Talk:Peter Lamborn Wilson

Who?

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Lamborn Wilson. 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/20080603122722/http://www.rootsofrebellion.org/index.asp?pagemode=I&ID=127 to http://www.rootsofrebellion.org/index.asp?pagemode=I&ID=127

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction - pedophilia mention

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

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

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

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

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

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