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)

Azali connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. Mineemod (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:NOR is one of three core content policies, and it's "in a nutshell" says clearly: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

I'm not trying to be difficult or censor information that is reliably published. This example is actually pretty straightforward. Someone added a synthesis of Wilson's comments in his book and a very unreliable source. Wikipedia articles need to be structured similar to how the preponderance of independent, reliable sources describe the subject. So for example, scan through all the independent academic summaries of Wilson's life, and see if any of them mention the Babi connection. Would an independent journalist writing about Wilson write that he was an adherent of Mr. Azal? I don't see any. Did Wilson publish a statement about these supposed beliefs? Nope. If you find an independent reliable source making the claim that Wilson was a loyal adherent of whatever, then add it to the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)