Talk:Allen Ginsberg/Archive 2

Support for plight of Bangladeshi refugees
I moved details concerning Ginsberg's poem September on Jessore Road from the lead section to its own subsection under the heading "Social and political activism". At the same time, I retained a reference to Ginsberg's protest against militarism and the plight of Bangladeshi refugees in the lead section. The lead section should summarize the main points in an entry rather than going into details that can be outlined later in an appropriate place. I felt that dwelling on this one aspect of Ginsberg's career gave it disproportionate importance. I also added a supporting citation from allenginsberg.org and I split the lines of the poem to make them more readable. Bwark (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Health
Seems most here are too busy discussing his NAMBLA-affiliation, but there really should be a mention of his diabetes, and even more so his stroke, which caused his characteristic eye and tilted mouth in later years --Torsrthidesen (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- Go for it!F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make some add about his health, after reading 'I celebrate myself' I've gained some info on his health, which is quite relevant. So give me some space or time. I'll add an "Health" section, which I fear will be deleted, if so, please IM me and talk about it.--Torsrthidesen (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you self-revert, think about it some more, correct the spelling and the ref, then weave the info into the article somewhere other than in the Social and political activism section. Rumiton (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Under health, the mention that he might have got hep c from a dirty needle in some tropical country...not very likely. Come one, he was both a drug user and practiced M on M sexual activity, both of which put him at very high risk for contracting the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.245.173 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ginsberg the pederast/pedophile?
There seems to be a considerable amount of evidence that Ginsberg was a pederast and/or pedophile. For example, in his letter to Ralph Ginzburg in June of 1962 (collected in "Deliberate Prose: Selected Essays 1952-1995"), Ginsberg wrote "Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they'll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape." Andrea Dworkin reflected this in her autobiography "Heartbreak: The Political Memoir of a Feminist Militant" where she wrote "But in fact, he (Ginsberg) was a pedophile.  He did not belong to the North American Man Boy Love Association out of some mad, abstract conviction that its voice be heard.  He meant it.  I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys." (page 38)  I've no doubt that other sources exist that lend support to this characterization. I think that information reflecting this should be included in his article. Bricology (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any opinions to the contrary after 6 weeks, I will go ahead and add a section to the wiki to reflect the aforementioned facts. I think it would make the most sense to combine the existing claims about NAMBLA with the other info into one section which I will title "Claims of Pederasty". Bricology (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like this subject has been previously debated. See the "Edit war" topic above. And it looks like the topic has resulted in edit wars in the past. Unless you have definitive evidence (not gossip from a memoir), accusing Ginsberg of being a pedophile is a very serious charge that might be considered slanderous (without documented evidence).Jpcohen (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with Jpcohen. Letters are primary sources and memoirs are not good sources either. Do we not have a scholarly source that has commented on this subject? Rumiton (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This subject was also vehemently debated in the section labeled "Page Archive" on this Talk page.Jpcohen (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The rows about this have been going on for years. There is a section on NAMBLA in the article. Readers can find out more about that organisation if they wish to. Span (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was the section created by Bricology removed? I don't see why there shouldn't be a section addressing Ginsberg's thoughts (through direct quotes) and claims (of course noting when they are unsubstantiated) about his pedophilia. Obviously, even if it wasn't a topic that was intensely important to Ginsberg himself, it has become important to the public when referring to him. I think it would be great to have an honest source addressing these claims, so that zealous conservative websites are not the only thing people find when researching the issue.--Wiesnerc (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The aforementioned quote has been published by Harper Collins in a book of collected works in a chapter on 'Censorship and Sex Laws'. It is [| available to view online] at page 168. I'm aware this quote/chapter will be dealt with soon in a reputable secondary published source due out in a few months. I'm wondering if, through omission, the article is rendered POV? Shelly Pixie (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Donald Mains
The section on Ginsberg's relationship to Communism mentions "New York City politician Donald Mains," identified as one of the persons accusing Ginsberg of Communist associations. There was and is no prominent politician with that spelling of the name. The person to whom you are probably referring is the late former president of the NYC borough of Queens, Donald Manes (1934-86). Manes became the president of the borough in 1971 and remained in office for over 14 years, until his self-inflicted death in March 1986 at the age of 51. He committed suicide while under investigation for various corruption charges. Please verify that this is the politician to whom you are referring and if so, please correct the spelling of his surname.Maccb (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Rubin
Isn't Barbara Rubin worth mentioning, even in passing? She was a close friend of Ginsberg's, lived with him, traveled with him, organized the International Poetry Convention for him, persuaded him to buy the East Hill Farm, etc. This is all well known and documented - the most obvious source being the Ginsberg Project website (http://ginsbergblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/barbara-rubin-1945-1980.html).

There's a draft article about her currently under review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Barbara_Rubin Rosekelleher (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and she took care of his partner, Orlovsky. Normally I don't like barging in and making substantive edits to big articles like this one, but if no one else is going to mention her I guess I'll have to be brave and do it. Rosekelleher (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went ahead and added a brief mention of her in connection with the International Poetry Incarnation. It's not enough, but it's a start. Rosekelleher (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Controversies section
To avoid edit warring over Ginsberg's NAMBLA membership, I suggest a new section entitled Controversies, where this issue (and others if necessary) could be presented in a balanced way. Totorotroll (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The section Controversies would be an overly-general "dumping ground" and a distraction away from documenting Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA and pro-pedophilia statements. It would de-contextualise his support for NAMBLA. The issue of pedophilia is constantly recurring in Ginsberg's writing, both fiction (poetry) and non-fiction. This topic therefore requires its own section. It should either be called just "NAMBLA" or "NAMBLA and pro-pedophilia advocacy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.118.104 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Transport/Maritime inclusion
Why? Rumiton (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Took it out of Maritime group, unless someone can tell me otherwise.Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on biographical references in "Howl" should be moved. It belongs with the discussion of Ginsberg's work. Josef Horáček (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Ginsberg, NAMBLA, and Pederasty
If Ginsberg was any kind of a genuine artist this is precisely the kind of debate he would love to see regarding the freedom of expression. We all know we live in a time of absolute national hysteria regarding this issue and in the globalization of western culture around the world our societies are aghast at the seemingly recency of this problem as if its some new blight. The fact is its always been going on in one form or another but as our world matures and technology lengthens our lives and new certainties seem possible we are adapting by expanding the protections around children worldwide. This is a good thing but it does not shut down the reasons we have the problem in the first place and part of that is simple biology. The laws exist because among some the desire exists, otherwise why bother? If we demonize Ginsberg for his possible desires, and who really knows, we are simply rejecting part of the real human experience. Ginsberg railed against phonyness and self serving contrivances. He just wanted to get the truth out, no matter how tarnished or vulgar. That was his specialty. Nobody has to support any organization nor do they have to throw everybody in prison for what they think. Its what people do that matters and that is where we should set the boundries as a sane society. We know when we are dealing with an insane organization. The idea of criminal law is to prosecute after someone does something, otherwise the law itself will degenerate into an over-reaching anarchy. The human mind with all its variations will deviate from the norm all the time. Ginsberg didn't have to be a statistician to know this, and that is what he is trying to communicate. When Kerouac makes reference to Carlo Marx in On The Road he doesn't paint a well organized political action committee, but instead a half-mad beat poet and really gone guy living his own uniquely puzzling life which isn't on any menu. He is off the media- grid completely, yet acutely sensitive and aware of the humanity teeming all around him. He isn't the kind of person to vett his memberships according to anyones political agenda. He stubs his toe all the time. It just happens because he is there at that moment squinting through his little special lens. Freedom of expression means freedom of inquiry and that should not ever be relegated to the bin of thought-crimes of the day. Even things like this can be as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.236.168 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is highly problematic. There are no references for the numerous assertions made about Ginsberg's membership in the organization, or what this implies (or seems to imply) about Ginsberg's own particular sexual desires or urges. This section has been edited several times over the course of the past week, mostly by anonymous users, to say various things about the organization, Ginsberg's membership therein, and, once again, vague implications about Ginsberg's sexual activities. This section needs to be referenced, it needs to be short and to the point, and a consensus needs to be reached here on the matter, or the section should be deleted entirely. ---Charles 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just ridiculous. There's been so much argument about this one point.  The section is useless and makes Ginsberg look inaccurately like a child molester.  The problem is, I believe, those against painting Ginsberg as a child molester seem like they're trying to white wash the bad parts of his life.  Those for making him look like a child molester seem like conservative character assassins.  I beg of you: step back from it a second.  The way I see it, the whole NAMBLA/pederasty thing is a very, very, very, very insignificant part of his life.  There are things missing from this page that are tremendously more significant than this crap.  I say we just erase that whole section.  I tried to improve this section a long time ago with a little thing called CONTEXT ("Thoughts on NAMBLA" Ginsberg's '94 article about why he joined).  Somebody erased all that context and made the section just useless and silly.  Either give prope context or the section should be removed entirely. F. Simon Grant 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with seeing it deleted entirely. ---Charles 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be some mention if it, now this undoubtably provocative stance he chose is simply censored away from this page. 'this makes him look like a child molestor' is a ridiculous statement. So are the philosophers like Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Lyotard, Guitarri, Deleuze or Sartre made to look like a child molestor because they petitioned against age of consent laws? the truth is that he, like them, chose a provocative and unpopular position in that debate, he is no more a child molestor because of it than is service done to him by choosing to omit or apologise for that stance, for all such approaches simply dismiss him and his actions on this point. Given the extreme frankness of his character this is particularly unfortunate. Id love to see the contextualised section that Simon says he has written about it. why didnt you fight for that revision of you though it was good? --83.131.156.104 13:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a taxonomy problem, which I may attempt to edit this morning. No matter what you think of NAMBLA, there is no reason why it deserves its own category outside the topic of Ginsberg's political activism. In fact, compared to Ginsberg's other forms of political activism, it was a very minor chapter; more like a footnote. The fact that the right wing has made a concerted effort to turn it into a cause celebre is not sufficient reason to elevate NAMBLA into its own category in this entry. I previously added Ginsberg's own statements on the subject to this entry, which have since been erased. That is inappropriate. If necessary, I will go to Wikipedia and ask them to lock anonymous posters out of this entry to prevent similar actions. --Digaman 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that course of action. The majority of edits in that section---both in its previous incarnations and recently after its recreation---have been by anonymous users, and the majority of those edits have amounted to vandalism.  As you say, Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA and his advocacy on behalf of the group is a very small part of his political activism, and does not deserve its own section.  A brief, and well-referenced, subsection would be appropriate. ---Cathal 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went back through the history, and this is the longest version of the section I could find. It's far from perfect, of course, but if we're going to make a quality section you might as well have a lot to work with.  I didn't mean to imply that it was "good," but I think more context is better than less context.  I added the Deliberate Prose stuff; I don't know who added all the other stuff.  A lot of it is very pro-Ginsberg and can be easily fixed.  I definitely vote for eliminating the section, not based on any sort of agenda, just based on the fact that it's a footnote of a footnote in his life at best.  When I said the Nambla section made him look like a child molester, I just meant with the vague phrasing and the lack of context how would anybody know he's not a child molester?  Before I deleted it, the section definitely leaned toward conservative character assasination and away from fact.  And I believe that's what's elevated such a minor issue into something we spend so much time debating: anti-Ginsberg folks wish to focus on a very minor part of his life and leave of the proper context to make him look bad; the pro-Ginsberg people react the other direction, but then it starts to look like they're trying to hide the "dirty truth."  There are dozens of things this page needs that are more important than Nambla; I say we forget Nambla for now, and focus our energies on more important things.  But that's my opinion.  If we keep Nambla, it needs more context; here's something to work with:

While there is much evidence in his poetry and his journals that Ginsberg (like his friend William S. Burroughs) was sexually attracted to pre-pubescent ["pre-pubescent" of course is wrong, "teenage" or "underage"? -- Simon] males (see for example, "Sweet Boy Give Me Your Ass"), there are no indications that he ever broke any age-of-consent laws [Is this true? -- Simon]. Ginsberg saw his attraction to youths as the celebration of the beauty and holiness of youth (a celebration of "lambs" or "angels")[Biased -- Simon]. As Camille Paglia put it, "Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless." [Biased source? -- Simon] Like much of his political activism, Ginsberg saw this as a demystification of a baseless taboo.

- Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. He saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue and [claimed he] joined to make a statement. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA" published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision: many who supported his gay rights advocacy could not support this decision. In "Thoughts on NAMBLA" Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art."

F. Simon Grant 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for using just this section:

Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. He saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue and said that he joined to make a statement against government surveillance and harassment. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA" published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision: many who supported his gay rights advocacy could not support this decision.[citation needed] In "Thoughts on NAMBLA," Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art."

--Digaman 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would support use of only the second paragraph. The first is entirely too-plagued with unsubstantiated and/or biased statements.  The 2nd paragraph sums up his membership, his reasons, etc.  I also would like to see this made a subsection of the political activism section, as has been discussed previously, rather than a section of its own. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. --Digaman 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference that discusses the NAMBLA association. Mrdthree 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone please help me understand what User:Jar1945 and others find objectionable to the addition of a reference for the section on NAMBLA. I know of no good reason to edit out a reference an insert an unsubstantiated claim. Mrdthree 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to erase User:Jar1945 statement on Ginsberg if no citation is provided prior to October 12; original research is not part of wikipedia.Mrdthree 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"I definitely vote for eliminating the section, not based on any sort of agenda, just based on the fact that it's a footnote of a footnote in his life at best."

You wanting to eliminating the section is cleary based on an agenda. You want to make him political correct.

"When I said the Nambla section made him look like a child molester, I just meant with the vague phrasing and the lack of context how would anybody know he's not a child molester?"

Someone can know he is not a child molester by listening to what he said. And of course by the lack of molested children in his life.

"anti-Ginsberg folks wish to focus on a very minor part of his life and leave of the proper context to make him look bad"

But that is the whole point of his advocacy for this matter: the media only portrays pedophiles as the disgusting child molester and rapist, and he shows that this is not what pedophilia is all about. It's like portraying heterosexual men as rapist. Of course, some heterosexual men are rapist, but that doesn't mean all are nor does it justify to portray and/or treat them as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.11.161 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Though the formatting is confusing, I think somebody is trying to respond to the NAMBLA discussion, and I think at least part of it is stuff I posted a long time ago. Right now all I want to respond to is the accusation that my advocacy of eliminating the NAMBLA stuff is agenda-driven PC censorship.  To that I would reply that most of Ginsberg's life is very anti-PC.  He never said anything delicately in order to spare someone else's feelings.  That's why he said what he said about NAMBLA.  Please look at my original argument and please take it seriously.  NAMBLA is simply not an important part of his life.  It gets a lot of attention because it does make him look bad, but the amount of attention it gets far exceeds the importance it actually has.  I would say please, by all means, focus on the very controversial, very anti-PC parts of his life that make him look good, bad, polka dotted or striped, I don't give a crap -- but I say focus on those parts of his life that actually meant the most and constituted a significant part of who he was.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV as per the article, people with POVs other than your own find it to be a controversial part of his legacy. As for its relevance, it was intentional behavior and Ginsberg was interviewed on the topic multiple times. As for other comments, WP:OR, verifiability, etc. Mrdthree (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This argument degenerated into ridiculousness a long time ago, so I'm reluctant to take the bait this time, but the problem with this argument is lack of support. I question for example the claim that he was "inteviewed on the topic multiple times" as a reason why it's necessary to bring up what I would argue is an irrelevant point; part of the problem with the phrasing is the word "multiple" -- I've found very few references to it at all with in his interviews and only one substantial essay reprinted in Deliberate Prose explaining his reason for joining, which he says quite clearly is for free speech.  I know you can't argue from a negative, and me not seeing "multiple" interviews doesn't mean he didn't do "multiple" interviews.  I just think more specific support for claims like that would be much more useful.  I'd be willing to back down from my adamant claim -- that NAMBLA is a very minor part of his life and therefore attempts to make it seem more significant are violations of NPOV -- if I see evidence that what you claim is true, that Ginsberg did consider it significant and Ginsberg scholars should consider it significant, and not just one among many many many other controversial protests he lodged in the name of free speech.  The most useful Wikipedia arguments involve people finding and discussing serious sources on the talk page, so I urge you or somebody, if you really think NAMBLA was significant other than a conservative smeer campaign, please prove it with evidence, post it here so that we can discuss it.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did a quick google search, not finding much. Here's a sampling from the Bill Morgan biography: "To him, NAMBLA should be free to speak their minds like other fringe groups such as the American Nazi Party or the Flat World Society" (612).  Here's an interesting one from Norman Podhoretz, one of Ginsberg's most notorious critics, at a time when he had grown to accept Ginsberg: http://books.google.com/books?id=HLazuD8-fUgC&pg=PA54&dq=Allen+Ginsberg+NAMBLA&hl=en&ei=gOEoTMvmG4WclgfknrTvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=NAMBLA&f=false
 * Most references I'm finding are about that level of specificity. Basically, "he was a member" and not much else, a lot of very brief snippets in sources like The Advocate.  I'm still open to changing my mind if I find good evidence (and as I said, this was a quick google book search -- I'll look other places as time allows) so I invite others to help clear this up since this seems to be an obsession of so many posters.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ginsberg made a number of statements on NAMBLA and his position cannot be reduced to a free speech protest as he made statements that support not just the free speech of NAMBLA but the issue of pederasty. The article should reflect all his statements on the topic.NAMBLA is notable because Ginsberg is famous in part for his controversial opinions on sexuality. His support of NAMBLA falls in this category. Note that Ginsberg did not join the John Birch Society (or Nazi party or whatever) in defense of free speech however he did join NAMBLA. More statements should be included than just those defending free speech. Mrdthree (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if you could find sources to support this. You say he made "a number of statements" -- please find references to these statements to back up what you're saying. That's the only way we'll solve this debate. I am perfectly willing to give up my side of it if you find really valid support. We have the article from Deliberate Prose where he says very directly it was a free speech issue. Other than that, what do we have? I have had difficulty finding anything else substantial -- a reference here or there by very anti-Ginsberg types or just very vague indications that at some point somewhere in some universe Ginsberg made a bunch of statements about Nambla. Somebody please find these statements so we can call an end to this argument because the He Did/He Didn't arguments based on no actual sources have no way of ending.  Just to address the argument you make: he didn't join the Nazi party because his free speech advocacy had a lot to do with sexual freedom.  Nambla may be an organization we consider disturbing because of the kind of sexual activity they advocate, but Ginsberg, in his own words, advocates their right to discuss their abnormalities.  A better argument on your part would be, "He didn't join the North American Man Donkey Love Association" or "He didn't join the well known polygomy advocates, the North American Man Woman Woman Woman Love Association."  But seriously, to end the ridiculousness, let's rely on sources instead of hearsay and close down this argument for good, please.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mrdthree. There seems to be an effort to spin Ginsbergs motivations with NAMBLA. It also appears revisionst editing (spinning toward "free speech") is also taking place at Harry Hay and at NAMBLA itself. We definitely need to add the sources which document Ginsbergs association. Lionel (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not spin. I am not spinning, and I guarantee those who are against overblowing this Nambla nonsense are not spinning. Please actually read my words before you insult me. What I'm advocating is encyclopedic process. Nambla was just not important to Ginsberg. It was a very very very minor thing for him. The very small amount of sources that say anything about Ginsberg and Nambla either say he joined it for free speech or barely have anything substantial. Please read "Why I Joined Nambla" written by Ginsberg himself, printed in Deliberate Prose, the only source I've been able to find that gives more than a dozen substantial words on the issue. He says he joined for free speech. The free speech thing is not just something us dumb old spinnin' Ginsberg lovers made up. It comes directly from him. Most incarnations of this ridiculous nonsense tend to say "According to Ginsberg himself, this is what Ginsberg says, in the only valid source on the issue Ginsberg himself says..." I'm tired of saying this over and over and over again. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia. People don't actually read and they don't put the work into something to actually prove it's true. I've put way too much time into this crap and I've come up with nothing. Please PUT THE WORK INTO IT before just casually accusing well intentioned people of spinning. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the section and added a line under free speech which is all this issue seems to be for the subject of the article. Despite the vigilant work of a few editors we need to read what the sources actually state. NAMBLA is shown as only a pedophile activism group, which is misleading at best. They were a group of pedarist and pedophile advocates but simply linking someone to the group does not treat the subject intelligently. It's similar to saying so-and-so supports Hitler with no context. Please produce reliable sources that clearly demonstrate this topic deserves more than a mention, a sentence - and we can go from there. Similar problems have occurred at both Harry Hay and NAMBLA but it's not anyone "spinning", it's deliberate use of reliable sources and sound judgement. Cat clean (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cat clean, I agree. I did some quick research on Google -- because I realized in all the research I had done to try to find support for other people's arguments, I realized I hadn't just done a basic Google search of this; I know it's not the best method, but it's a good way to guage how issues are generally viewed or the importance they have to the broader culture -- and I went through four Google search pages full of very uninformed anti-Ginsberg blogs and opinion pieces which mention very out of context that he was a member of Nambla (at the same time calling him a dirty hippie pervert, usually misspelling his name Ginsburg). That told me clearly that if there's any "spinning" going on, it's in the other direction. The handful of pro-Ginsberg comments were equally informal opinion pieces which tended to cite the one reliable source I've found, "Why I joined Nambla" written by Ginsberg himself. I did find a lead, though, that might be useful if those on the other side really want to make a well informed argument. Apparantly Ginsberg appeared in Chicken Hawk, a movie about Nambla. The only thing I could find about it is that he gave some inflammatory defense of Nambla and read an erotic poem (I'm guessing his "defense" was the same free speech defense he gave in Deliberate Prose, but I'm willing to believe, if I see the evidence, it's as bad and significant as the anti-Ginsbergists claim it is). So there you go. There's the lead. If anyone wants to make a decent case, you need to do your own work, but I'm willing to help if it brings an end to this ridiculous argument.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Ginsberg's support of nambla is not only in the context of free speech, but also in the context of his support for pedophilia. These sources (full cites coming) speak to his support of nambla/pedophilia:
 * IJN 2002
 * Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review 1997
 * Chickenhawk (1994) - he's mentioned in several reviews of the nambla documentary
 * Zalkind's bio
 * Haggerty 2000
 * My point is this: this topic is notable. It's addressed in several sources. It justifies it's own section. Additionally we must remember: there is  no consensus to remove the nambla section. Lionel (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good start. But what did these sources say? I'm guessing these came second hand from IJN. I'm guessing they say essentially what we've been saying all along. Zalkind even says nambla was barely a blip in Ginsberg's life. The thing you need to prove is not that he was a member. He was. Nobody denies that. The argument is whether he did it as a free speech protest as most sources support & whether it was barely a blip, not worth mentioning  as the paucity of sources demonstrates. Please argue against that. p.s. As for the intensity of your claim that there was "no consensus" on deleting the nambla section, as indicated by the bold, that section has gone back and forth for several years now. There is no consensus that it should stay. If you really asked, you'd probably find the vote pretty split. The best way to solve this is to use sources (which is why this is a very good first step) but also to be clear and honest about what the sources say and make sure you're making the correct argument. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the Haggerty 2000 (and I assume you mean Gay histories and cultures)(and I'm able to type it all here because it is, well, one sentence. This supports what I and others (who aren't part of a "consensus", the "consensus" that supports keeping nambla?) have been claiming, that it is very, very unimportant: "Allen Ginsberg, the group's most famous member and defender, whose poems extolled the love of boys, spoke at NAMBLA's November 1989 membership conference in New York City." Using evidence is the right thing, but let's judge it on its own terms. Damning evidence that nambla was so important to Ginsberg it deserves a place in this page? We Ginsberg whitewashers are suppressing that one sentence because the evidence is so overwhelming? Not amazing evidence.  This is the right direction to go, so sorry for the sarcasm but I've had three years of this stupid argument and I'm sick of it. You need better evidence. p.s. Since I've had three years of this stupid argument, I know how the other side thinks. "The love of boys" is hardly damning. "Boys" just implies they're young, not illegally young. Kerouac called himself and others "boys" when he was in his mid-20's. This is something I have to remind my students when they write about On the Road: they'll say "young boys" about Sal and Dean when Kerouac really means men in their 20's. Now, you can look at other evidence that Ginsberg is writing about illegally young "boys," but the biggest problem by far with this argument is lack of evidence, and the word "boy" is far from definitive.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Been looking through my school's database for leads, not coming up with much at all (just that Podheretz article over and over) but I did find a lead: Jeanette Walls wrote an article for Esquire called "The Beat Goes On" -- can't get a full text. I know, Esquire, not a great source, but Jeanette Walls has to be trustworthy, right? Anyway, don't know what the article says, but if somebody can get access, maybe it'll be helpful.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this: http://allenginsbergschildren.com/
 * I'm not saying it's a good source at all -- a very biased blog essentially -- but he uses a lot of other sources. Arguably, they're cobbled together from dispirate fragments, and arguably the use of the term "boy" is taken out of context quite frequently (he wonders why Bob Dylan and Joan Baez didn't get outraged at Ginsberg's pedophilia -- well, probably because they knew him well enough to know what he was really talking about), but it seems like this guy, despite the chip on his shoulder, put together some leads we can follow that have potential to be useful here. It's hardly proof for what is our top argument here, that nambla held any importance for the understanding of who Ginsberg is (I had to go through a lot of sources to find one bad sources that may or may not have good leads), but it may work for the other argument, that Ginsberg's support for nambla was something other than a free speech protest. I'm still a bit dubious (especially since there's no proof that the "boys" he had sex with -- raped according to this guy? -- were underage and that "boy" refers to an underage male in this case) but I'm trying to help you move in the right direction.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very bias blog and it simply churns the same sources we already have all of it with due alarmist "Save The Children" refrains. They mention the raids of pedophiles and of NAMBLA but fail to mention NAMBLA denies any connection to crime and as far as I'm aware has never been convicted of anything except in the court of public opinion. Picking out a quote to beef up a linkage of Ginsberg to pedophilia conveniently glosses over the rest of what that article and what editors here have been stating 1. Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA was a free speech issue 2. Ginsberg was never a pedophile -- no matter how you read his life. 3. NAMBLA was an unfortunate blip in his life. It never tainted him personally." The effort to posthumously taint him is incredibly distasteful and pulls focus off the real danger to children - heterosexual relatives in a child's extended family. Pedophiles by most studies account for a very small percentage of child sexual abuse and get a lot of media coverage which causes misinformation. We should not be a party to it at all. Cat clean (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I totally agree with you one hundred percent (except maybe that last point, which is beside the point on Wikipedia anyway). You seem to have taken my last post to mean the opposite? Your points are very relevant to this discussion and they just reiterate what I've been saying all along. My last few posts were trying to help the opposition out because I wanted a serious balanced argument. They just weren't doing the work, so I wanted to help them. The best I could find is that crappy blog -- and I swear he had some sources we hadn't discussed, so I was just using that as a lead to follow up, not as a genuine source itself. I've been trying to find anything better than that, but it's very hard. You can't prove a negative, but I think this helps prove a serious lack of importance.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have been down this road. Please re-read the sourced article. http://web.archive.org/web/20061018211729/http://www.ijn.com/archive/2002+arch/062102.htm#story8. You will find it DOES NOT support the statement that he joined simply in defense of free speech. It also outlines his defense of pederasty: Ginsberg's defense of pedophilia is well known in the alternative press. For example, he gave an interview to the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review which was published in the summer of 1997, shortly before his death. The public's propensity to narrowly define or label sexual feelings is like "the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters,'" Ginsberg told interviewer Lisa Meyers. "Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. "So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."  . Now we had this argument, and I did the research, its all in the archive. We ended up with an agreed statement and that I will dig out.Mrdthree (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Second, it is not my duty to defend any changes. YOU made the changes AND YOU did not seek consensus for the changes. NOW someone named airplane or whatever has protected any editors from reverting your changes to the original phrasing. The previous consensus involved a section labelled Association with NAMBLA discussing it is distinct from free speech because NAMBLA is infamous and Ginsberg defends the repeal of pederasty laws. THe consensus statement was HEAVILY NEGOTIATED from more detailed statements. It was consented to because it was a sseparate section. Part of the arguments for this change are directly above (2007) the original consensus passage (that was changed by someone besides me):  Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. Ginsberg stated "I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech..." Ginsberg, in "Thoughts on NAMBLA," published in Deliberate Prose, elaborated on these thoughts, stating "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, (it is) a discussion society not a sex club." Ginsberg expressed the opinion that the appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art", and that laws regarding the issue needed to be more openly discussed.  Mrdthree (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me or Cat clean with the emphatic capital YOUs? I didn't change the crap, so don't blame me. If I was any part of the consensus, it was probably because I was sick of arguing about it, not because I actually agree. I've looked a lot of places to find good supporting evidence. IJN is probably the best we have, but that's sad. Taking that IJN quote out of context really obscures what a hypocricy hating smart ass Ginsberg was, but I see how you read it that way. Look, I agree that you can probably find support for one of our arguments (whether he did it for free speech) by scraping toether remnants and reading quotes in the way you want to read them, but it's very difficult to prove the second, that this issue had any importance. No amount of wacky capitalization is going dissuade me of that point.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the capitalized you refers to Catclean, since that is where the accusation came that I was making changes without consensus, when in fact the converse is true. While the last edit of the paragraph had been substantially revised from the consensus paragraph, the thing to do is to restore the paragraph to consensus version and discuss the edits proposed by catclean. Mrdthree (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the earlier rejected versions were (perhaps useful for additional references,but discussion pared down the entry so as to rely on IJN as an accepted source): Allen Ginsberg supported and was a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association, inregard to which he stated "...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity." [] http://www.amazon.com/45-Dangerous-Minds-Interviews-Interview/dp/1840681241 . Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Ginsberg said "...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity.".He also saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue, and said that he joined to make a statement against government surveillance and harassment. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA," published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision, and many who supported Ginsberg's gay rights advocacy could not support it.[citation needed] In "Thoughts on NAMBLA," Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art." Mrdthree (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A review of the history indeed shows that the section was much longer and the Talk page shows that a lengthy discussion arrived at it's current state. F. Simon Grant, are you saying that you are in favor of doubling or even tripling the size of the section? Because we have the sources to do it. Lionel (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A review of the history indeed shows that the section was much longer and the Talk page shows that a lengthy discussion arrived at it's current state. F. Simon Grant, are you saying that you are in favor of doubling or even tripling the size of the section? Because we have the sources to do it. Lionel (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The history of this talkpage and article does not equal reality for how much weight this content deserves in the article. What matters is how much do the most reliable sources put into this aspect of the person's life. see WP:UNDUE. ''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.'' Cat clean (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, here is where we are on sources:
 * Harvard Gay & Lesbian (1997): He said "Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents..."
 * Deliberate Prose (1994): He wrote "I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech"
 * Newsday (1994): in Chicken Hawk he "read a "graphic ode to youth"
 * Rosenthal (biographer): "Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA was a free speech issue and that Ginsberg was never a pedophile"
 * IJN: Zalkind says "It was a blip in his life." However Katch said "This is not about whether you believe in free speech. No matter what kind of language Ginsberg used to advocate pedophilia -- and he wasn't exactly subtle -- he encouraged the victimization of children."
 * Haggerty (2000): NAMBLA's most famous member and defender
 * Adams. NY Post (1992): Beat Poet Allen Ginsberg celebrates the joys of pedophilia at a North American Man/Boy Love Association convention
 * Geiser, Hidden Victims: "he said he had a sexual preference for young boys"
 * Vogue Magazine (1984): He is asked by the young journalist if it is true that he had a sexual preference for young boys, which Mr. Ginsberg answers in the affirmative.
 * Blush, Dangerous Minds (2005): ""...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity."
 * 10 sources!!! Many are direct quotes of Ginsberg and stand on their own. They provide a nice balance. Some say he had ped inclinations, others say it was a blip. This is what we do at Wikipedia: present both sides of the issues. Point and counterpoint: NPOV at its best. Uncensored. I think we should verify the sources, greatly expand the section using these 10 sources, and the additional sources Mrdthree is working on. Lionel (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are deliberately picking fragments from sources to support a position that is magnifying a fringe view. When looking at the sources through the filter of '''WP:UNDUE. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".' It's obvious they are not even suggesting this was a major issue to him or that he was a "defender" of their various platforms but defended their "free speech" to discuss these ideas. Free speech was central to understanding Ginsberg. At best you have a couple of sentences for the NAMBLA article because he was a big deal to them, not the other way around.


 * Haggerty (2000) Out of two pages about NAMBLA Ginsberg is noted in one sentence. The same book has several other mentions of Ginsberg.
 * "Mad about the boys" Advocate 1994 - out of a five page full article Ginsberg is mentioned as a throwaway - To some gays NAMBLA is the image of poet-satyr reading a poem about boy love...to a roomful of middle-aged guys.
 * Several books note that NAMBLA's website quotes academics including Ginsberg
 * Several books note that Ginsberg was a spokesperson for the Boston-Boise protests that Nambla later formed out of but do not connect Ginsberg to them. The Boston-Boise protests were due to police using underage male prostitutes to entrap gays in cruising spots. In the end only one man was ever convicted.
 * "Death be Blessed", Spin July 1997. Three page article noting his death includes on mention of NAMBLA from a personal account "although I could do without his NAMBLA involvement, there is no doubt he was one of the greats"
 * Several books denouncing NAMBLA's existence but noting Ginsberg supported their free speech.
 * Norman Podhoretz, Ex-Friends: Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling -"I could find only one mention of Ginsberg's active sponsorship of NAMBLA", then quotes Ginsberg "I don't know exactly how to define what's underage" quickly adding he had never made it with anyone under fifteen. [to this day not all US States have the same age of consent laws, the most common being 16] (this was a main point of NAMBLA, that the problems were the laws and how they were applied selectively.
 * "Kids for Sale", Advocate Oct 1995, Camille Paglia notes how she and Ginsberg signed with a NAMBLA statement to lower age of consent to 14. This would have to be explained as to why the effort was undertaken and frankly is supportive of content in the NAMBLA article only
 * Russel, The Gay 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Gay Men and Lesbians out of a four page bio notes Ginsberg was a member.
 * In a review of Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys movie (about NAMBLA that a certain editor here has been trying to elevate Ginsberg's involvement) "Ginsberg, who is seen briefly, issued a statement following the release of the film, saying that he'd joined the group in the mid-'80s as a "matter of civil rights and free speech," and as a response to the "self-righteousness" of the news media's judgment of the group. "To my knowledge, he hasn't seen the film," said Ginsberg associate Bob Rosenthal. "Allen is not a pedophile. I have many times trusted Allen in the company of my sons. His NAMBLA membership was purely about civil liberties.""

etc etc etc All in all NAMBLA was not a huge part of Ginsberg but his critics would like you to believe so. To NAMBLA, however, Ginsberg was a source of legitimacy so they tossed his name around and wrote about him. I see no compelling consensus in reliable sources to support let alone expand a whole NAMBLA section beyond the sentence we already have that he joined them as a free speech issue. If reliable sources about Ginsberg suggested otherwise I would have no problem noting that. Cat clean (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of what we say is repetition anymore, so forgive me, but I do support Cat clean's point here. To answer Lionel's question and to reiterate something I already said, the agreement I made earlier to the inclusion of a nambla section was more a compromise born out of personal frustration. I do not now nor have I ever believed nambla was significant to Ginsberg. I would prefer that it be extracted for the sole reason that it is unimportant. However, to avoid an endless fight (and that worked, right?) I agreed to the "consensus" version. That was partly, I'll admit, because I was lazy and the only research I did was in Deliberate Prose. Having done further research on my own and comparing the research Lionel and Cat clean have done, my judgment is that Lionel is taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion. Cat clean is putting them in context. An even larger context to the research that I want to emphasize is that despite ten being an amazingly large number that deserves multiple exclamation points, from my personal experience, seeing these sources for myself, these are disperate fragments, mostly very brief mentions, that you really have to be desperate to find. That alone applies to the UNDUE standard Cat clean has mentioned several times in a very significant way.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to editorially exclude half the content of a reference it is WP:OR. Please find a reference that backs up your opinion-- that Ginsberg's association with NAMBLA was wholly an exercise in free speech. The cited reference states otherwise, multiple quotes from Ginsberg show otherwise. There is a consensus paragraph and its very deferential to Ginsberg in terms of what it states, relative to its references. I restored it. Mrdthree (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the google reference on Neil Poderhanz posted by simon back in June, the full context of the quote is Ginsberg stating he 'never made it' with anyone under 15. http://books.google.com/books?id=HLazuD8-fUgC&lpg=PA54&dq=Allen%20Ginsberg%20NAMBLA&pg=PA54#v=snippet&q=%22Old%20Love%20Story%22&f=false Mrdthree (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Draft of rewrite of nambla section:

The IJN article contains the key to "the Ginsberg question": his defense of ped was well known in the alt. press. And the alt. press corroborates this. WP:UNDUE isn't even remotely a concern. This rewrite compares favorably with the other Social and political activism subsections in the article: Role in Vietman and Demystification have  no sources. Gay rights has one, Communism has two. My rewrite has FOUR!!! Lionel (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

F Simon, I have a different opinion regarding the sources. It seems evident that while not a pedophile, Ginsberg liked young boys, based on his interviews. The theme of the section more appropriately is Ginsbergs advocacy of pedophilia, not so much his defense of nambla. I can see where editors would have compromised by censoring the ped inclination in favor of the lesser of two evils: nambla. Lionel (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep missing the point that this is a fringe idea that most of what is written about Ginsberg doesn't even include. Even sources talking about NAMBLA barely touch on it. NAMBLA thought his membership was a big deal but no one else really did. There is zero consensus to have anything more than a mention that he joined as a free speech issue and that is already in the article. Cat clean (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Catclean, please focus on making an encyclopedic argument. Saying its" not a big deal", or "No one really believes it" is not something that belongs in wikipedia. providing citations that say that is. I am restoring your deletion.Mrdthree (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is weak Mr.D3, and as Cat Clean says you keep missing the point. You're presenting a false dichotomy: a good claim has citaiton; a bad claim does not. The problem is your "citations" are crap and lack of decent citations supports our undue focus argument. If you want the argument to be encyclopedic, please at least follow basic argument rules. The IJN which you rely heavily on is a collection of sources which say essentially the same thing we've been saying: Ginsberg haters overblow the pedophilia; people who actually know Ginsberg say it's not a big deal. There's a "not a big deal" for you in this encyclopedic argument: how about undue focus. Does that terminology work for you? How about "just a blip"? Does that work? And since when is IJN the end all be all of reliable sources? You're putting all your efforts into beating one argument into the ground, but it's a crap argument. I do not support your proposed revision at all. It is terribly flawed. Your argument that other controversial topics like Vietnam don't have many citations is a blatantly fallacious argument (that fallacy is called the non sequiter, if you're really interested in how to frame a decent argument); the number of citations is irrelevant when the citations are crap. That seems to be the basis of your entire argument: I have four or ten or a billion or whatever. It's irrelevant when they're crap citations and you have to scrape the barrel to find them. I said a long time ago that this argument is impossible b/c you can't argue a negative which Cat Clean and I have been trying to do. It's clearly not convincing you. You're clearly more blindly stubborn than the rest of us, so do whatever the hell you want to. It's just wikipedia at the end of the day; nobody in the real world cares. But claiming you have the superior argument is just an offense against the concept of argument itself. If I stop responding, it's not b/c you've won, dude. It's b/c this bullshit has gotten too damn obnoxious. Good luck, Cat clean. I'm out.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 10 sources that I listed earlier are RS. Sourced content, even if it's a mention, is a candidate for inclusion. Based on the 10 sources several sourced paragraphs could be written... about his fancy for young boys. A single subsection essentially about his free speech support for nambla is a huge compromise for those desiring his own statements about ped be included. Lionel (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. Your stubbornness astounds me. They're crap sources, we've talked abt this and you've provided nothing to prove they're not crap sources except repeating it over and over -- you saying RS doesn't make them RS -- but do whatever you want to dude. You obviously have a hardon for including this shit, so whatever.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weren't we supposed to get arbitration on this? I'm unwatching the page b/c I'm tired of dealing with this stubborn asshole hijacking the page with his bullshit argument, but somebody please get arbitration on this before he fucks everything up.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm going to try your magic strategy: These shit sources are great sources, these shit sources are great sources, these shit sources are great sources. Oh wait, magically shit sources that don't actually prove my point have suddenly proven my point b/c magically repeating it over and over a million times makes it happen. I wonder if that works with other things: gold will rain from the sky, gold will rain from the sky, gold will rain from the sky ... Well, what do you know? That worked too!)F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you wouldn't want to include a broader explanation of his stance on pedophilia. But Ginsberg's stance on pedophilia is stated in his own writings, which I cited as well as citing other people such as Dworkin and Bourroughs, the latter which recounts how they had sex with young boys in Tangiers. I don't see how his pedophilia existing is up for debate. Saying something wasn't "important to his life" is bizarre, I'm sure there are lots of people on Wikipedia whose controversy sections are filled with things they don't find important to their life. I'm sure a person who rapes children doesn't find this "important" to their Wikipedia page, but posterity does. We talk about someone owning slaves or being an abolitionist or being a racist or saying racist or sexist things in their writings even if, of course, their fans would not say it was important enough to include. Not including this information, in this case, is hiding it. There's no reason not to mention it except bias in favor of a historical figure. The current and previous wording of his association with NAMBLA gives the impression that he supported NAMBLA only as a matter of free speech. That's not true, according to his own words. Even if somehow you still interpret his words as ambiguous, then at least allow the other view through as well. Only recounting the statements where he mentions free speech is misleading and dishonest. His statements in support of pedophilia are in the EXACT SAME TEXTS. I'm reversing the deletion of my edit.Remeteria (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

'In order to cut through the fruitless discussion, I would like to point out that Ginsberg's own book of essays (see for example Letter to Ralph Ginzberg, in Deliberate Prose: Selected Essays 1952-1995'', Perennial, New York, 2001), contains several pro-paedophilia texts. For example, on p. 168: ''Prepubescent boys and girls don't have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they'll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape. (...) Yet there'll always be a few irreducibly unattractive eccentrics, to be sure, grabbing unpleasantly as long as there are little girls coming home from school. One barely needs a bit of law to deal with them, and that law a law against violence, not really a sex law. Also need a couple of tantric cops and mescaline detectives, men of a certain delicacy to pacify the violent.'

Sorry for not knowing proper syntax etc, but I just thought I'd leave a couple of links here. Carolyn Cassady reported to be disgusted with Ginsberg's paedophilia: http://tommydark.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/what-happened-with-carolyn-cassady.html And Dworkin likewise: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/books/antiporn-star.html - J  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.102.55 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Without evidence from a reliable source that Ginsberg had sex with a child, it is slandorous to call him a paedophile. Totorotroll (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

this discussion is ridiculous. Allen Ginsberg joined a PAEDOPHILE ACTIVIST GROUP. he wanted FREE SPEECH FOR DEFENDERS OF PEDOPHILIA. he defended SEX WITH PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN. i don't care if he "wasn't a paedophile", those are all EXTREMELY shameful and problematic things to defend, and there's no good in hiding it. those defenses were almost as bad as being a paedophile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.198.136.145 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is hard to write, but in a event held by Franklin Furnace to defend Free Speech in 1990, Alan Ginsberg calls in (he is listed on the event program and announced beforehand) and gives a speech. He lists, among other things, a "Supreme Court Ban on child porn possession in your own house" as "an attack on the avant-garde." This is specific and not poetic, and, shudderingly, implies endorsement. This event was, ironically, organized to defend an important art organization against slanderous claims, including an unwarranted categorization of its performance works as pornography. My own interpretation is this: that neither the event nor the venue endorse child pornography, but believe Ginsbergs' relationship to it to be somehow removed and poetic-- not practical, as has been suggested in previous comments in this talk/stream. His own language suggests otherwise. I'd suggest altering the language in this passage to reflect that.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Allen Ginsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006072528/http://www.beatdom.com/pages/archives/issue1.html to http://www.beatdom.com/pages/archives/issue1.html#buddhism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Allen Ginsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130116133359/http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html to http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080604212605/http://library.stanford.edu:80/depts/spc/spc.html to http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/spc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Allen Ginsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127162320/http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/10/the_ten_most_incomprehensible.html to http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/10/the_ten_most_incomprehensible.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allen Ginsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328094817/http://www.ake.hacettepe.edu.tr/Install/JASTFiles/jast27.pdf to http://www.ake.hacettepe.edu.tr/Install/JASTFiles/jast27.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allen Ginsberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327104528/http://bangladeshtraveller.com/2008/12/26/september-on-jessore-road-sung-by-allen-ginsberg/ to http://bangladeshtraveller.com/2008/12/26/september-on-jessore-road-sung-by-allen-ginsberg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424181903/http://www.lensculture.com/ginsberg.html?thisPic=100 to http://www.lensculture.com/ginsberg.html?thisPic=100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Allen Ginsberg is being overly praised in this article
whoever wrote this article is as much a privileged, suburban, white elite as Ginsberg himself. This article lacks citations, plus uses too many vague adverbs and adjectives (weasel words). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no doubt he's one of those white males who lived mainly near cities, and the article is supported by only 116 citations. What (cited) changes do you want to make to pull him down? Do you want to "deconstruct" him, like you want to deconstruct Ezra Pound? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving here the following material from the article, where it was fact-tagged five and a half years ago, until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Style and technique
"Howl" came out during a potentially hostile literary environment, less welcoming to non-traditional, free verse poetry; there was a renewed focus on form and structure among academic poets and critics partly inspired by New Criticism. Consequently, Ginsberg often had to defend his choice to employ long, free verse lines, often citing Whitman's free verse used in Leaves of Grass as a precursor.

Ginsberg believed strongly that traditional formalist considerations were archaic and did not apply to reality. Though some critics, like Diana Trilling, have pointed to Ginsberg's occasional use of meter (for example the anapest of "who came back to Denver and waited in vain"), Ginsberg denied any intention toward meter and claimed instead that his idea of meter followed the "natural" poetic voice.

Ginsberg said that he learned from William Carlos Williams that natural speech is occasionally dactylic so poetry that imitates natural speech will sometimes fall into a dactylic structure, but only accidentally. Like Williams, Ginsberg's line breaks were often determined by breath: one line in "Howl", for example, should be read in one breath. Ginsberg claimed he developed such a long line because he had long breaths.

Anarchist?
Can someone contribute a citation for the anarchist categories included on this page? Is there any quoet of Ginsberg self-identifying as an anarchist?--Cast (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been months since I posted this, and there still is no response. I've been doing my own research, and haven't found any mention of him supporting anarchism. I'll be removing the categories now. --Cast (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Came to this page looking for the same and am about to do the same. If Ginsberg has any "defining"/characteristic connection to anarchism, feel free to source it in prose and/or ping me for discussion here. I didn't go too far into databases for older sources, so this is the best that I got:
 * (not watching, please )  czar  23:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (not watching, please )  czar  23:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the primary source quote used to back Ginsberg's inclusion in List of Jewish anarchists, from his poem "A Novel":



re:, I think we should be able to do better than this primary source if Ginsberg's association with anarchism is indeed a defining trait of his life. Enough has been written about Ginsberg that a secondary source analysis should have more to say, and at greater length. And if not, we should remove it. czar 02:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Czar, for finding the relevant page in the (unpaginated) Google Books preview. Ten years ago, when I added that reference, I had a much poorer understanding of reliable sourcing than I do now. Besides issues of primary vs. secondary sourcing, I wouldn't use an outline for a novel from a writer's journal as a reliable source for ... just about anything factual. While I think one might be able to search and find some source that describes Ginsberg as anarchistic or an anarchist, it wasn't a sufficiently defining characteristic that his biography should be categorized based on it or that he should be included in the list of Jewish anarchists. Unless somebody objects in the next few days, I'll remove him from that list. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objections, I've removed Allen Ginsberg from the list of Jewish anarchists. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - when accused of being a Bolshevik, Ginsberg replied, "I'm not a Bolshevik...My mother was a Bolshevik. I'm not even a communist. I'm a Buddhist. I meditate. I don't give people a hard time." - this was in the mid-1970s, so may not reflect his younger views, but Ginsberg began studying Buddhism in the 1950s so he may have had a similar response to anarchism - although Chögyam Trungpa's "crazy wisdom" is perhaps Buddhist anarchism! - (source: Kashner, Sam (2005). "When I Was Cool". New York: HarperCollins Perennial. p. 86. ISBN 006000567-X) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pedophile advocacy?
Can someone explain how pedophile advocacy is applied here? I didn’t see it in the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - see the article section Association with NAMBLA - Epinoia (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Bisexuality revisited
The article says Allen Ginsberg was bisexual. Looking through the archive, this was done because he had two girlfriends before acknowledging he was gay. Another user who had the final say in the discussion said that 'he knew a woman' who Allen hit on. That seems like extrmeely scant evidence. Allen Ginsberg is well known as a gay figure, and self-described in Howl as 'homosexual'. But does anyone have a biography link that doesn't circle-source Wikipedia saying he was bisexual? Nothing online I can find talks about him being actively bisexual. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ruthie Patrick and Allen, naked as the truth, were rolling around on Allen's bed, with Allen being kissed and fondled by them both...I was transfixed by the sight of Allen in bed with a woman and Patrick in bed with Allen. I thought Patrick was straight, and I thought Allen was queer, but Eros had turned everything on its head." (Kashner, Sam. "When I was cool: My life at the Jack Kerouac School" New York: HarperCollins Perennial 2005 p. 118) - Epinoia (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A single bisexual interaction is recounted in that source. But does that mean he was bisexual? How does Wikipedia judge what someone's sexuality is? Slapping together piecemealing accounts to create our own interpretation with homegrown qualifications of sexuality? Does Allen Ginsberg ever say he was bisexual? And if not, why is it important for this page to make that distinction outside of a definitive source that says "yes, he was bisexual". What's the direction and purpose, otherwise? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Dude was a pedosexual aka a MAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.193.162 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Merchant Marine ?
Regarding "he joined the Merchant Marine to earn money to continue his education at Columbia." I'm sure that another reason could have been that joining the MM kept him out of the draft? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)