Talk:Peter Lamborn Wilson

Who?

While we're in the midst of something deep here... Who the blazes is Robert Anton Wilson ? Should we remember Peter Lamborn Wilson for his sake ? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.180.172 (talk • contribs)

Introduction - pedophilia mention

I've reverted a recent change to the lead paragraph. Let's discuss it here rather than edit warring. The change in question deleted an addition I'd made several months ago, namely "He is a controversial figure in anarchist circles due to his pedophilia advocacy". I think that was a fair comment given the content of the article, and in line with guidelines in MOS:LEAD, particularly "...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Meticulo (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In the section you quote, you can also read (note) «Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section». So, what Wilson famous for? Temporary Autonomous Zones or pedophilia advocacy? it seems the former

Per MOS:LEADREL, I would say pedophilia advocacy is 'not' what makes Wilson notable, hence it should be not in the lead section. Ffaffff (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also in MOS:LEADREL is, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." And looking at the current material in the body of the article, the pedophilia advocacy section is longer than the TAZ section. I'm no expert on Wilson, but I'm inclined to agree with you that he has in the past been better known for TAZ than for pedophilia advocacy (and the TAZ section is probably worth expanding). However, I disagree with your interpretation of MOS: LEADREL. To me, it doesn't seem to be saying that a lead section can only include the thing for which a person is most notable. I still think the pedophilia issue is a prominent controversy and thus belongs in the lead section. But I might be wrong. I wouldn't object if you wanted to seek the opinions of others through any of the venues listed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Probably best to have a look beforehand though at the archive of past discussions, if you haven't already. Meticulo (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, 3O seems a good way of ironing this out. Opening one now Ffaffff (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think the current lede puts undue attention on the pedophilia advocacy, per the DuckDuckGo search results. I see a two solutions: the best would be to expand the lede to two short paragraphs, talking more about his work and how it is received. In such an expanded lede, the sentence on pedophilia may not be undue. The french version of this article may provide inspiration. The second solution is to remove the sentence for now. I further note that section called Criticism is typically discouraged. It may be better if this is rewritten as a reception section, with a subsection about the criciticm around pedophilia. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, FemkeMilene, which I think is a good one. I've made a start by adding to the introduction. (Ffaffff, my addition might need further editing: I'm not familiar with Wilson's political works so may have mischaracterised his style of anarchism; and the phrase "organisers of subcultural events" seems a bit clunky - I was thinking about linking directly to Burning Man but then discovered that the Cacophony Society article says the concept of zones came from a Russian film rather than from TAZ.) Meticulo (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent edit Ffaffff (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Some writers have been troubled by Bey's endorsement of adults having sex with children"

SNORT :] 88.107.172.95 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Azali connection

Mineemod, Wahid Azal is not a reliable source, so can only be used for claims about himself. If you want to expand on the Azali beliefs of the subject of the article, you need a reliable source or an expansion on what Wilson wrote in his books. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but in this context, no. Wilson clearly admired Wahid Azal's philosophy, that is clear from his late books. If there was just the claim of Wahid Azal, without any supporting evidence, then, it would indeed look dubious - Wilson is, without doubt, a famous personality, and one can imagine someone just claiming him to have been his follower - but in a situation where we know about the connection from the other (Wilson's side), and Wahid's claim has been published not only in his own self-published sources but also elsewhere, this is precisely the situation where it shouldn't be ignored, if only for confirming that the relationship was not one-sided.

In other words, the utility of including the reference is higher than any counterargument about the unreliability of the source. Wilson was an anarchist, someone against the system, and it is only natural that he would interact with people outside of the mainstream. The fact that he was acknowledged by Wahid Azal is important context here. If you feel like my formulation was too non-critical, suggest a better one. But I'm going to stand by my point of including the information as well as the reference. Mineemod (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cuñado Per what I wrote above, I reverted your revert. If you have any other objections to the second sentence (with the Wahid Azal-sourced information), please tell me. The first sentence mentioning Wahid Azal is sourced directly from Wilson's book (see my comment below) and very relevant, I won't back down from keeping that. Mineemod (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Look up "Wahid Azal" here for reference: https://ia801608.us.archive.org/24/items/peter-lamborn-wilson-peacock-angel-the-esoteric-tradition-of-the-yezidis-inner-traditions-2022/Peter%20Lamborn%20Wilson%20-%20Peacock%20Angel_%20The%20Esoteric%20Tradition%20of%20the%20Yezidis-Inner%20Traditions%20%282022%29.pdf. Mineemod (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the book. Here are the most relevant quotes that shed some light on Wilson's view of Azali Babism:

I have been writing for some time about the need for a “new revelation” in the sphere of spirituality... I’m not alone in dreaming of such a movement; recently, for example, I came across the contemporary Persian philosopher Wahid Azal’s call for a post-Islamic Sufism (based on classical neo-Shiite Babism, heterodox Sufism, and ayahuasca shamanism). Such ideas are “in the air” and have been since at least the 1960s.

I agree with Wahid Azal that the age now demands the proclamation of the precedence of the esoteric (batini) over the exoteric (zaheri). Therefore, the aspect of Yezidism that will chiefly concern me is its esoteric essence.

Nothing here is suggesting that Wilson was an adherent of Azali Babism in any form, merely commenting on it in passing as an example of spiritual revolution. "I agree with Wahid Azal" is not a declaration of adherence. In the same book Wilson dedicates a chapter to Yazid Ibn Mu‘awiya, and says that Yazid manifests the “Christic principle” for his followers, and “is” in a sense Jesus but Wilson's article doesn't even mention his admiration of Yazid. WP:UNDUE applies. And as far as Wahid Azal's claims, you need to read WP:SPS and WP:TRUTH. He cannot be used as a source about Wilson's beliefs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your application of WP:UNDUE is incorrect. The importance of Wahid Azal's philosophy in context with Wilson's earlier views is not comparable to his mention of Yazid, as Wahid Azal is a contemporary philosopher whose Sufi background is also shared with Wilson, and whose idea of "new revelation" Wilson shares. Mineemod (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE reference was to say that including any reference to Wilson's views of the Bab or Azal is probably itself UNDUE, unless it were included by an independent reliable source summarizing Wilson's beliefs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edit makes absolutely no sense. The article already mentions Sufism, that wouldn't need any mention; the mention of Wahid Azal's post-Islamic Babi Sufism is an evolution of Wilson's life-long interest in it, and also of him studying many traditions before that.

I'm going to clean up my original edit, excluding the notion of the conversion. My reasoning behind including it, even as a weak source, is that we are dealing with a rather unconventional writer, who, for example, did not even use modern technology. The mention of Wahid Azal and his order in Wilson's last two books is no conincidence, and an information that the other party affirms the relationship is in place there.

I'm disappointed that my contribution efforts regarding the historically much relevant topic of the Babi/Bayani religion, on which there is very scarce information due to their practice of taqiyya, and its relationship to contemporary Islamic philosophy were met with such dry objections for verifiability. I'm personally not a fan of edit wars, but some people clearly have their instructions to purge any information about the Bayanis, as Edward Granville Browne testified in the 1910s already. Under such circumstances, you have to understand the need to push more for publishing such information. Mineemod (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)