![]() | 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 1 |
I placed Wilson in "Pedophilia:" because his interest seems to be in pre-pubescent boys, while I understand "perderasty" to concern pubescent boys. Is there a better category? - Will Beback 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I did some cleanup on this page. I put a title on the question and response related to PLW and RAW. I changed some inconsistencies in formatting. And I removed (this may upset someone) the PLW as "poseur" comment on top along with the link to an article that has circulated the internet for years, and which makes grossly inflammatory suggestions and accusations that have never been proved. Such garbage has no place on wikipedia. The question of pederasty/pedophilia is also very controversial, but I will leave it alone. The fact is, certain people have made a whole lot out of a very few comments, which, compared to the sum total of PLW's writings, are very minor. As far as I am aware, no one has ever stated that PLW has committed a pedophilic act.-- Charles 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this writer not fall under the domain of a philosopher (and so deserve the respective WikiProject's attention)?-- Blingice 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a reference to the "Moorish Science Temple of America" in this article? It seems to have no relevance or reference to this case. 128.195.89.174 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia readers and Dylanfly in particular: I am Robert P. Helms, the same person who has written perhaps thirty articles or press releases in criticism of PLW/Hakim Bey since around 1998. This is my real and legal name. I never sign articles under pseudonyms. I cannot take the idea of Bey and Wilson possibly being two different people seriously, for reasons I've already stated in this column. "Theoldanarchist" has recently called doubt upon my writings, stating that I blur pederasty with pedophilia, and that I somehow infer that PLW is known for sure to have committed a pedophile act. Since he calls my writings "tripe," may I go so far as calling his statements "manipulative and perhaps dishonest?" Believe me, if I had ever known of such an essential fact within this debate, the whole world would know it, and the debate would be over. To be fair, I have learned a lot about the man-boy love scene --past and present --since lobbing my first shell at Wilson. This includes not only the line between pederasty and pedophilia (Hakim Bey never makes his position clear), but also the history of Man-boy-love among anarchists, the NAMBLA story in recent decades, the concept of an age of consent, a lot of research in various libraries that brought out many details, and things relating to Wilson's own world. If you read something I wrote on the subject around 1999, there will be ways to shoot holes in it. But if it's dated 2004 or 2005, all I can say is, "let's dance." I've had this little chat with NPR, the ARTE TV network of France & Germany, Fifth Estate, and hundreds of individuals or editors, often very learned people, and NOBODY has ever boxed me to the ropes on this subject. If "Theoldanarchist" could kindly take his toungue out of his cheek, he might name a statement that I have made and that may discredit me. In this anarchist's opinion, Wikipedia has a certain little gaggle of editors who go to any length to protect Peter Lamborn Wilson from his own writings. It's something like trying to say that Hillary Clinton isn't a Democrat. Why should I take these accusations seriously? Do astronomers argue in public with flat-earth activists? BobHelms 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Peter Lamborn Wilson related to the writer Robert Anton Wilson? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.230.143 ( talk • contribs)
The article says he's from NYC. A quick glance at some of his other books (Shower of Stars; Escape from the Nineteenth Century; Pitrate Utopias) seems not to say where he was born, but the bio blurb in his translation of Divine Flashes says he was born "near Baltimore, Maryland". Anyone know for sure? Ansat 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The British band Coil had a song called "Assassins of Hakim Bey". See track 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_of_the_Week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.70.63 ( talk) 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the separate pages for Pirate utopias and Temporary Autonomous Zone should redirect to PLW and merge here. They're his ideas. The TAZ, in particular, is influential, but it still should go here with PLW (aka Hakim Bey). -- Dylanfly 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wiki folks, Can someone out there actually name the reason why there is no mention of the controversy over Bey's/Wilson's writings on pederasty and/or pedophilia in the criticism section of this article? It's one thing to squash a statement of fact, but to delete all mention of the debate on the very same issue is another step beyond. I hope to receive a precise answer to this question, as it asks about the integrity of this encyclopedia project. Please answer in short, declarative sentences. BobHelms ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Friend, I have the very awkward task of explaining the meaning of English words to a person who seems to be fluent in the language. I tried, in my last message, to avoid this. Here is the problem: you think that this letter of mine is an accusation of improper behavior by the the living person who is the subject of the main article. Let's step slowly from there. If you look at the long bibliography, you will spot many items that have only to do with a sexual attraction to very young boys. Are you paying attention? That last sentence was important. Now, let's take the next step. If you could simply look into your own computer screen --right now --you will see that many people are disturbed by those same writings (the ones I referred to a few seconds ago, which are about a sexual attraction to very young boys). And so, here we are. You seem to be telling me that you are not having this discussion with me, and that many other Wikipedia contributors have not voiced their discomfort with those writings. Are we both on the same page yet? In a nutshell, there are two things, and only one of them is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, while the other is not. You have answered a question that I did not ask. I apologize for what may strike you as condescending language, but when the point is being avoided in such an obvious way as it is in your note, I find no other way to make myself clear. BobHelms ( talk) 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose a move to Hakim Bey? Google records only 36,600 hits for the current name, with 174,000 for the other. Sarge Baldy 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hakim Bey and Peter Lamborn Wilson might (or might not) be the same the person, but do not write the same texts. In terms of authorship, they represent different styles and different approaches. Diastar 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) diastar
Hello, It occurs to me that when a crew of Wiki editors consistently washes the article clean of any links or criticisms of PLW/Hakim Bey for his writings on man/boy love as anarchism, and ALSO maintains a list of his books WITH THEIR ISBN NUMBERS, those editors are really just helping Hakim Bey to sell his books. Does anyone out there owe the public a conflict of interest disclaimer? What is the precise reason why there can't be an external link to one of my critical articles? Is there a simple lack of intellectual integrity on anyone's part? I've been written off as a slanderer here, although I've been getting moral support from several of you. So, could could those of you who have insisted that this discussion is unfit for circulation please put your cards on the table and state why this particular anarchist, Hakim Bey, is favored in these ways? The cleansing of his reputation has been incessant and systematic, often justified with bizarre arguments such as "we don't really know if PLW is Hakim Bey," or that the whole idea of a Temporary Autonomous Zone isn't quite identical to what a pedophile pitches to a child EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've done everything I can imagine to be respectful at every step of this discussion column. Could the clean-up crew please give us statements as to why they are loyal to Hakim Bey, in plain English? How about a link to my article "Pedophilia and American Anarchism," and THEN KEEP IT THERE? This mild act of journalistic integrity would cause Wikipedia to be far more trusted and respected by everyone who reads the article and the discussion column. Fewer among them would take the web site's fawning admiration of PLW for granted. Hey, folks, the information is out there. PLW has not been dragging me into court, nor has he ever said a single word about the things I've written about his work. I think that he won't take action against Wikipedia either, over one external link. Don't you agree? When you respond, please don't casually omit to talk about your personal feelings for and/or your relationship with good old Hakim Bey. That is what I'm asking about. BobHelms ( talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
His nom de plume does not mean judge in Turkish. There are two words spelled nearly the same in Turkish, originally from Arabic. One is hakîm (pronounced as it is in the name of Bey) which means wise and hâkim which is pronounced HAAH-KIM and means judge. Behemoth 02:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Pederasty seems to be a theme in much of his work, including political advocacy. As this is probably the most controversial thing about him, it ought to at least be mentioned. — Ashley Y 00:11, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
"this particular accusation, concerning only his advocacy, is well-sourced." -- Ashley
Allow me to make a few short observations. All of the man's writings which relate to adult-child sex are signed "Hakim Bey." All of the information regarding the controversy about those same writings has been removed from the main article, save the titles of his writings, the fact that he wrote for NAMBLA, and this discussion column. Perhaps it's time for a reality check. The guy certainly argues for adult-child sex, whether pedophile or pederast or a vague presentation covering both, using anarchist ideas to justify his position. The only argument supporting the concealment of this issue is that there may have been some stray piece under "Hakim Bey" that was not written by PLW. Wikipedia is strongly associated with anarchism. Please let's all put our thinking caps on and chime in about whether something's wrong with this picture. By the way, I think that there IS something wrong with this picture. BobHelms 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
To recap, my position is that we need informative quotes and/or npov summaries, plus good sources of those quotes/summaries, no matter what the topic, but especially when it's controversial. I couldn't find any such quotes/sources that would adequately back up "argues for adult-child sex". If they exist, I'd support their incorporation in the main article. love, raiph 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I intend to delete any reference to PLW being a pedophile. There is absolutely no source whatsoever that indicates, much less proves, that he himself has ever pursued this lifestyle. Advocacy, most often in a poetic/philosophical style, could perhaps be argued. But, to say that he is a practicing pedophile is slander. Any such assertion will be deleted, and the person posting it will be warned not to do so again. --- Charles 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my grammar and formatting. I have no idea how to sign my comment. You haven't a leg to stand on - you're censoring wikipedia. That goes against everything it stands for. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.252.173 ( talk • contribs)
I'm disappointed to return to this article and find it purged of nearly all references to NAMBLA and pedophilia. I agree with Charles (above) who says that it hasn't been proven that PLW is a pedophile. That's a valid point, and I agree that it's slanderous to accuse someone of that without any supporting evidence. However, the link that I formerly found here was quite well referenced. It was the piece by Robert Helms, (who is presumably BobHelms as above). That piece came as a real shock to me! Has anyone seriously disputed Helms' claims? I would urge that at the very least, a link to Helms' piece be restored. 2nd, if people are reluctant to associate Hakim Bey with PLW (who may or may not be the same), then let's separate the two into two articles. Look, this is a serious issue. In the anarchist spirit (and most of us are anarchists, I presume), this information deserves a hearing, not a top-down declaration of it being mere POV. I'm not trying to damage Bey or PLW. I was a big fan of Bey, but this is a serious thing to me, one that deserves an audience and a fair hearing. I'd like the link to Helms' piece back up and I'd like to hear if Hakim Bey has a reply. In solidarity, -- Dylanfly 02:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I really would like to read a clear concise definition though because i don't fully understand the difference. I don't want to be accused of "intentionally" confusing the two terms.
I read Hakim Bey and I think PLW is a good poet with some interesting ideas, but I don't understand why he should be presented airbrushed of his less popular ideas like this- especially since they are a major theme in his writing. I think this is a very serious issue because censoring the page makes the anarchist community appear orwellian and intellectually dishonest, I think it undermines the credibility of the theory being discussed. It also distorts understanding of PLW the man and what his actual philosophy IS for those who are interested in his ideas. Drifter bob ( talk) 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with drifter re: Orwellian theme, au contraire I feel this smells of a witch hunt. The Bob article is some weird accusation of Bey "advocating intercourse with minors", a level of discussion usually applied to topics like Lolita (as in the novel/film) or when they outlawed that scorpions album cover wp page in the UK. At this level of "proof" you could start accusing lots of poets of being paedarasts. Pnd ( talk)
Dear Wikipedia Users, All the references to the age-old controversy regarding Hakim Bey's advocacy of pedophilia, pederasty, and/or man-boy love AS AN ANARCHIST ARGUMENT have been repeatedly deleted from this article. It has happened again and again, year after year now. The people who can see the legitimacy and the importance of the criticism are outnumbered by those who are either obsessed with a hard reading of Wiki's policy on living persons or (as in most cases), are fatuous followers of the subject himself. Perhaps there should be a set of internal pages determining the precise, contextual meanings of terms like sycophant, ethically suspect person, anarchoid sexual tourism, and persons living with stupidity. The result of all this time invested by me and several others in good faith is nothing more than a promotional ad for Hakim Bey and everything he advocates. There's no link to any of the articles on his paedo side. There's no hint of it in the section on "criticism," and there never will be any such thing. The collective consciousness of this article is that of a moral slob. Wikipedia feels that when an adult coaxes a child into a sexual activity by using all his powers of oratory and extensive writings on piracy, religious history, and the occult that cause actual scholars of these subjects to roll their eyes with disgust --that person is doing a genuinely cool, anarchist thing, and that no criticism of anyone who advocates this should be given space in the "People's Encyclopedia." To me, this indicates that Wikipedia is a corrupted, largely dishonest, and intellectually pitiful item. The most effective way to suppress an opinion is to make the world believe that it does not exist, or that it's a mere conspiracy theory, and that's being deliberately done in this article. Of course everything becomes perfectly clear when a person asks, "is it a molestation pitch?" and then picks up a copy of Temporary Autonomous Zone. Everyone who has been part of this discussion knows perfectly well that the criticism is sound, and yet we have come to the final, collective decision that we lack the courage to share it with the general public. Perhaps Wiki has been around long enough, and has grown large enough, to evolve into a sort-of elected politician --one who brought on hopes of change and reform, but then reverted to the same hypocrisy that preceded him or her in office. What a pity! BobHelms ( talk) 10:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This man is universally known as Hakim Bey. Marilyn Manson is not at Brian Hugh Warner, Bob Dylan is not at Robert Allan Zimmerman. Zazaban ( talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Peter Lamborn Wilson → Hakim Bey — This page was tagged for {{ db-move}} by Zazaban because Hakim Bay is " overwhelmingly the most common name used to refer to the man. The Current setup is akin to having Bob Dylan at Robert Allan Zimmerman." Since this article has existed at the present title since 2003, the page move may be controversial. Thus, I have brought this move request to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have little knowledge about this subject, so I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus for the move. I looked at the earlier discussion and can only see a slight preference for Hakim Bey. Since there doesn't seem to be any further input, I'm closing this as no consensus for reverting the previous move. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hakim Bey → Peter Lamborn Wilson — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I request that this page be moved back to Peter Lamborn Wilson. The page move to Hakim Bey was done rather precipitously and without proper discussion. The fact is, this matter has been discussed previously, and there was no consensus for a move. Furthermore, the use of the pseudonym "Hakim Bey" is not exclusive to Peter Lamborn Wilson, the term itself is not unique, and there has never been confirmation that all works published under that name were in fact written by PLW. In this sense, the comparison to Bob Dylan is not apt---no one else has put out an album using the name Bob Dylan, and everyone knows him as Bob Dylan, as he never put out an album as Robert Zimmerman. This is not the case here, as there are at least as many publications under the name Peter Lamborn Wilson as there are Hakim Bey. - RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Here we are again. After listening to Bob Helms, reading his article, and listening to all sides, I'm convinced that a link to Helms' article on PLW's pedophile writings belongs here. I don't care for the position that Lib.com isn't a reputable source--it's a major anarchist library. Should Helms publish in the corporate press? Other alternative press sources are cited in the article, so it would seem that a bit hypocritical to exclude Helms' piece on this basis. I'd like to propose that Helms provide some links to Hakim Bey's writings on pedophilia... That way we can see them in the flesh. If they exist, then I think we have to let Helms' link stand. It's a very important issue. And finally, Helms never accuses PLW of committing any crimes or touching boys---he's only bringing up some writings. If these writings exist, the world has a right to know. Smilo Don ( talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Friends, For about ten years I have criticized Bey in articles, heated discussions with editors, phone calls to radio stations, and re-worded announcements for his talks that pretended to be the original announcements. The sole reason, which I stated most of these times, has been because Bey's writings on pedophilia/pederasty/man-boy love and his writings on anarchism (especially TAZ) bear a hard-to-miss, hard-wired resemblance to each other and I find that to be an opportunistic and offensive use of an idea that I hold dear. When I'm roasted for comparing and making fair observations on his written work only, and never his conduct, I feel that some Wiki readers should carefully avoid college literature courses. I started the public debate on this, and it has had quite a lot of responses along the way. All of this has centered upon things I wrote. But, Wikipedia being the unusual animal it is, the above facts mean that I can't make a link to my own work, as my writings on this are my original work. Also, he's alive and well-known and Wiki needs to be ridiculously cautious. Now, I have been asked to provide links and citations, but here it goes on the discussion page, not the main article. On the main article it would immediately disappear because I caused it all, or because some believe that long strings of replies to several years of online articles don't amount to "criticism" that we're all allowed to know about. How many people out there can't find these things on google, anyway? What do you need me for?
Here are links, the first of which is a bibliography:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306871.shtml http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/86383.php http://radio.weblogs.com/0123486/2004/04/05.html http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=Hakim_Bey http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=35381117&groupID=106025811&adTopicID=16&Mytoken=A5DE7B2F-63D7-41D6-AD3080E58494B3F55234075
http://www.arcanology.com/2006/10/08/hakim-bey-newsflash/
http://void.nothingness.org/archives/ra/display/2560/index.php?show_text=1 http://void.nothingness.org/archives/ra/display/2562/index.php http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/02/02/17193581.php http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=953&hilit= http://www.barbelith.com/topic/26209 http://miniver.blogspot.com/2006/10/hakim-bey.html http://community.livejournal.com/anarchists/2007/08/19/ ftp://ftp.uu.net/.vol/2/government/etext-poli/Spunk/texts/pubs/ajoda/38/sp000781.txt http://www.techiegroups.com/showthread.php?t=85652 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-nyc-web/2005-November/1128-k2.html http://www.nambla.org/rockisl.htm
My Political Beliefs, by Hakim Bey.
This appeared in NAMBLA Bulletin, June 1986, page 14 (published by the North American Man-boy Love Association). AVAILABLE AT SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DEPT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR. The line breaks were not preserved when I saved it for the Wiki page.
barelegged on his bicycle in the park he rides beneath a children's fountain -droplets catch his hair which the afternoon makes somewhat bronze, beaded with molten dew --the sunset over Jersey like an industrial krakatoa: Newark Gold, Secaucus Red, East Orange. The button on his blazer: Anarchist Bicyclists he's in the bathtub, I see him through a crack in the door playing with himself, he calls me in, shows me underwater push-ups and sit-ups, except for his gallic buttocks his skin is gilt as the air over the Hudson. The touch of his wet, bath-wrinkled fingers in my hand... but then... one of his parents clumps down the hall... I suppose to make sure neither of us is raping the other... [chorus of groans] Ohhh! for a Buster-Keaton-bomb all spherical & black as coaldust with sweet sparkling with sweet sparkling fuse -a mindbomb to Drop on the Idea of the Family! O for a libertarian isle of runaways! O goodnight Moon, I am lost, actually lost without him But I didn't want this to be Just another poem about hopeless love. Pretend it's a manifesto instead. Down with School! Boy Rule OK! In the land of dreams No governance exists But that of anarchs and kings, for dreamers have not yet learned to vote or think past the unfurling of the moment. He touches my cheek, runs delicate fingers through the hairs on my arm. My liege shatters all Law for a triple kiss. --Hakim Bey
Helms here again: By the way, there's been mention in the article of the argument between Murray Bookchin and L. Susan Brown, relating to Bey's "Lifestyle Anarchism," etc.. I contacted both those authors and NEITHER had the slightest idea of Bey's connection to The Man-Boy Love thing when they had that debate some years earlier. Well I hope you're satisfied with this big pile of sources, which if you do a little reading on the links, may convince you that a) My argument is sound, b) It is fair and non-libelous criticism that is REALLY out there now, and c) It most certainly deserves inclusion on the main article. Best regards, BobHelms ( talk) 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I still see you quoting that one poem over and over again. If that is your standard for identifying paedos, we're going to have to add paedo to a good portion of all literary writers across this site. We could have a bot do that even.. Smells of witch hunt to me.. Pnd ( talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hakim Bey → Peter Lamborn Wilson – I request that this article be moved back to Peter Lamborn Wilson, the author's true name. There is no evidence that Wilson and Hakim Bey are the same person, indeed, there is little evidence that Wilson has written under the pseudonym, and there is evidence that other authors have used the name. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, we should err on the side of caution and stick with what can be proven, not what is rumored or alleged to be true. This article should be about Wilson, his life and his writings, to the degree that information exists about them.
The argument in favor of the move is disingenuous. The editor who made the request said, “This man is universally known as Hakim Bey. Marilyn Manson is not at Brian Hugh Warner, Bob Dylan is not at Robert Allan Zimmerman.” The first statement is simply false. The examples given are neither appropriate nor accurate. Bob Dylan never recorded an album as Robert Zimmerman, nor did Marilyn Manson ever record as Brian Hugh Warner. In addition, neither of these artists has ever disputed that those were their given names. Bey has never confirmed or denied being Wilson, nor has Wilson ever confirmed or denied being Bey.
Furthermore, an examination of this talk page shows that Bey is a controversial figure in the anarchist movement, having been accused multiple times of supporting or advocating pederasty. Per BLP, we cannot allow poorly-referenced, controversial information to be published about a living person. If Hakim Bey is be discussed in this article, it should only be in reference to the widespread rumor that the two are one and the same. But, given the controversial nature of some of the writings that have been published under that pseudonym, and the lack of solid information that they are the same person, we cannot make such a bold claim. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 02:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So as I understand it, there are some books by Bey, and there are some books by Wilson, and there is some suggestion (in what reliable sources?) that they are the same person. It seems, then, if the output of both authors is notable, that we need to have two articles, not one. Unless the claim that they're the same person is sufficiently well sourced for us to treat it as fact.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It occurs to me that no one has provided any kind of citation to support the idea that Peter Lamborn Wilson and Hakim Bey are one and the same person. I realize that this rumor has circulated in underground circles for many years, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, we need a reliable source for the assertion. I have spoken with Peter a number of times, and he never denied using the name "Hakim Bey" for some of his writings, but that is not evidence. Furthermore, I would argue that the wide circulation of the name "Hakim Bey" has created a situation in which a number of authors (as the article seems to imply) may have used this name as a pseudonym. Anyone familiar with the Neoist movement's usage of the "Karen Eliot" pseudonym---and the usage by Neoist author Luther Blissett of the name "Hakim Bey"---should understand the necessity of caution in this matter. I am not suggesting a course of action, at least, not at this point, but would certainly like to hear some other opinions as to how we should proceed. Thanks. --- Charles 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that PLW has published as "Hakim Bey" at least once is prima facie evidence that all "Hakim Bey" works are his. Unless there's evidence that other people have used the pseudonym, and there doesn't seem to be, we can assume it's all PLW. One might wonder, how do we even know that all work published as "Peter Lamborn Wilson" is the same person? — Ashley Y 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There were several publications in Italy authored by Hakim Bey that had nothing to do with Peter Lamborn Wilson. I guess some documentation could be found from the middle 90's. diastar Diastar 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of research on Bey, and plan to add to this entry. However, I've not found anything myself relating to his date of birth, and am *very* curious as to how the ate 1945 was arrived at. Is there a source for this? 90.192.207.162 ( talk) 13:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Attendance of Columbia University. The article states that PLW attended Columbia University in New York, and PLW repeats this claim in serveral online interviews. However, degreeverify@studentclearinghouse says: "We asked the school to research your request because the information you provided did not match any of our records. The school was unable to locate either a degree or enrollment record for the subject of your verification request." Bartlebee2010 ( talk) 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wiki, My critical article "Leaving Out The ugly Part: The Other Side Of Hakim Bey" has been consistently suppressed in this main article for years now, although it has been read an discussed quite often on the British website libcom.org. Some Wiki editors have posted it as a link but others have always removed it. This discussion page refers to it in several places. I am writing to ask: Is libcom.org a reliable source, or is it not? It seems rather odd that one major online source (Wikipedia) would deny that a major anarchist library (libcom.org) is a legitimate source, on the grounds that libcom is a website. Do Wiki editors believe themselves superior to the libcom editors for some self-centered reason? Your team of editors and theirs seem to be, from whatever I can tell, in precisely the same line of work, except that libcom is a smaller (but still large and respected) website. I wonder whether Wiki suffers in denial from an inferiority complex, and would suppress itself in the wink of an eye if called out by the sloppiest and lousiest editor of an obscure printed source, because Wiki is a website. Please respond. BobHelms ( talk) 18:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added the article named above as an example of the criticism that Bey has received from anarchists. I think this is probably the best that can be done given the policies on reliable sources and BLP. At least a link to it as an example of anarchist criticism will allow people to make up their own minds on the accuracy of what you have written in that article, even if it cannot be used as supporting evidence for the central claims. Shelly Pixie ( talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In order to answer the request of user TheOldJacobite that can be seen in the edit section of this article:
This first quote is a proof of stirnerism as anything can b:
"Instead of bleating liberal platitudes about all this---or raising the disturbing question of "ethics"---let me simply comment as a Stirnerian anarchist (a point of view I still find useful after all these years):---since I presume to take the world as my oyster, I am personally at war with all the above "facts" because they violate my desires and deny me my pleasures."
Seduction of the Cyber Zombies
More quotes just a little less stirnerist than the above ultra stirnerist one:
"I. Slogans & Mottos for Subway Graffiti & Other Purposes ROOTLESS COSMOPOLITANISM POETIC TERRORISM (for scrawling or rubberstamping on advertisements:) THIS IS YOUR TRUE DESIRE MARXISM-STIRNERISM..."
COMMUNIQUES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHY
"From Stirner's " Union of Self-Owning Ones" we proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group."
"The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active members, is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry Mackay."
"As “individualists” moreover we have good reason to appreciate the IWW concept of the union. Stirner — contrary to the belief of those who have not actually read his book — spoke approvingly of a “Union of Unique Ones” (we prefer this translation to “Union of Egoists”), in which all members would reach for individual goals through common interests. He suggested that the workers had the most to gain by embracing this notion, & that if the productive class were to organize on such a basis it would prove irresistible. (The prejudice against Stirner, by the way, can be traced to Marx & Engels, who considered him potentially even more dangerous than Bakunin, & wrote their biggest book to destroy his influence.)"
An esoteric interpretation of the I.W.W. preamble
"The essence of the party: face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance, conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss-- in short, a "union of egoists" (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form--or else, in Kropotkin's terms, a basic biological drive to "mutual aid." (Here we should also mention Bataille's "economy of excess" and his theory of potlatch culture.)"
"From our point of view the chief matter of fascination is the spirit of the Communes. During and after these years anarchists took up the practice of revolutionary nomadism, drifting from uprising to uprising, looking to keep alive in themselves the intensity of spirit they experienced in the moment of insurrection. In fact, certain anarchists of the Stirnerite/Nietzschean strain came to look on this activity as an end in itself, a way of always occupying an autonomous zone, the interzone which opens up in the midst or wake of war and revolution (cf. Pynchon's "zone" in Gravity's Rainbow)."
"Finally, in the uprising, the TAZ breaks its own borders and flows (or wants to flow) out into the "whole world", the entire immediate time/space available. While the uprising lasts, and has not been terminated by defeat or by changing into "Revolution" (which aspires to permanence), the Insurrection keeps the consciousness of most of its adherents spontaneously tuned in to that elusive other mode of intensity, clarity, attention, individual and group realization, and (to be blunt) that happiness so characteristic of great social upheavals such as the Commune, or 1968. From the existential point of view (and here we invoke Stirner, Nietzsche, and Camus)"
The Occult Assault on Institutions
I will think that is more than enough proof and maybe too much.-- Eduen ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
"let me simply comment as a Stirnerian anarchist" Seduction of the Cyber Zombies "The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active members, is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry Mackay." An esoteric interpretation of the I.W.W. preamble. These are clear self-alignements with stirnerism/egoist anarchism. And he is also self-describing himself as an individualist anarchist who follows two other stirnerists, Tucker and Mackay. He is clearly an egoist anarchist who follows Stirner. That does not stop him in the posibility of also liking a concept of Kropotkin "mutual aid" or also occult themes or events lead by left communists (the German Revolution of 1918–19) but can also make him like other egoist anarchists such as Enrico Arrigoni. People can certainly fit in various labels. He clearly fits the label egoist anarchist.-- Eduen ( talk) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Bey has generated controversy by having his work published in NAMBLA Bulletin, which is put out by the North American Man/Boy Love Association."
This sentence implies "his work" is merely his writings on anarchism. Whereas the writings concerned were poems promoting the sexual idolising of children, and sexual relationships between adults and children.
Should i find a reliable source for the poem (which has been reproduced before in this talk page) i propose that it should be changed to read:
"Bey has generated controversy by having his poetry published in NAMBLA Bulletin, which is put out by the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The poetry promotes the sexual idolising of children, and sexual relationships between adults and children." J48antialias ( talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just recently read Peter Lamborn Wilson's book T.A.Z. and found numerous unamigous endorsements of boy/child "love", to put the term lightly. Investigating this through the interview, I find that Mr. Wilson has also written a lot for NAMBLA and published poetry of this nature. It's quite strange to me that this is omitted from his page here on Wiki. I see that this has been discussed on here before, but given that it is published publicly in his OWN books, shouldn't this be included in the controversy/criticism part of his page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Edit: sorry that shouldn't say "interview", but "internet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I should add, this author has been heavily criticised for this too. Look at book reviews on sites like Goodreads, or just general google searches, it seems like at least 50% of articles about this writer include some kind of disclaimer against his unorthodox endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the article does need to contain at least some coverage of this issue. If you are looking for a source, Michael Muhammad Knight discusses Wilson's history of "boy love" writings and Knight's own personal struggle in coming to terms with this aspect of Wilson in his book William S. Burroughs vs. The Qur'an. Knight's style is very informal and autobiographical, but he has personally met Wilson (including spending the night at his house), has extensively studied his works (both as a fan and also as part of an abortive plan to write Wilson's "official biography"–which fell through because Knight and Wilson had a falling due to this very issue) and it is a book published by a reputable publisher, so you could argue it is a reliable source. (As a source it is probably more sympathetic than hostile over all – Knight starting point is he likes Wilson and wants to like Wilson, but as he discovers this aspect of Wilson's views he just can't bring himself to accept it.) 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
He doesn't know that I've read the NAMBLA poems or Crowstone or that I would have a problem with it. I'm not a liar yet, because at least I'm trying to work this out for myself. But it doesn't look good. I try to see it as Sufi allegory, a hidden parable somewhere in all the porn, like Ibn 'Arabi's poems about Nizam or Rumi's donkey-sex story. Does anyone accuse Rumi of bestiality? Apart from the ugly zahir meaning, the surface-level interpretation, there could be a secret batin meaning, and the boys aren't really boys but personifications of Divine Names. It almost settles things for me, but writing for NAMBLA amounts to activism in real life. As Hakim Bey, Peter creates a child molester's liberation theology and then publishes it for an audience of potential offenders. [paragraph break] The historical settings that he uses for validation, whether Mediterranean pirates or medieval fringe Sufis, relate less to homosexuality than to prison rape: heterosexual males with physical and/or material power but no access to women, claiming whatever warm holes are available. What Hakim Bey calls "alternative sexuality" is in fact only old patriarchy–the man with the beard expressing his power through penetration. His supporters might dismiss "childhood" as a mere construction of the post-industrial age, but Hakim Bey forces me to consider that once in a while, I have to side with the awful modern world.180.181.102.164 ( talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We can also use this source: Sellars, Simon (2010). "Hakim Bey: Repopulating the Temporary Autonomous Zone". Journal for the Study of Radicalism. 4 (2): 83–108. doi: 10.1353/jsr.2010.0007. ISSN 1930-1197.. I think this is a very fair source to use, since it quotes the criticism of Wilson/Bey while simultaneously defending him against it (whether or not you find the defence convincing.) I tried to insert some quotes, but the Wikipedia software says it is an "unconstructive edit", so I can't. But I was going to provide some quotes of the section Second backlash: “Opportunism, not good will”, on pages 99–101, which extensively discusses Robert Helms allegations (including quoting from him), and then provides a defence of Wilson/Bey (on the grounds that the criticism muddles the distinction between sexual attraction to children and sexual attraction to adolescents.) Anyway, if you read that paper, I'm sure the relevant section of it can be summarised into something that can go into the article, and meet the BLP sourcing requirements. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 03:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, so here is the whole quote I was going to paste – this is an extensive extract from pages pages 99–101, although I skipped some bits–I have to use some weird wiki syntax when transcribing the word "pedophile" because the edit filter blocks it:
Anyway, the above is way too much to quote all of it in the article, but I am leaving this here in the hope that somebody can summarise the above quote into something which meets Wikipedia's WP:RS and BLP policies. In particular, to comply with BLP (and just general fairness), I think it is important that we included defences of Wilson/Bey against the allegations, and Sellars quotes above provide some useful material to cite in that regard. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 03:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And I found another source. This is discussing Michael Muhammad Knight's relationship with Wilson/Bey: Fiscella, Anthony (2 October 2009). "Imagining an Islamic anarchism: a new field of study is ploughed". In Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos (ed.).
Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 301.
ISBN
978-1-4438-1503-1. Though still indebted to Wilson for publishing The Taqwacores, Knight has disavowed his former mentor due to Wilson's advocacy of paedophilia/pederasty. While standing up for an Islam that embraces all sorts of heresies, Knight has felt compelled to draw boundaries of his own.
This book is a serious academic work so it should be usable.
180.181.102.164 (
talk) 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And here is another cite. Greer criticises Knight's book (William S. Burroughs vs. The Qur'an), finding Knight's claims to have only come become aware of Wilson's sexuality part way through researching his book hard to believe – see Greer, Joseph Christian (2013). "Occult Origins: Hakim Bey's Ontological Post-Anarchism" (PDF). Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies. 2013 (2): 166–187. hdl: 11245/1.409610. ISSN 1923-5615. Retrieved 2017-03-19. footnote 21 on page 182:
So, I would summarise that this topic is actually discussed extensively by WP:RS, you just have to go looking. I don't want to edit this article myself but the cites and quotes I provide above should be a sufficient basis for a section discussing this topic that passes RS and BLP standards. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 06:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Another reference is this masters thesis. Abdou, Mohamed (8 September 2009), Anarca-Islam (thesis),
hdl:
1974/5139 {{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help). Although, my understanding was that masters theses (as opposed to PhD theses) generally aren't considered reliable sources. Anyway, it is kind of rather neither here nor there, because it doesn't actually have that much to say, just quoting Fiscella's article I've already quoted above, and also providing a ref to one of Bey's writings in the NAMBLA Bulletin. (See endnote xvii on pages 134–135.) But anyway, thought I'd just mention it for completeness.
180.181.102.164 (
talk) 06:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 |
I placed Wilson in "Pedophilia:" because his interest seems to be in pre-pubescent boys, while I understand "perderasty" to concern pubescent boys. Is there a better category? - Will Beback 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I did some cleanup on this page. I put a title on the question and response related to PLW and RAW. I changed some inconsistencies in formatting. And I removed (this may upset someone) the PLW as "poseur" comment on top along with the link to an article that has circulated the internet for years, and which makes grossly inflammatory suggestions and accusations that have never been proved. Such garbage has no place on wikipedia. The question of pederasty/pedophilia is also very controversial, but I will leave it alone. The fact is, certain people have made a whole lot out of a very few comments, which, compared to the sum total of PLW's writings, are very minor. As far as I am aware, no one has ever stated that PLW has committed a pedophilic act.-- Charles 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this writer not fall under the domain of a philosopher (and so deserve the respective WikiProject's attention)?-- Blingice 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a reference to the "Moorish Science Temple of America" in this article? It seems to have no relevance or reference to this case. 128.195.89.174 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia readers and Dylanfly in particular: I am Robert P. Helms, the same person who has written perhaps thirty articles or press releases in criticism of PLW/Hakim Bey since around 1998. This is my real and legal name. I never sign articles under pseudonyms. I cannot take the idea of Bey and Wilson possibly being two different people seriously, for reasons I've already stated in this column. "Theoldanarchist" has recently called doubt upon my writings, stating that I blur pederasty with pedophilia, and that I somehow infer that PLW is known for sure to have committed a pedophile act. Since he calls my writings "tripe," may I go so far as calling his statements "manipulative and perhaps dishonest?" Believe me, if I had ever known of such an essential fact within this debate, the whole world would know it, and the debate would be over. To be fair, I have learned a lot about the man-boy love scene --past and present --since lobbing my first shell at Wilson. This includes not only the line between pederasty and pedophilia (Hakim Bey never makes his position clear), but also the history of Man-boy-love among anarchists, the NAMBLA story in recent decades, the concept of an age of consent, a lot of research in various libraries that brought out many details, and things relating to Wilson's own world. If you read something I wrote on the subject around 1999, there will be ways to shoot holes in it. But if it's dated 2004 or 2005, all I can say is, "let's dance." I've had this little chat with NPR, the ARTE TV network of France & Germany, Fifth Estate, and hundreds of individuals or editors, often very learned people, and NOBODY has ever boxed me to the ropes on this subject. If "Theoldanarchist" could kindly take his toungue out of his cheek, he might name a statement that I have made and that may discredit me. In this anarchist's opinion, Wikipedia has a certain little gaggle of editors who go to any length to protect Peter Lamborn Wilson from his own writings. It's something like trying to say that Hillary Clinton isn't a Democrat. Why should I take these accusations seriously? Do astronomers argue in public with flat-earth activists? BobHelms 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Peter Lamborn Wilson related to the writer Robert Anton Wilson? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.230.143 ( talk • contribs)
The article says he's from NYC. A quick glance at some of his other books (Shower of Stars; Escape from the Nineteenth Century; Pitrate Utopias) seems not to say where he was born, but the bio blurb in his translation of Divine Flashes says he was born "near Baltimore, Maryland". Anyone know for sure? Ansat 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The British band Coil had a song called "Assassins of Hakim Bey". See track 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_of_the_Week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.70.63 ( talk) 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the separate pages for Pirate utopias and Temporary Autonomous Zone should redirect to PLW and merge here. They're his ideas. The TAZ, in particular, is influential, but it still should go here with PLW (aka Hakim Bey). -- Dylanfly 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wiki folks, Can someone out there actually name the reason why there is no mention of the controversy over Bey's/Wilson's writings on pederasty and/or pedophilia in the criticism section of this article? It's one thing to squash a statement of fact, but to delete all mention of the debate on the very same issue is another step beyond. I hope to receive a precise answer to this question, as it asks about the integrity of this encyclopedia project. Please answer in short, declarative sentences. BobHelms ( talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Friend, I have the very awkward task of explaining the meaning of English words to a person who seems to be fluent in the language. I tried, in my last message, to avoid this. Here is the problem: you think that this letter of mine is an accusation of improper behavior by the the living person who is the subject of the main article. Let's step slowly from there. If you look at the long bibliography, you will spot many items that have only to do with a sexual attraction to very young boys. Are you paying attention? That last sentence was important. Now, let's take the next step. If you could simply look into your own computer screen --right now --you will see that many people are disturbed by those same writings (the ones I referred to a few seconds ago, which are about a sexual attraction to very young boys). And so, here we are. You seem to be telling me that you are not having this discussion with me, and that many other Wikipedia contributors have not voiced their discomfort with those writings. Are we both on the same page yet? In a nutshell, there are two things, and only one of them is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, while the other is not. You have answered a question that I did not ask. I apologize for what may strike you as condescending language, but when the point is being avoided in such an obvious way as it is in your note, I find no other way to make myself clear. BobHelms ( talk) 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose a move to Hakim Bey? Google records only 36,600 hits for the current name, with 174,000 for the other. Sarge Baldy 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hakim Bey and Peter Lamborn Wilson might (or might not) be the same the person, but do not write the same texts. In terms of authorship, they represent different styles and different approaches. Diastar 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) diastar
Hello, It occurs to me that when a crew of Wiki editors consistently washes the article clean of any links or criticisms of PLW/Hakim Bey for his writings on man/boy love as anarchism, and ALSO maintains a list of his books WITH THEIR ISBN NUMBERS, those editors are really just helping Hakim Bey to sell his books. Does anyone out there owe the public a conflict of interest disclaimer? What is the precise reason why there can't be an external link to one of my critical articles? Is there a simple lack of intellectual integrity on anyone's part? I've been written off as a slanderer here, although I've been getting moral support from several of you. So, could could those of you who have insisted that this discussion is unfit for circulation please put your cards on the table and state why this particular anarchist, Hakim Bey, is favored in these ways? The cleansing of his reputation has been incessant and systematic, often justified with bizarre arguments such as "we don't really know if PLW is Hakim Bey," or that the whole idea of a Temporary Autonomous Zone isn't quite identical to what a pedophile pitches to a child EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've done everything I can imagine to be respectful at every step of this discussion column. Could the clean-up crew please give us statements as to why they are loyal to Hakim Bey, in plain English? How about a link to my article "Pedophilia and American Anarchism," and THEN KEEP IT THERE? This mild act of journalistic integrity would cause Wikipedia to be far more trusted and respected by everyone who reads the article and the discussion column. Fewer among them would take the web site's fawning admiration of PLW for granted. Hey, folks, the information is out there. PLW has not been dragging me into court, nor has he ever said a single word about the things I've written about his work. I think that he won't take action against Wikipedia either, over one external link. Don't you agree? When you respond, please don't casually omit to talk about your personal feelings for and/or your relationship with good old Hakim Bey. That is what I'm asking about. BobHelms ( talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
His nom de plume does not mean judge in Turkish. There are two words spelled nearly the same in Turkish, originally from Arabic. One is hakîm (pronounced as it is in the name of Bey) which means wise and hâkim which is pronounced HAAH-KIM and means judge. Behemoth 02:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Pederasty seems to be a theme in much of his work, including political advocacy. As this is probably the most controversial thing about him, it ought to at least be mentioned. — Ashley Y 00:11, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
"this particular accusation, concerning only his advocacy, is well-sourced." -- Ashley
Allow me to make a few short observations. All of the man's writings which relate to adult-child sex are signed "Hakim Bey." All of the information regarding the controversy about those same writings has been removed from the main article, save the titles of his writings, the fact that he wrote for NAMBLA, and this discussion column. Perhaps it's time for a reality check. The guy certainly argues for adult-child sex, whether pedophile or pederast or a vague presentation covering both, using anarchist ideas to justify his position. The only argument supporting the concealment of this issue is that there may have been some stray piece under "Hakim Bey" that was not written by PLW. Wikipedia is strongly associated with anarchism. Please let's all put our thinking caps on and chime in about whether something's wrong with this picture. By the way, I think that there IS something wrong with this picture. BobHelms 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
To recap, my position is that we need informative quotes and/or npov summaries, plus good sources of those quotes/summaries, no matter what the topic, but especially when it's controversial. I couldn't find any such quotes/sources that would adequately back up "argues for adult-child sex". If they exist, I'd support their incorporation in the main article. love, raiph 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I intend to delete any reference to PLW being a pedophile. There is absolutely no source whatsoever that indicates, much less proves, that he himself has ever pursued this lifestyle. Advocacy, most often in a poetic/philosophical style, could perhaps be argued. But, to say that he is a practicing pedophile is slander. Any such assertion will be deleted, and the person posting it will be warned not to do so again. --- Charles 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my grammar and formatting. I have no idea how to sign my comment. You haven't a leg to stand on - you're censoring wikipedia. That goes against everything it stands for. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.252.173 ( talk • contribs)
I'm disappointed to return to this article and find it purged of nearly all references to NAMBLA and pedophilia. I agree with Charles (above) who says that it hasn't been proven that PLW is a pedophile. That's a valid point, and I agree that it's slanderous to accuse someone of that without any supporting evidence. However, the link that I formerly found here was quite well referenced. It was the piece by Robert Helms, (who is presumably BobHelms as above). That piece came as a real shock to me! Has anyone seriously disputed Helms' claims? I would urge that at the very least, a link to Helms' piece be restored. 2nd, if people are reluctant to associate Hakim Bey with PLW (who may or may not be the same), then let's separate the two into two articles. Look, this is a serious issue. In the anarchist spirit (and most of us are anarchists, I presume), this information deserves a hearing, not a top-down declaration of it being mere POV. I'm not trying to damage Bey or PLW. I was a big fan of Bey, but this is a serious thing to me, one that deserves an audience and a fair hearing. I'd like the link to Helms' piece back up and I'd like to hear if Hakim Bey has a reply. In solidarity, -- Dylanfly 02:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I really would like to read a clear concise definition though because i don't fully understand the difference. I don't want to be accused of "intentionally" confusing the two terms.
I read Hakim Bey and I think PLW is a good poet with some interesting ideas, but I don't understand why he should be presented airbrushed of his less popular ideas like this- especially since they are a major theme in his writing. I think this is a very serious issue because censoring the page makes the anarchist community appear orwellian and intellectually dishonest, I think it undermines the credibility of the theory being discussed. It also distorts understanding of PLW the man and what his actual philosophy IS for those who are interested in his ideas. Drifter bob ( talk) 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with drifter re: Orwellian theme, au contraire I feel this smells of a witch hunt. The Bob article is some weird accusation of Bey "advocating intercourse with minors", a level of discussion usually applied to topics like Lolita (as in the novel/film) or when they outlawed that scorpions album cover wp page in the UK. At this level of "proof" you could start accusing lots of poets of being paedarasts. Pnd ( talk)
Dear Wikipedia Users, All the references to the age-old controversy regarding Hakim Bey's advocacy of pedophilia, pederasty, and/or man-boy love AS AN ANARCHIST ARGUMENT have been repeatedly deleted from this article. It has happened again and again, year after year now. The people who can see the legitimacy and the importance of the criticism are outnumbered by those who are either obsessed with a hard reading of Wiki's policy on living persons or (as in most cases), are fatuous followers of the subject himself. Perhaps there should be a set of internal pages determining the precise, contextual meanings of terms like sycophant, ethically suspect person, anarchoid sexual tourism, and persons living with stupidity. The result of all this time invested by me and several others in good faith is nothing more than a promotional ad for Hakim Bey and everything he advocates. There's no link to any of the articles on his paedo side. There's no hint of it in the section on "criticism," and there never will be any such thing. The collective consciousness of this article is that of a moral slob. Wikipedia feels that when an adult coaxes a child into a sexual activity by using all his powers of oratory and extensive writings on piracy, religious history, and the occult that cause actual scholars of these subjects to roll their eyes with disgust --that person is doing a genuinely cool, anarchist thing, and that no criticism of anyone who advocates this should be given space in the "People's Encyclopedia." To me, this indicates that Wikipedia is a corrupted, largely dishonest, and intellectually pitiful item. The most effective way to suppress an opinion is to make the world believe that it does not exist, or that it's a mere conspiracy theory, and that's being deliberately done in this article. Of course everything becomes perfectly clear when a person asks, "is it a molestation pitch?" and then picks up a copy of Temporary Autonomous Zone. Everyone who has been part of this discussion knows perfectly well that the criticism is sound, and yet we have come to the final, collective decision that we lack the courage to share it with the general public. Perhaps Wiki has been around long enough, and has grown large enough, to evolve into a sort-of elected politician --one who brought on hopes of change and reform, but then reverted to the same hypocrisy that preceded him or her in office. What a pity! BobHelms ( talk) 10:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This man is universally known as Hakim Bey. Marilyn Manson is not at Brian Hugh Warner, Bob Dylan is not at Robert Allan Zimmerman. Zazaban ( talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Peter Lamborn Wilson → Hakim Bey — This page was tagged for {{ db-move}} by Zazaban because Hakim Bay is " overwhelmingly the most common name used to refer to the man. The Current setup is akin to having Bob Dylan at Robert Allan Zimmerman." Since this article has existed at the present title since 2003, the page move may be controversial. Thus, I have brought this move request to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have little knowledge about this subject, so I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus for the move. I looked at the earlier discussion and can only see a slight preference for Hakim Bey. Since there doesn't seem to be any further input, I'm closing this as no consensus for reverting the previous move. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hakim Bey → Peter Lamborn Wilson — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I request that this page be moved back to Peter Lamborn Wilson. The page move to Hakim Bey was done rather precipitously and without proper discussion. The fact is, this matter has been discussed previously, and there was no consensus for a move. Furthermore, the use of the pseudonym "Hakim Bey" is not exclusive to Peter Lamborn Wilson, the term itself is not unique, and there has never been confirmation that all works published under that name were in fact written by PLW. In this sense, the comparison to Bob Dylan is not apt---no one else has put out an album using the name Bob Dylan, and everyone knows him as Bob Dylan, as he never put out an album as Robert Zimmerman. This is not the case here, as there are at least as many publications under the name Peter Lamborn Wilson as there are Hakim Bey. - RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Here we are again. After listening to Bob Helms, reading his article, and listening to all sides, I'm convinced that a link to Helms' article on PLW's pedophile writings belongs here. I don't care for the position that Lib.com isn't a reputable source--it's a major anarchist library. Should Helms publish in the corporate press? Other alternative press sources are cited in the article, so it would seem that a bit hypocritical to exclude Helms' piece on this basis. I'd like to propose that Helms provide some links to Hakim Bey's writings on pedophilia... That way we can see them in the flesh. If they exist, then I think we have to let Helms' link stand. It's a very important issue. And finally, Helms never accuses PLW of committing any crimes or touching boys---he's only bringing up some writings. If these writings exist, the world has a right to know. Smilo Don ( talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Friends, For about ten years I have criticized Bey in articles, heated discussions with editors, phone calls to radio stations, and re-worded announcements for his talks that pretended to be the original announcements. The sole reason, which I stated most of these times, has been because Bey's writings on pedophilia/pederasty/man-boy love and his writings on anarchism (especially TAZ) bear a hard-to-miss, hard-wired resemblance to each other and I find that to be an opportunistic and offensive use of an idea that I hold dear. When I'm roasted for comparing and making fair observations on his written work only, and never his conduct, I feel that some Wiki readers should carefully avoid college literature courses. I started the public debate on this, and it has had quite a lot of responses along the way. All of this has centered upon things I wrote. But, Wikipedia being the unusual animal it is, the above facts mean that I can't make a link to my own work, as my writings on this are my original work. Also, he's alive and well-known and Wiki needs to be ridiculously cautious. Now, I have been asked to provide links and citations, but here it goes on the discussion page, not the main article. On the main article it would immediately disappear because I caused it all, or because some believe that long strings of replies to several years of online articles don't amount to "criticism" that we're all allowed to know about. How many people out there can't find these things on google, anyway? What do you need me for?
Here are links, the first of which is a bibliography:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306871.shtml http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/86383.php http://radio.weblogs.com/0123486/2004/04/05.html http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=Hakim_Bey http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=35381117&groupID=106025811&adTopicID=16&Mytoken=A5DE7B2F-63D7-41D6-AD3080E58494B3F55234075
http://www.arcanology.com/2006/10/08/hakim-bey-newsflash/
http://void.nothingness.org/archives/ra/display/2560/index.php?show_text=1 http://void.nothingness.org/archives/ra/display/2562/index.php http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/02/02/17193581.php http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=953&hilit= http://www.barbelith.com/topic/26209 http://miniver.blogspot.com/2006/10/hakim-bey.html http://community.livejournal.com/anarchists/2007/08/19/ ftp://ftp.uu.net/.vol/2/government/etext-poli/Spunk/texts/pubs/ajoda/38/sp000781.txt http://www.techiegroups.com/showthread.php?t=85652 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-nyc-web/2005-November/1128-k2.html http://www.nambla.org/rockisl.htm
My Political Beliefs, by Hakim Bey.
This appeared in NAMBLA Bulletin, June 1986, page 14 (published by the North American Man-boy Love Association). AVAILABLE AT SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DEPT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR. The line breaks were not preserved when I saved it for the Wiki page.
barelegged on his bicycle in the park he rides beneath a children's fountain -droplets catch his hair which the afternoon makes somewhat bronze, beaded with molten dew --the sunset over Jersey like an industrial krakatoa: Newark Gold, Secaucus Red, East Orange. The button on his blazer: Anarchist Bicyclists he's in the bathtub, I see him through a crack in the door playing with himself, he calls me in, shows me underwater push-ups and sit-ups, except for his gallic buttocks his skin is gilt as the air over the Hudson. The touch of his wet, bath-wrinkled fingers in my hand... but then... one of his parents clumps down the hall... I suppose to make sure neither of us is raping the other... [chorus of groans] Ohhh! for a Buster-Keaton-bomb all spherical & black as coaldust with sweet sparkling with sweet sparkling fuse -a mindbomb to Drop on the Idea of the Family! O for a libertarian isle of runaways! O goodnight Moon, I am lost, actually lost without him But I didn't want this to be Just another poem about hopeless love. Pretend it's a manifesto instead. Down with School! Boy Rule OK! In the land of dreams No governance exists But that of anarchs and kings, for dreamers have not yet learned to vote or think past the unfurling of the moment. He touches my cheek, runs delicate fingers through the hairs on my arm. My liege shatters all Law for a triple kiss. --Hakim Bey
Helms here again: By the way, there's been mention in the article of the argument between Murray Bookchin and L. Susan Brown, relating to Bey's "Lifestyle Anarchism," etc.. I contacted both those authors and NEITHER had the slightest idea of Bey's connection to The Man-Boy Love thing when they had that debate some years earlier. Well I hope you're satisfied with this big pile of sources, which if you do a little reading on the links, may convince you that a) My argument is sound, b) It is fair and non-libelous criticism that is REALLY out there now, and c) It most certainly deserves inclusion on the main article. Best regards, BobHelms ( talk) 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I still see you quoting that one poem over and over again. If that is your standard for identifying paedos, we're going to have to add paedo to a good portion of all literary writers across this site. We could have a bot do that even.. Smells of witch hunt to me.. Pnd ( talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hakim Bey → Peter Lamborn Wilson – I request that this article be moved back to Peter Lamborn Wilson, the author's true name. There is no evidence that Wilson and Hakim Bey are the same person, indeed, there is little evidence that Wilson has written under the pseudonym, and there is evidence that other authors have used the name. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, we should err on the side of caution and stick with what can be proven, not what is rumored or alleged to be true. This article should be about Wilson, his life and his writings, to the degree that information exists about them.
The argument in favor of the move is disingenuous. The editor who made the request said, “This man is universally known as Hakim Bey. Marilyn Manson is not at Brian Hugh Warner, Bob Dylan is not at Robert Allan Zimmerman.” The first statement is simply false. The examples given are neither appropriate nor accurate. Bob Dylan never recorded an album as Robert Zimmerman, nor did Marilyn Manson ever record as Brian Hugh Warner. In addition, neither of these artists has ever disputed that those were their given names. Bey has never confirmed or denied being Wilson, nor has Wilson ever confirmed or denied being Bey.
Furthermore, an examination of this talk page shows that Bey is a controversial figure in the anarchist movement, having been accused multiple times of supporting or advocating pederasty. Per BLP, we cannot allow poorly-referenced, controversial information to be published about a living person. If Hakim Bey is be discussed in this article, it should only be in reference to the widespread rumor that the two are one and the same. But, given the controversial nature of some of the writings that have been published under that pseudonym, and the lack of solid information that they are the same person, we cannot make such a bold claim. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 02:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So as I understand it, there are some books by Bey, and there are some books by Wilson, and there is some suggestion (in what reliable sources?) that they are the same person. It seems, then, if the output of both authors is notable, that we need to have two articles, not one. Unless the claim that they're the same person is sufficiently well sourced for us to treat it as fact.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It occurs to me that no one has provided any kind of citation to support the idea that Peter Lamborn Wilson and Hakim Bey are one and the same person. I realize that this rumor has circulated in underground circles for many years, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, we need a reliable source for the assertion. I have spoken with Peter a number of times, and he never denied using the name "Hakim Bey" for some of his writings, but that is not evidence. Furthermore, I would argue that the wide circulation of the name "Hakim Bey" has created a situation in which a number of authors (as the article seems to imply) may have used this name as a pseudonym. Anyone familiar with the Neoist movement's usage of the "Karen Eliot" pseudonym---and the usage by Neoist author Luther Blissett of the name "Hakim Bey"---should understand the necessity of caution in this matter. I am not suggesting a course of action, at least, not at this point, but would certainly like to hear some other opinions as to how we should proceed. Thanks. --- Charles 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that PLW has published as "Hakim Bey" at least once is prima facie evidence that all "Hakim Bey" works are his. Unless there's evidence that other people have used the pseudonym, and there doesn't seem to be, we can assume it's all PLW. One might wonder, how do we even know that all work published as "Peter Lamborn Wilson" is the same person? — Ashley Y 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There were several publications in Italy authored by Hakim Bey that had nothing to do with Peter Lamborn Wilson. I guess some documentation could be found from the middle 90's. diastar Diastar 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of research on Bey, and plan to add to this entry. However, I've not found anything myself relating to his date of birth, and am *very* curious as to how the ate 1945 was arrived at. Is there a source for this? 90.192.207.162 ( talk) 13:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Attendance of Columbia University. The article states that PLW attended Columbia University in New York, and PLW repeats this claim in serveral online interviews. However, degreeverify@studentclearinghouse says: "We asked the school to research your request because the information you provided did not match any of our records. The school was unable to locate either a degree or enrollment record for the subject of your verification request." Bartlebee2010 ( talk) 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Wiki, My critical article "Leaving Out The ugly Part: The Other Side Of Hakim Bey" has been consistently suppressed in this main article for years now, although it has been read an discussed quite often on the British website libcom.org. Some Wiki editors have posted it as a link but others have always removed it. This discussion page refers to it in several places. I am writing to ask: Is libcom.org a reliable source, or is it not? It seems rather odd that one major online source (Wikipedia) would deny that a major anarchist library (libcom.org) is a legitimate source, on the grounds that libcom is a website. Do Wiki editors believe themselves superior to the libcom editors for some self-centered reason? Your team of editors and theirs seem to be, from whatever I can tell, in precisely the same line of work, except that libcom is a smaller (but still large and respected) website. I wonder whether Wiki suffers in denial from an inferiority complex, and would suppress itself in the wink of an eye if called out by the sloppiest and lousiest editor of an obscure printed source, because Wiki is a website. Please respond. BobHelms ( talk) 18:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added the article named above as an example of the criticism that Bey has received from anarchists. I think this is probably the best that can be done given the policies on reliable sources and BLP. At least a link to it as an example of anarchist criticism will allow people to make up their own minds on the accuracy of what you have written in that article, even if it cannot be used as supporting evidence for the central claims. Shelly Pixie ( talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In order to answer the request of user TheOldJacobite that can be seen in the edit section of this article:
This first quote is a proof of stirnerism as anything can b:
"Instead of bleating liberal platitudes about all this---or raising the disturbing question of "ethics"---let me simply comment as a Stirnerian anarchist (a point of view I still find useful after all these years):---since I presume to take the world as my oyster, I am personally at war with all the above "facts" because they violate my desires and deny me my pleasures."
Seduction of the Cyber Zombies
More quotes just a little less stirnerist than the above ultra stirnerist one:
"I. Slogans & Mottos for Subway Graffiti & Other Purposes ROOTLESS COSMOPOLITANISM POETIC TERRORISM (for scrawling or rubberstamping on advertisements:) THIS IS YOUR TRUE DESIRE MARXISM-STIRNERISM..."
COMMUNIQUES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHY
"From Stirner's " Union of Self-Owning Ones" we proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group."
"The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active members, is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry Mackay."
"As “individualists” moreover we have good reason to appreciate the IWW concept of the union. Stirner — contrary to the belief of those who have not actually read his book — spoke approvingly of a “Union of Unique Ones” (we prefer this translation to “Union of Egoists”), in which all members would reach for individual goals through common interests. He suggested that the workers had the most to gain by embracing this notion, & that if the productive class were to organize on such a basis it would prove irresistible. (The prejudice against Stirner, by the way, can be traced to Marx & Engels, who considered him potentially even more dangerous than Bakunin, & wrote their biggest book to destroy his influence.)"
An esoteric interpretation of the I.W.W. preamble
"The essence of the party: face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance, conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss-- in short, a "union of egoists" (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form--or else, in Kropotkin's terms, a basic biological drive to "mutual aid." (Here we should also mention Bataille's "economy of excess" and his theory of potlatch culture.)"
"From our point of view the chief matter of fascination is the spirit of the Communes. During and after these years anarchists took up the practice of revolutionary nomadism, drifting from uprising to uprising, looking to keep alive in themselves the intensity of spirit they experienced in the moment of insurrection. In fact, certain anarchists of the Stirnerite/Nietzschean strain came to look on this activity as an end in itself, a way of always occupying an autonomous zone, the interzone which opens up in the midst or wake of war and revolution (cf. Pynchon's "zone" in Gravity's Rainbow)."
"Finally, in the uprising, the TAZ breaks its own borders and flows (or wants to flow) out into the "whole world", the entire immediate time/space available. While the uprising lasts, and has not been terminated by defeat or by changing into "Revolution" (which aspires to permanence), the Insurrection keeps the consciousness of most of its adherents spontaneously tuned in to that elusive other mode of intensity, clarity, attention, individual and group realization, and (to be blunt) that happiness so characteristic of great social upheavals such as the Commune, or 1968. From the existential point of view (and here we invoke Stirner, Nietzsche, and Camus)"
The Occult Assault on Institutions
I will think that is more than enough proof and maybe too much.-- Eduen ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
"let me simply comment as a Stirnerian anarchist" Seduction of the Cyber Zombies "The Mackay Society, of which Mark & I are active members, is devoted to the anarchism of Max Stirner, Benj. Tucker & John Henry Mackay." An esoteric interpretation of the I.W.W. preamble. These are clear self-alignements with stirnerism/egoist anarchism. And he is also self-describing himself as an individualist anarchist who follows two other stirnerists, Tucker and Mackay. He is clearly an egoist anarchist who follows Stirner. That does not stop him in the posibility of also liking a concept of Kropotkin "mutual aid" or also occult themes or events lead by left communists (the German Revolution of 1918–19) but can also make him like other egoist anarchists such as Enrico Arrigoni. People can certainly fit in various labels. He clearly fits the label egoist anarchist.-- Eduen ( talk) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Bey has generated controversy by having his work published in NAMBLA Bulletin, which is put out by the North American Man/Boy Love Association."
This sentence implies "his work" is merely his writings on anarchism. Whereas the writings concerned were poems promoting the sexual idolising of children, and sexual relationships between adults and children.
Should i find a reliable source for the poem (which has been reproduced before in this talk page) i propose that it should be changed to read:
"Bey has generated controversy by having his poetry published in NAMBLA Bulletin, which is put out by the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The poetry promotes the sexual idolising of children, and sexual relationships between adults and children." J48antialias ( talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just recently read Peter Lamborn Wilson's book T.A.Z. and found numerous unamigous endorsements of boy/child "love", to put the term lightly. Investigating this through the interview, I find that Mr. Wilson has also written a lot for NAMBLA and published poetry of this nature. It's quite strange to me that this is omitted from his page here on Wiki. I see that this has been discussed on here before, but given that it is published publicly in his OWN books, shouldn't this be included in the controversy/criticism part of his page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Edit: sorry that shouldn't say "interview", but "internet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I should add, this author has been heavily criticised for this too. Look at book reviews on sites like Goodreads, or just general google searches, it seems like at least 50% of articles about this writer include some kind of disclaimer against his unorthodox endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.28.38 ( talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the article does need to contain at least some coverage of this issue. If you are looking for a source, Michael Muhammad Knight discusses Wilson's history of "boy love" writings and Knight's own personal struggle in coming to terms with this aspect of Wilson in his book William S. Burroughs vs. The Qur'an. Knight's style is very informal and autobiographical, but he has personally met Wilson (including spending the night at his house), has extensively studied his works (both as a fan and also as part of an abortive plan to write Wilson's "official biography"–which fell through because Knight and Wilson had a falling due to this very issue) and it is a book published by a reputable publisher, so you could argue it is a reliable source. (As a source it is probably more sympathetic than hostile over all – Knight starting point is he likes Wilson and wants to like Wilson, but as he discovers this aspect of Wilson's views he just can't bring himself to accept it.) 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
He doesn't know that I've read the NAMBLA poems or Crowstone or that I would have a problem with it. I'm not a liar yet, because at least I'm trying to work this out for myself. But it doesn't look good. I try to see it as Sufi allegory, a hidden parable somewhere in all the porn, like Ibn 'Arabi's poems about Nizam or Rumi's donkey-sex story. Does anyone accuse Rumi of bestiality? Apart from the ugly zahir meaning, the surface-level interpretation, there could be a secret batin meaning, and the boys aren't really boys but personifications of Divine Names. It almost settles things for me, but writing for NAMBLA amounts to activism in real life. As Hakim Bey, Peter creates a child molester's liberation theology and then publishes it for an audience of potential offenders. [paragraph break] The historical settings that he uses for validation, whether Mediterranean pirates or medieval fringe Sufis, relate less to homosexuality than to prison rape: heterosexual males with physical and/or material power but no access to women, claiming whatever warm holes are available. What Hakim Bey calls "alternative sexuality" is in fact only old patriarchy–the man with the beard expressing his power through penetration. His supporters might dismiss "childhood" as a mere construction of the post-industrial age, but Hakim Bey forces me to consider that once in a while, I have to side with the awful modern world.180.181.102.164 ( talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We can also use this source: Sellars, Simon (2010). "Hakim Bey: Repopulating the Temporary Autonomous Zone". Journal for the Study of Radicalism. 4 (2): 83–108. doi: 10.1353/jsr.2010.0007. ISSN 1930-1197.. I think this is a very fair source to use, since it quotes the criticism of Wilson/Bey while simultaneously defending him against it (whether or not you find the defence convincing.) I tried to insert some quotes, but the Wikipedia software says it is an "unconstructive edit", so I can't. But I was going to provide some quotes of the section Second backlash: “Opportunism, not good will”, on pages 99–101, which extensively discusses Robert Helms allegations (including quoting from him), and then provides a defence of Wilson/Bey (on the grounds that the criticism muddles the distinction between sexual attraction to children and sexual attraction to adolescents.) Anyway, if you read that paper, I'm sure the relevant section of it can be summarised into something that can go into the article, and meet the BLP sourcing requirements. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 03:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, so here is the whole quote I was going to paste – this is an extensive extract from pages pages 99–101, although I skipped some bits–I have to use some weird wiki syntax when transcribing the word "pedophile" because the edit filter blocks it:
Anyway, the above is way too much to quote all of it in the article, but I am leaving this here in the hope that somebody can summarise the above quote into something which meets Wikipedia's WP:RS and BLP policies. In particular, to comply with BLP (and just general fairness), I think it is important that we included defences of Wilson/Bey against the allegations, and Sellars quotes above provide some useful material to cite in that regard. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 03:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And I found another source. This is discussing Michael Muhammad Knight's relationship with Wilson/Bey: Fiscella, Anthony (2 October 2009). "Imagining an Islamic anarchism: a new field of study is ploughed". In Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos (ed.).
Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 301.
ISBN
978-1-4438-1503-1. Though still indebted to Wilson for publishing The Taqwacores, Knight has disavowed his former mentor due to Wilson's advocacy of paedophilia/pederasty. While standing up for an Islam that embraces all sorts of heresies, Knight has felt compelled to draw boundaries of his own.
This book is a serious academic work so it should be usable.
180.181.102.164 (
talk) 04:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And here is another cite. Greer criticises Knight's book (William S. Burroughs vs. The Qur'an), finding Knight's claims to have only come become aware of Wilson's sexuality part way through researching his book hard to believe – see Greer, Joseph Christian (2013). "Occult Origins: Hakim Bey's Ontological Post-Anarchism" (PDF). Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies. 2013 (2): 166–187. hdl: 11245/1.409610. ISSN 1923-5615. Retrieved 2017-03-19. footnote 21 on page 182:
So, I would summarise that this topic is actually discussed extensively by WP:RS, you just have to go looking. I don't want to edit this article myself but the cites and quotes I provide above should be a sufficient basis for a section discussing this topic that passes RS and BLP standards. 180.181.102.164 ( talk) 06:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Another reference is this masters thesis. Abdou, Mohamed (8 September 2009), Anarca-Islam (thesis),
hdl:
1974/5139 {{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help). Although, my understanding was that masters theses (as opposed to PhD theses) generally aren't considered reliable sources. Anyway, it is kind of rather neither here nor there, because it doesn't actually have that much to say, just quoting Fiscella's article I've already quoted above, and also providing a ref to one of Bey's writings in the NAMBLA Bulletin. (See endnote xvii on pages 134–135.) But anyway, thought I'd just mention it for completeness.
180.181.102.164 (
talk) 06:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)