frustratingly, the user has failed to return to some of the discussions, leaving things hanging with no resolution but still basically in dispute; it makes editing difficult as one tends to worry that doing so will only fan the flames further. Anyway, as it's made me a little gunshy. Exploding Boy

I've had almost identical problems, and only recently. The obvious thing to do is simply talk it out/avoid them, and set a good example by using wikiquette. There is also wikipedia:truce (which I wrote myself btw). When that doesn't work (and its always their fault, of course ;), wikipedia:conflict resolution is a much better option than the edit warring, flamming, or all purpose grumpiness which so many engage in.

p.s. I got curious enough to look into who had originally made the edits that so annoyed me, and it not only wasn't you, but it was someone who generally writes on completely seperate topics, and (I am quite certain) ment only the best, filling in the article in its early days. Sam Spade 14:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yakuza

Fantastic edit. The article is much clearer now. Tlotoxl

LOL, thanks. Exploding Boy

Ruyard Kipling

Just to let you know, I promoted Ruyard Kipling today from featured article candidate to featured article. I normally wouldn't mention it except you talk about it on your user page ;) →Raul654 05:32, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Cool! Exploding Boy

I don't believe it is true. Adam 05:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[sigh] Well I suppose it's possible to find someone somewhere who says or has said any silly thing we care to think of, but in this case I doubt that it's at all common (I've never heard it), and I don't think it's important enough to mention. Adam 05:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how old Exploding Boy is, but as one who lived through that period, and who was very active in the gay community response to AIDS at that time, and who read the Anerican, British and Australian gay press regularly at that time, I can say quite firmly that although the expression "gay plague" was frequently used by homophobes and (occasionally) in the tabloid press, I never heard a gay man refer to AIDS as "the plague." I think this is a case of retrospective myth construction. Adam 01:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First on the matter of substance: the original sentence said that AIDS was known in the gay communities as "the plague." This is untrue: it was known first as "GRID" and then as "AIDS." I cannot of course deny that some individuals used the expression, although I have never heard or read of this. This is not a question of me arbitrarily denying that something exists because I have never heard of it. I have been intimately involved in the gay community's response to AIDS, both here and internationally, since 1983 (see my website), and if the expression was at all common I would have heard it.

Second on the point of etiquette. I apologise if anything I have said strikes you as discourteous. I have adapted to the standard of debate I found since beginning to contribute to Wikipedia last year, during which time I have been called everything from a fascist and a Zionist agent to a liar and a fool. I have had my articles blanked, my edits reverted, my home page vandalised, and my professional competence, intelligence and honesty attacked. This seems to be more-or-less standard here. Certainly I express my opinions forcefully, otherwise they get ignored, but I don't think I have been guilty of personal attacks unless provoked.

Adam 05:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any interest on doing an entry on gay sex? Right now one doesn't exist and the phrase is redirected to "homosexual behavior." Moncrief