Talk:Peter Lamborn Wilson/Archive 1

Category: pedophilia vs pederasty
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)
 * Sorry for jumping the gun. I sometimes take myself a bit too seriously. I would agree with placing him in "pederasty" since what I know about his "interests" is related to his translation of the Abu Nuwas poems, which are understood to be of a pederastic nature. Haiduc 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. -Will Beback 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)


 * Why would pedophilia be contraversial in this context? Hes a far more radical an individual, then for instance, french 'heavyweight' intellectuals like Derrida, Althusser and Foucault, all of whom signed a petition in the late seventies to the french parliament for legalising all consensual relationships of adults and minors even younger than 15, the age of consent in france of the time. Im quite sure theres nothing contraversial about it for PLW, if he personaly were so inclined or not.. --83.131.144.156 17:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosopher?
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)

Moorish Science Temple of America
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)


 * It is mentioned in the article because Peter Lamborn Wilson has written on the topic many times, and he is a member of the Holy Moorish Orthodox Church of America, which is itself a split from the MST. ---Cathal 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg
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 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)

Revisiting the NAMBLA, pederasty issues
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)


 * (I took the liberty of moving BobHelms latest here (it had been inserted out of order). It doesn't seem to me that Bob Helms has alleged that PLW has committed any acts against children, other than his writings celebrating man-boy sex.  In that case, it seems fair to link to Bob Helms' article, which points to all of the instances of Bey's writings on the subject.  It's just a link after all, and it's information that WP users are free to use, discredit, or ignore.  I think the issue is too important to ignore. --Dylanfly 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I feel that User:Theoldanarchist is the stalwart opponent of a link to Helms' piece. If it's just TheOldAnarchist and no one else, well then we can have the link.  There is a long pattern of people adding the link and TheOldAnarchist deleting it.  Since no one owns this page, the editors have got to come to a consensus.  It's a kind of anarchist solution, Hakim Bey would most certainly approve of.  --Dylanfly 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. Looks like he's retired from WP, so let's go ahead with Helms' link. --Dylanfly 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PLW and RAW
Is Peter Lamborn Wilson related to the writer Robert Anton Wilson? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.230.143 (talk • contribs)


 * PLW and RAW have worked together on several projects, including the Semiotext(e) SF anthology, and are colleagues, but are not the same person. --DetlefBenjamin 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Question was: Are they related? Not, are they the same person. I have read somewhere that they are in fact brothers. I will search around for the citation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.225 (talk • contribs)


 * Was this confirmed? Are they infact brothers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.144.156 (talk • contribs)


 * No, Peter Lamborn Wilson and Robert Anton Wilson are not brothers. I have met Peter, and he told me he and Robert are not related, just friends and comrades. ---Charles 23:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the obit for RAW in Fifth Estate -- currently here: http://underminedeology.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html -- PLW indicates he can't rule out the idea they were related, but there seems no evidence either that they were. Ansat 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace
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)

Coil
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)

MERGE into PLW?
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)
 * I oppose such a merger, in fact, I strongly oppose such a merger. The idea of pirate utopias has caught on in other circles, and there are a number of people I have spoken with on the topic who have never read PLW's writings on the subject.  So, merging it here would be counterproductive.  What needs to happen is for the article to be expanded and improved. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that we call this discussion moribund and defunct. At the very least, it is deadlocked, with one in favor of merger and one opposed.  I am going to remove the merge tags.  Feel free to revert me if you believe this discussion can be continued and will be fruitful. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A glaring omission in "criticism" section
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)
 * Wikipedia has a policy WP:BLP, that is intended to protect living people with Wikipedia articles from defamation. The policy is quite stringent, in that anything remotely negative or potentially slanderous is required to be removed without further discussion, unless there is a reliable source to support the claim. What constitutes a reliable source is outlined here: WP:RS. If you have a reliable source regarding Wilson's alleged pederasty, by all means include it. Hope this helps, Skomorokh  incite 23:58, 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)


 * I'm sorry, I may not have been clear enough, as we are evidently not on the same page. The Biography of living persons policy was the reason that the claims about Wilson's relation to pederasty were removed before - so that Wikipedia would not be potentially vulnerable to legal action. There's nothing per se wrong with claims of that sort, as long as they have reliable sources, such as books, news reports, or academic articles to back them up.


 * I don't think your letter is an accusation of any kind, I am not telling you we are not having a discussion, I have not made any claims about other Wikipedia contributor's discomfort or lack thereof, and I am not avoiding your point; I am merely at a loss as to what it is.


 * I am personally unfamiliar with and ideologically ambivalent towards the details of Mr.Wilson's personal life and writings. You refer to a "long bibliography", but you have not provided a link to it. It's a very simple matter; just write the details of the source you have in mind here, preferably including a quote that supports the claims you want included in the article, and I'll help insert the information into the article. I am sorry that comprehension has eluded you thus far. Regards, Skomorokh  incite 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Helms, if you haven't actually read the policy, you should do so; that's not supposed to be an accusation, I only barely convinced myself that I couldn't just easily guess using my knowledge of the issues of libel and encyclopedic verifiability, so I figure others may be in the same boat. Having read the policy, I think this issue is much more complicated than you are making it.  The issue is not just verifiability of facts, but also spreading rumors.  You have to consider that those who you are talking to here (the editors) are speaking from a state of ignorance of the actual facts of this issue; we have no idea whether what you're representing is truth or libel, so given that, we have to assume it's libel until sourced otherwise.  I don't see any reason that it *should* be libel, but coming from a point of ignorance, we have to assume it is.  I think we're already clear on that.  But there is an issue just mentioning the *debate*, especially as criticism.  It is, as you say, a fact that there is criticism.  There you are, and you're criticizing.  No one doubts that.  However, if (very hypothetically) I write an article which claims Hilary Clinton is missing critical sections of her brain and get someone to publish it on a small scale, can I then add in the Wikipedia article on Hilary "There has been criticism that Clinton is in fact missing critical sections of her brain"?  No.  The issue is a little more complicated given that all anarchist debate happens outside of the mainstream.


 * That being said, I think you're not wrong for thinking that this is an important issue, and given that we can document serious debate or the effect of this criticism in anarchist society *generally*, it should be included in the article that this *debate* is happening. But even then, retorts to this claim should be represented, provided they exist.  I suspect that the sort of response the anarchist press is giving this subject is to totally ignore submissions.  If that's the case, then no matter how convinced you are and no matter how much you yourself debate with other people, we can't publish that this is criticism here, or we could potentially be party to spreading a rumor which is not true.  It's not the job of wikipedia to out important truths, just to publish important truths which are already outed.  So if it is the case that you are having trouble getting your voice heard, I think the answer here has to be that we can't provide a platform.  I hope this makes sense; it's gotta be frustrating as hell to be convinced that something is not controversial and still run into brick walls trying to get it on Wikipedia.


 * All of this is written having no idea whether such sources exist or not. If we can't find them, then I'm of the opinion (and a non-signed-in opinion may not count for much) that even the link should be removed.  But in the interests of allowing voices to be heard, I'm hoping that we can instead just find sources that there is a debate generally among anarchist circles, plus a retort (which ought to exist since a lot of people are totally turned off to the idea that PLW was a pederast).209.204.180.186 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?
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)
 * Does it matter that Hakim Bey is a pseudonym, and the name listed here is the actual name of the author? DetlefBenjamin 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there does seem to be a bit of inconsistency. Dr. Dre's page redirects to simply the article titled "Dr. Dre" and not the real name. I'm not going to bother looking up other people's names, but it seems that going by the name that most people know him by would be logical.--Blingice 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not only logical, it's policy. OTOH, there is still the argument to separate the two personae into two articles; that's a different matter. —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2008 (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

The article serves as a book ad
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)
 * Bob, I have explained this several times to you and you don't seem to have taken on board any of it, or responded to the point I have made above. ALL biographies on Wikipedia are prohibited from including potentially slanderous information about their subject if there is no reliable source that the claim is true. This extends to external links too: we wouldn't include a link to a blog that claimed Bill Clinton was a serial rapist on the article Bill Clinton, because it is defamatory and there is no reliable source for the claim.


 * Now, this part is important; please read Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and what qualifies as a reliable source.


 * As for ISBN numbers, take a look at any article on a writer and you will find stacks of them - while Wikipedia is against commercial promotion (i.e. linking to the book's Amazon page), ISBN's are intended as a guide for readers trying to seek out the books.


 * As requested, I have no relationship whatsoever with Bey, but my personal feelings are that he probably has advocated adult/child love. But we are writing an encyclopedia here, and the personal feelings of editors have no place in our articles.


 * Now, if you feel I am being unfair, deliberately trying to sabotage your efforts or acting in bad faith, there are two other places you might wish to state your case: the biographies of living persons noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, скоморохъ  ѧ 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet it seems disingenuous at best to include a "Criticism" section starting "Wilson is a controversial figure within the anarchist movement..." without mentioning that the defence of paedophilia issue is by far and away the main cause of the hostility of most anarchists (in Europe anyway) to him. That (visceral) hostility is to be distinguished from political disagreements with his "lifestyle anarchism". I say that not based on published sources but from over 20 years experience in the British anarchist movement, with ongoing contact with the Irish and Western European movements. I appreciate that doesn't amount to anything WP can quote as a source, yet this is the reality of the state of the relationship between PLW and the (non-US at least) anarchist movement. This is not simply to do with Bob Helms having a bee in his bonnet on the issue. Helvetius (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hakim or Judge?
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)
 * The section on the etymology and meaning of his name is totally excessive for the lede. 134.153.12.58 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty
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. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:11, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * Pederasty is only a theme in a very small amount of his work -- a few twenty-year old poems and a translation of some persian poetry. Anarchism and heretical religious histories are much more prominent in his writing, though these topics are less controversial than pederasty. DetlefBenjamin 17:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A small theme, or his life's theme? Consider his work: he labored on a so-called "translation" of Abu Nuwas and published multiple times for the pederastic publishers in Amsterdam, PAN.  I don't blame him a bit for this.  But I do find that "current anarchists" are trying to touch up the portrait of the actual man.


 * I have recently published my own translations from Abu Nuwas, and have been somewhat surprised to notice that a number of people continue to prefer the stuff typed up by Hakim Bey, presumably with the main reason being that Hakim Bey was a well-known leftist, and into boys younger than Abu Nuwas actually preferred.


 * By the way, this man cannot read Arabic. (I haven't fixed this detail in the article, but Abu Nuwas was certainly not a "Persian poet, duh.)  He bases his translations on horrible third-hand sources.


 * While I wish there was no need to say the following, perhaps it will help. I don't know or care about PLW. I'm editing this article because a friend asked me to. (He warned me I'd encounter bias, but then again, he picked me because he knows I'm even-handed.) I'm not anarchist. I'm into females. My current lovers average 40 something. I'm appalled by child abuse. I am committed to wikipedia's policies and guidelines over and above my own agenda. I currently trust you are too. The recent article edit about PLW's Abu Nawas book clearly uses non-NPOV language. I'm assuming you wrote it and ask that you fix it to strictly follow policies and to take reasonable heed of guidelines. If nothing reasonable is done in the next few days I plan to simply remove the current paragraph and leave a copy here. (Or perhaps I'll find time to do it justice and keep it in.) I'd appreciate it if you signed your comments. love, raiph 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it's a little more than a few 20-year-old things. Search on google and you'll find arguably his best work, TAZ, online for free.  There are numerous sections in this book that mention advocacy for pedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.38.11 (talk • contribs)


 * He constantly advocates Pederasty, it saturates everything he does, he's a member of NAMBLA. I wonder if he uses 'spiritual' lubricant when he's engaging in 'spiritual' pederasty. Drifter bob 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"this particular accusation, concerning only his advocacy, is well-sourced." -- Ashley


 * "well-sourced." Currently one is a 404 and the _publisher_ of the other source has cataloged the linked article as "Best of the Worst" and described it as "deeply flawed". I believe a better source (by far!) is needed.


 * "accusation". Wikipedia's own content on pederasty (and even related paraphilias such as pedophilia) seems sufficiently neutral that the word "accusation" doesn't belong, regardless of whether a sentence bringing attention to Wilson's perspective on pederasty does.


 * Finally, I'm currently not convinced the sentence belongs at all, which is one of the two reasons I ended up deleting it rather than flagging its sourcing. (The other reason was wikipedia's policy on immediately deleting poorly sourced controversial statements in bios of the living.) I understand that pederasty is controversial, and hence Wilson advocating it is in turn controversial, but that alone seems to me insufficient to warrant mention. I don't know what wikipedia's policy on this is, but I would expect it to be that the controversial aspect must be a significant (in terms of quantity or novelty) creative theme of Wilson's work. (Consider, say, Joseph LeDoux's favorable mention of Salman Rushdie. The latter is a controversial figure and hence LeDoux's support is a controversial stance. But this support does not merit mention in a Criticism section of the Joseph LeDoux page, no matter how repugnant many may consider Rushdie to be.) Having read some of Wilson's stuff, I was completely unaware of this pederasty aspect of his thinking, and some quick googling suggests it's just one of a myriad themes he's written about in contrast to the "saturates everything he does" comment above, and thus I currently find questionable the need to include the sentence under discussion in the article. Perhaps improved sources will put me straight. love, raiph 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wilson is an anarchist, his advocacy of paedophillia and his association with NAMBLA are highly controversial within the anarchist milleu that constitutes the audience for his writings. How is Wilson's pro-paedophile stance any less relevant than the rest of his political beliefs?  Or, for that matter, the exact etymetymological origins of his pseudonym?  It's a fact that he has had poetry published by NAMBLA that advocates "pederasty", it's a fact that this has been a cause of a great deal of criticism by other anarchists.  Several sources, including the one that I provided are available.  You can't just edit out sourced, factual material based upon your opinion. Madashell 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Why are you censoring the fact that he's a paedophile? *confused* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.181.196 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not "censoring" anything. Wikipedia demands notable sources for any assertion about a living person.  No one has come close to providing such a source for the claim that PLW is a pedophile.  Until then, I will delete any such reference. ---Cathal 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people have added references - you're censoring them. Shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.252.173 (talk • contribs)
 * Listen, if you cannot even be bothered to use proper formatting and grammar, cannot be bothered to sign your comment, and cannot be bothered to actually respond to the points I have made above about notability and verifiability of sources, then I cannot be bothered to deal with you, o' cowardly anonymous user! Be gone with you and your ilk! ---Cathal 14:02, 21 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)


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~ after them. Please review our policy on biographies of living people before you accuse others of lacking good faith. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * There has actually been a great deal of debate about these issues in different forums on the internet (see and ), with a wide array of opinions expressed.  The fact is, though, that Robert Helms has made it his mission (as one can very easily see by the fact that his name is everywhere) to paint a picture not only of Peter/Hakim as an anarchist theorist who uses anarchism to legitimize "pedophilia" (Helms blurs the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty, and I believe this to be intentional), but as a man who actually practices pedophilia---and he makes the latter claim based on no evidence whatsoever.  I find these accusations on the part of Helms to be disgusting, and they have no place in an article on Wikipedia.  If there were a better-written essay that dealt with Wilson/Bey's writings for and membership in NAMBLA, an article with better citations, an article that was balanced and not full of all manner of untoward speculation, I would have no trouble seeing it mentioned in this article.  I have no intention of "censoring" anything, but that Helms article is tripe. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, I think it's incumbent upon Bob Helms to post a revised version of his piece. It wasn't my impression that he had accused PLW of practicing pedophilia, but if so, that ought to be cleared up.  Perhaps a lightly edited version of your piece, Bob, could get posted again.  I think this is all too important to overlook.  I'm not on a mission to damage Bey or PLW, but I think there needs to be discussion and openness on this issue. --Dylanfly 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's absolutely incredible that the article has been so purified of references to his ADVOCACY of pederasty. That much at least is established, as is his membership in NAMBLA, which in and of itself is highly controversial!  I don't know who Bob Helms is but the insinuations about him made in this thread are serious and should themselves be backed up with evidence if they are true.  Can somebody meanwhile explain to me the precise difference between pedophilia and pederasty?  Is the latter only directed toward people of legal age?  Because I believe I have read passages from PLW advocating sex with minors.  Maybe somebody should ask him directly what his position is?

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)

This is hopeless. Too many weasels.
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)
 * Hello again Bob. We are happy to include criticism that has appeared in reliable sources or even criticism from notable people that has not – if you can find criticism of PLW from a person or organisation with a Wikipedia article for example, that would be suitable criticism for inclusion. As for the personal details, you are correct that our policy on biographies on living persons demands high thresholds of quality of information. Hakim Bey is a figure who has received not a little public scrutiny. Here's an index of Google News stories (many of which are considered reliable on Wikipedia); here's Google Books. I'm sure if what you are saying is true you will have little problem substantiating it with reliable sources. If you have a problem with the phrasing of the article ("too many weasels"), you can add the weasel-inline tag to offending sentences and we will see what can be improved. Skomorokh  12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Move 2009
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)
 * Tentative support, because it's certainly the better known name, though I recall some objections in the past because "Hakim Bey" is a generic term for "old wise man" or something. Skomorokh  16:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (September 2009)
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 Requested moves. I have little knowledge about this subject, so I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Almost all of the links to this article from other ones go to Hakim Bey. He is known exclusively as Hakim Bey. I have never heard of him being refered to as anything but Hakim Bey, except for this article. Zazaban (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is utter rubbish. He has at least as many books published under the name Peter Lamborn Wilson as he does Hakim Bey.  Just because one user knows him only as Hakim Bey is no reason for a page move.  The statement "He is known exclusively as Hakim Bey" is blatantly false.  The page should be moved back until there has been sufficient discussion. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Pedophilia again
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)
 * Some specific responses:
 * Being a major anarchist library does not qualify a website as a reliable source. Neither for that matter does being part of the corporate press.
 * Standards of inclusion are much stricter for potentially libelous material, per WP:BLP; so alternative press sources may be used for uncontentious material but not for this issue.
 * If links to Bey's writings on this topic are provided, and we are confident they are legit, material on this issue can be included; this would not change the unacceptability of the Libcom.org source.
 * On Wikipedia, the world's right to know comes second to the individuals right to privacy and freedom from slander. Skomorokh  incite 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, I posted a request about this matter to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, still awaiting responses. Skomorokh  incite 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am completely new to this article and come via biographies of living persons noticeboard. My view is that we do not have to call PLW a pedophile. His contributions to NAMBLA and other media indicate his preferences. The acronym NAMBLA is not sufficient and so I have spelled it out. Other editors may wish to expand on his pedophiliac writings.Momento (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having spelled out North American Man/Boy Love Association and had it twice reverted because the bulletin is called the NAMBLA Bulletin, I have described the NAMBLA Bulletin as a publication of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. I trust that will remain.Momento (talk) 02:59, 15 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)


 * Bob, thanks ever so much for your hard work. Wikipedia is an unusual animal, and ridiculously cautious about living people, which is where much of the problems arise. However, Wikipedia has no problem with including your opinions per se (though per WP:AUTO, you're not advised to add it yourself), but does demand that your opinions have been published in a reputable publication. Regarding the links you provided, unfortunately all of the blogs and message boards are right out of the question as reliable sources because anybody can register a blog (Even in the name of Hakim Bey or Robert Helms) and spout all the nonsense they want. Same goes largely for indymedia, alas. If you had anything from this list, for example, that would qualify. The NAMBLA journal I think is good enough for inclusion; I recommend we add a paragraph to the article making note of this writing. It would be much better if there was some acceptable evidence of critical reaction to Bey though. Sorry that this is such a frustrating process, but Wikipedia is only interested in verifiability, not truth. Regards, Skomorokh  incite 20:36, 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)

Requested move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( 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)
 * Comment In this video, Wilson claims he coined the term "Temporary Autonomous Zone", i.e. he is taking credit for Bey Hakim's work. Kauffner (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't proof of anything. It is a potentially self-serving comment, and it is doubtful that would be accepted as a reliable source.  As I said above, this is an encyclopedia, and a BLP, which means we need solid evidence. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  05:14, 10 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)
 * I have made a case over on WP:BLPN about this. I'd appreciate your comment there. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That thread seems to have been archived. But I still don't really see how the solution to doubts as to whether two names belong to the same person can be simply to move the article between those two names. If it's not satisfactorily verifiable that they're the same person, then we'd need to split it into two articles, put all the sourced facts about Wilson in one article, all the sourced facts about Bey in the other, and if either of them then appears not to be notable, delete their article.--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that solution. I think, though, that the Bey article would quickly be deleted, since no facts can be verified about "him" at all.  My attempt here was to restore the status quo that was disrupted when the Peter Lamborn Wilson article was moved to Hakim Bey two years ago.  At that time, the burden of proof was not met, indeed, no evidence was offered that they were one and the same, simply the opinion of one editor.  A split would solve the problem. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  17:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Using the author's real name seems like the most appropriate title for this article. However, nom's contention that there is no evidence that Hakim Bey is Peter Lamborn Wilson just doesn't hold water. This simple Google Scholar search reveals ample sources in journals that attribute the pseudonym Hakim Bey with Peter Lamborn Wilson.  That said, the article would probably be more encyclopedic if it was entitled with Wilson's name and the content discussed the pseudonym Hakim Bey. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PLW & Hakim Bey
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)
 * Hello, I just inserted into the text that PLW and Hakim Bey are cross-listeed by the Library of Congress. That alone makes it public record that these are the same person. Aside from that, it's very common knowledge that they are, among anarchist readers.  He makes no secret of it.  Bob Helms
 * Cross-listing by the Library of Congress is all well and good, but it does not constitute proof that they are one and the same person---the LoC could be misinformed, and could be acting in good faith based upon said misinformation. What I am saying is that, for purposes of Wikipedia, some sort of reputable source should be provided that every book or essay published under the name "Hakim Bey" was in fact authored by PLW.  No such evidence has been forthcoming.  Your claim that "it's very common knowledge that they are, among anarchist readers" is not any kind of proof. ---Charles 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles, you might walk to the nearest library and ask what a cross-listing in the LoC catalog means to the reference librarian. It's more hard a source than 99% of the sources quoted on Wiki. Because it is the standard reference for all US libraries, you'll see that the University of Michigan and the NY Public Library and any library carrying his work repeats the cross-reference. Can you name anyone who has met Wilson (as I have) and doesn't believe that he's Hakim Bey? I arranged a lecture for him about 15 years ago, and believe me, his Bey-existence was freely talked about and he inscribed my copy of TAZ. If he's not the same person, why does he publish his stuff in both names in Fifth Estate and Autonomedia/Semiotexte? Or, why does this endless stream of web-biographies and blog spots and newsapper articles name him as the same person, often from his own lips? You seem to be the only guy on the planet who debates the fact. Nobody else signs articles with "Hakim Bey." Is anarchism a part-time subject for you?  Do you live in the Gobi Desert? What does the leg you're standing on really look like? BobHelms 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, I worked for seven years as a librarian, and a good part of that time was spent as a library cataloguer---so, I can tell you from experience that mistakes are made. Beyond that, I am not going to respond to your spurious arguments and assertions, nor your illogical rhetorical questions about the leg I am standing on.  I have, as I stated previously, met PLW and spent time with him, and he made no denials about having used the name Hakim Bey---but this, in and of itself, is meaningless.  What I have stated very clearly, and what you have failed to refute, is that other people could be using the Hakim Bey pseudonym, and absent verifiable evidence that everything written under the pseudonym was actually written by PLW, said books should not be listed in this article.  In an encyclopedia article, so-called "common knowledge" is not the same as evidence.  At this point, the article even implies that the pseudonym may have been used by other authors.  ---Charles 18:47, 23 January 2007 (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? &mdash;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. diastarDiastar 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is plenty to dislike about him without having to make stuff up. :-) Steve Dufour 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I find it particularly interesting that my criticisms of him as a "translator" of Arabic (Abu Nuwas) resulted in a little slap for me, PLUS a removal of any discussion of "O Tribe that Loves Boys" from this article -- although the book remains (inexplicably) on the list of books that Wilson wrote.


 * When I say that Wilson does not know Arabic, I only need to cite the first pages of "O Tribe that Loves Boys," since he openly confesses his ignorance right there. A lot of his stuff is lifted from Tifashi's "Delight of Hearts," some more is "adapted" from the horrible Wormhoudt translation of Abu Nuwas, and quite a bit is simply invented.


 * I complain about all this because (as earlier stated) I recently published my own translations of Abu Nuwas' homoerotic poetry, under the title "Carousing With Gazelles." The experience of actually dealing with highly-polished 7th-century Arabic (it's hard!) and the actual sexuality of Abu Nuwas -- finally repellent because he liked to "date-rape" his boys -- made me look at Hakim Bey's volume with cold eyes.  It's a fake.  It's a fraud.  And, yes, it IS that simple. JaafarAbuTarab 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What if the name Peter Lamborn Wilson is, itself, a pseudonym? This is not a joke and I'm not being facetious. I have compiled a great deal of evidence that "Peter Lamborn Wilson" was born and raised with a different legal identity, (not Hakim Bey, either), and started using the name Peter Lamborn Wilson only from 1975 onward. I believe you have been debating, therefore, wether or not a fictitious alias has been using the pseudonym Hakim Bey. Bartlebee2010 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth
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)

Is libcom.org a "reliable source," or is it not?
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)
 * We haven't traditionally accepted libcom as a reliable source, basically because their articles are neither fully attributed, vetted by the scholarly community nor cited in scholarly literature. In some cases, articles on libcom are accepted as reliable, if they meet the criteria for self-published sources, basically in cases where the author of the article is a recognised expert in the relevant field. The point about online sources is not that their reliability is questioned because they are not in print, but because they often lack institutional affiliation (i.e. being released by a renowned publisher), editorial oversight and peer review, so the many websites which have these features are acceptable. To get an impartial opinion on Libcom's status, you could as the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. On the point of Wikipedia being perceived as of the same level of reliability as Libcom, this is broadly accurate – Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, so for instance one couldn't write an article on Bob Helms and cite the article on Peter Lamborn Wilson as the source of the content. Any claim that lacks a supporting reference independent of Wikipedia can be challenged and removed. And on a final note, you're probably right about Wikipedia's inferiority complex, which is I think attributable to youth and inexperience. Hope this helps clarify a few points. Regards,  Skomorokh  22:25, 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)
 * With all due respect, I disagree and have reverted your addition. As has been said numerous times, we do not link to self-published sources, especially not in biographies of living persons. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hakim Bey on Stirner
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."

Immediatism

"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.)"

THE TEMPORARY AUTONOMOUS ZONE

"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)."

TAZ

"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)


 * That he wrote about Stirner is not in question (if, that is, we assume all these writings are actually by PLW), but that still does not justify categorizing him as an egoist anarchist. He has also written approvingly of Kropotkin and D'Annunzio. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:19, 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)


 * I concede the point, but the article needs to be more clear on this. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  03:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

NAMBLA
"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)


 * Choice of language and sources, and a false claim wikipedia could get sued, are constantly seized upon by apologists to delete over and over again any mention of bey's support for a pedophile organisation. Read the rest of the talk page, and the edit history of the main page.


 * Even describing NAMBLA as a pedophile organisation required two citations from academic sources. A religious book and an encyclopedia were the only sources mentioning and criticising his involvement, that weren't already deleted and declared uncitable.


 * These at least provide a warning that can't be removed, by working around the censorship. It's not good enough by itself, but is just enough to prompt page visitors to google for the full articles criticising bey, which is a good deal better than nothing at all.


 * If someone could expand the criticism section by finding a source for the poem that won't be immediately deleted, do, but I'm done with working around censors.
 * J48antialias (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

PL Wilson and "Boy Love"
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)


 * Unfortunately, every so often someone turns up who is less-interested, or completely un-interested in Wilson's theoretical work, or in a balanced encyclopaedic entry, than in engaging in what (as someone said up-thread) can appear a witchhunt – by bloating and distorting the article into a tabloid piece with additional single-topic material, which in essence merely repeats what has already been succinctly stated. The information has not been omitted. However, as it represents only a small fraction of Wilson's body of work, and is not in any way the most notable aspect of it, it warrants only the brief mention already given.Engleham (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As the article currently stands, I'd say the matter hasn't been 'succinctly stated' so much as obscurely hinted at. The only mention in the body text that I can see is the phrase 'sacred pederasty in the Sufi tradition', which links to an article that itself has multiple issues.
 * I'd also take issue with a recent revert comment which states that defamatory material is 'not allowed'. I disagree with this comment for a couple of reasons:
 * Looking at the BLP guidelines, I can see only that such material 'should be treated with special care'. (I'm willing to be corrected on this point: please direct me to any relevant guidelines I may have overlooked.)
 * A defamatory statement is necessarily false, according to this article, which is linked to from the policy on libel.
 * I feel that the main hurdle to a franker outline of the controversy is the lack of reliable sources, as discussed by others above. Meticulo (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2017 (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)
 * I've been bold and added a citation to a review of the Knight book, fully expecting this to be contested. It would be great if someone who has access to the Knight book itself could add a citation directly from it. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Here is a quote from Knight's book. You can verify it yourself with Google Books. We probably don't want to quote as much as I've quoted (two paragraphs worth), but I'm not sure exactly what to quote and what to leave out. 180.181.102.164 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We can also use this source:. 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 "p e dophile" because the edit filter blocks it:
 * Hakim Bey remains a deeply divisive figure, no less controversial now than he was then. Much of this recent resentment, highly visible online, arises from accusations leveled against Wilson’s private life, especially in Robert P. Helms’s widely circulated series of articles. Helms asserts that Wilson’s earliest writings appeared in publications released by NAMBLA and other “man-boy love” organizations (including, he claims, an early version of the TAZ). For Helms, “the p e dophile writings of Hakim Bey indicate a general deceit in his philosophy, and are evidence that his concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone is inspired by opportunism, not by good will. He presents arguments for human freedom while actually wishing to create situations where he is free to put his deranged sexuality into practice.” This, in turn, has inspired a new backlash against the TAZ, in which it is claimed that Wilson’s version of anarchism serves to justify pedophilia. Much of the opprobrium directed toward him stems from a perception of pedophilia as solely concerned with the grooming of prepubescent children for sexual purposes, and even rape (also from a muddling of the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia)...
 * It is clearly farfetched to suggest that Wilson/Bey is advocating sex with prepubescent children, as there is nothing in the texts to suggest this. Regarding pederasty, and regardless of one’s own views on the moral legitimacy of such sexual desire, it should also be recognized that Bey is not the first high-profile writer to admit to a sexual attraction toward adolescent boys. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg made no secret of it, yet by and large their readers do not seem to have trouble separating this from their consumption of the work...
 * Thus, the reactions to Wilson’s supposed sexual attitudes seem more to do with institutionalized homophobia brought to a head by Bey’s satirical intervention than they are to do with reasoned objections to a taboo subject that, historically, by many accounts, has not always been so. This intervention raises an important implication, one that a purely academic discourse could not to the same degree: if the TAZ, and any kind of alternative politics, can serve to reassess questions of race, disability, nationhood, and gender, why can it not be used to reassess sexuality? Inevitably, the reactions of Helms and his supporters do not bode well for a movement seeking to overturn government and society on the grounds of historical irrelevance.

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: 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 footnote 21 on page 182:
 * This article opened by citing an anecdote from Knight’s biography of Wilson. It bears mentioning that Knight’s text is far from authoritative or even fully reliable. Half way through the text Knight claims to have become suddenly aware that Wilson promoted and espoused man-boy- love as a viable sexuality and immediately lost interest in recording his subject’s life. Knight then proceeded to finish the text with autobiographical writings intermingled with fictitious episodes of an Islamic superhero. His description of realizing Wilson’s sexuality, though, rings particularly bogus on account of the fact that Wilson is quite open about his sexuality, even to the point of devoting numerous texts to intergenerational relationships. It seems certain that Knight would have been well aware of Wilson’s sexuality long before starting to write his biography, and simply used it as an excuse to present his own work as superseding that of his former guru.

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. . 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)