Was Ginsberg really a vocal supporter of NAMBLA? Seems questionable to me, and the statement seems to have got in without comment. Greenman 5 Dec 2003
- Inserted without comment by an IP user; I've taken it out. Thanks for catching that. - Hephaestos 15:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm pretty sure it's true (but I don't think I have a source for it to hand). --Camembert
- Once there's a source, I'm all for putting it back of course, that would make for good ratings. *smirk* - Hephaestos 15:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The link (http://www.nambla1.de/ginsberg.htm) mentioned in the history is no longer active, but can be viewed here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030614085536/http://www.nambla1.de/ginsberg.htm
I worked with Allen Ginsberg from 1979 until his death in 1997 (www.randyroark.com). One of the things we did together was to work on a reply to a notice in "New York" magazine (June 1996 or so) that he was a member of NAMBLA. The background to the story is as follows: NAMBLA at one point in the early nineties wanted to march in the Gay Rights Parade in NYC, and were prevented from doing so by the organizers. Allen wrote a letter in support of NAMBLA's ability to march in the parade as a free speech issue. His points were that the hysteria surrounding NAMBLA reminded him of the hysteria surrounding gayness itself when he was growing up, that there were laws currently in place protecting underage children from sexual predators, and that this was a scholarly pursuit of a subject that went back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. He also pointed out that NAMBLA was not a "dating service" but an educational forum. In response, NAMBLA sent him a membership card and subscribed him to their newsletter, but Allen never joined the organization or participated in any of their activities. The difficulties began with a radio report aired by Focus on the Family (a conservative Christian group out of Colorado Springs) at the time of his death, making the claim that he was a member and vocal supporter of NAMBLA. This got picked up by the wire services, etc. and has become a divisive issue that Allen would have never tolerated. "Good ratings" is great, but if Allen were alive I'm certain he would object to this as a statemnt of fact, so I'm taking it out (again).
BTW, I've never heard of "Hadda be Lickin Weiner' on a Jukebox" and assume this is someone's attempt to be funny. He did write a poem called "Hadda be Playin' on the Jukebox" and that may or may not be the poem described (it's hard to say). I have also never heard of his "Penisarific Poems," although I can't say for certain that Bob Dylan (or someone) didn't describe them as such (if I read this entry correctly). But I find it hard to understand why someone would even bother to include this in such a short bio of Ginsberg.
some changes
Contextualized his LSD use and his relationship with Cassady and Orlovsky in regards to his work. Cut out some stuff on his lust for older teenagers, esp. since I don't find a source in Schumacher for his having actual sex with anyone other than adults. And there's some indication -- for example, his aborted tryst with Genet -- that many of his affairs were not even particularly or necessarily sexual (although I'm sure many of them were). I'm willing to be corrected if someone finds a source in a biography (and if so, let me know so I can read the original source). --Peccavimus 07:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
CITATION?
I want to see where Ginsberg said that about being in NAMBLA, and in what context.
I happen to be a literary scholar who specializes in Ginsberg; it seems odd that I'd have missed it. Not impossible, mind you, but odd.
Unless this is just an attempt to slander the man.
still not good enough
That first quote still isn't cited.
Also, simply questioning the idea of pedophilia doesn't make one a pedophile. He nowhere in either quote says "I am a pedophile."
--Peccavimus 21:55, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Revised Unsourcable Statements
--Modemx 15:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) I could not source several statements supposedly from Ginsberg about the NAMBLA controversy. The text in question appears to have been a distortion of a 1988 New York times article. Though the statement may exist elswehere, I could not source it. The similair wording of the New York Times article lead me to believe the quote was a distortion, incorporating several recognizible Ginsberg statements out of context from different sources. I removed these statements until the provenance of them can be substantiated.
Revised the section to frame the controversy as being one of Ginsberg against his critics and drew parallels to the larger themes of free expression versus "common decency" and put it in context of his contemporary Noam Chomsky.
--Modemx 15:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Removed disputed staus as all disupted statements have been removed. I think what is remaining is nominally factual and fully supported by the New York Times article that seems to have been the original source.
Criticisms and corrections welcome and encouraged.
--Modemx 17:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Added back a statement by Ginsburg supported by the 1988 New York times article, reflecting long held opinions by Ginsburg that are absolutely not in dispute. Added back disputed tag as one author who has failed to provide an exact reference for his statements. Hopefully, he will display some intellectual honesty and provide an exact citation for his controversial assertions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Further, how Alan Ginsburg felt about censorship is not in dispute. Whether you agree with him or not, one of his motivations was that free speech was of greater value than common notions of decency. If you disagree with him, it is intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate to simply edit out his opinons and insert your own as fact. If you disagree, write about what one of his prominent critics thought of his opinons, that is a factual statement of opposition by one of his peers. Editing out facts to suit your one's own point of view is a gross act of intellectual dishonesty.
- I agree, Please stop.--Xed 18:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--Modemx 18:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well, Xed, you're the one who wrote this "clarification": "He felt standing for the principals of free expression as being of greater value than the rights of children. "Somebody's got to stand up to those idiots," Ginsberg is reported to have said, referring the citizens and politicians who seek to limit obscenity."
Which is wholly your opinion.
- Not really. The original article this quote is from - [1] - says, '"Behind the efforts of ordinary citizens and politicians to limit obscenity, he said, is "a perverted preoccupation with homosexuality. No normal heterosexual man would be that interested in homosexuality." ..."Somebody's got to stand up to those idiots!" Mr. Ginsberg said with a flourish as he began digging into some honey bread and potato soup."'--Xed 19:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Modemx 20:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Right, you just demonstrated my point, he felt the real concern behind those outwardly concerned about obscenity was just offense to personal sensibilities, which he felt free speech rights should trump, and that someone should stand up to them. You took the original quote out of context to bolster your point. I really appreciate you being able to cite a source, however, so we can have a discussion about it. See how well that works?
One can certainly argue that Ginsburg was deluded in his thinking he was defending the rights of free speech over common sensibilities and that he failed to consider the dangers to children, but you can't ascribe your own opinion to his motivations. He also wasn't referring to "citizens and politicians who seek to limit obscenity," he was referring to those who attempt to limit free speech. One can argue that he was ultimately promoting obscenity, but that doesn't change who he thought he was talking about.
Ginsburg, right or wrong, felt what he felt regardless of what Xed thinks.
As much as I might agree with you, there is a certain responsibility in how one must present one's opinions, especially when dealing with historically significant people.
- I don't understand this. Historically significant people shouldn't have a different moral code applied to them.--Xed 19:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Modemx 20:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) The same intellectual rigor should be applied to any object of historical interest. I don't see you applying that rigor.
I might despise the man who wrote the poem Howl, but that doesn't mean one can't acknowledge its significance, and that doesn't change an intellectually honest person's responsibility to be careful with the facts. If Ginsburg said what he said I'm as outraged as you are, but I don't believe your source actually exists. I can't find it, and I'll certainly verify it. Don't bother sending a URL, I'll contact the publisher directly once I get the name of the publisher, the date, volume number, and issue number.
- Don't bother sending a URL? I see.--Xed 19:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Modemx 20:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Right, I can't trust you won't make something up, I don't trust sources of incredible claims off the Internet, send a publisher, volume number, publication date, and issue number instead.
Why can't you just cite your sources exactly and find some op-ed pieces out of some major newspapers from the time to backup your assertions? I can't tell if you are a person who really cares about people understanding your point of view or if you are merely a troll. It can't be that hard. If you can do that, you'll have my support 100%, I'll even help you edit the article for their inclusion.
In fact, I myself disagree with Ginsburg on the controversy with NAMBLA, completely. I think he was dead wrong. However, my feelings don't change what his motivations are and how he felt about censorship.
- Your original POV edit on this issue indicates that you did support him in this issue. In fact, it amounted to cheerleading for his position.--Xed 19:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Modemx 20:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) So, anyone who disagrees with you is a cheerleader for pedophiles? Also, it now seems you are telling me what I think. This may be surprising to you, but I have a first hand source for what I think, and its fairly authoritative.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Allen_Ginsberg article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Allen_Ginsberg}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)