Talk:Peter Lamborn Wilson

PLW's Bayani (azali babi) adherence

Please watch this page because the Baha'is and members of their Bahai Internet Agency are attempting to use it in their dirty propaganda war on Wikipedia against ideological adversaries. PLW converted to the Bayani religion in 2020. This fact has been documented and was put in PLW's bio. Yet a notorious member of the Baha'i Internet Agency on Wikipedia is attempting to obscure this fact whilst pushing his own creed's propaganda narrative and spin. This is the issue the BIA is attempting to erase and obscure from public attention:

In 2020, in a personal letter to Wahid Azal of the Fatimiya Sufi Order, Wilson requested and was accepted as a Bayānī or Azali, a fact which he obliquely alluded to in his two final books published in early 2022.

For the Bahai Internet Agency, see https://www.scribd.com/document/235458904/Baha-i-Internet-Agency-SourceWatch

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.188.165.30 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC) 

Do not remove items put by others in the Talk section. This item was just restored. HakimBey101 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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)