Talk:Allen Ginsberg

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Archive

This page has been archived at: Archive Oct 2003-Feb 2007. Rmj12345 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ginsberg, NAMBLA, and Pederasty

If Ginsberg was any kind of a genuine artist this is precisely the kind of debate he would love to see regarding the freedom of expression. We all know we live in a time of absolute national hysteria regarding this issue and in the globalization of western culture around the world our societies are aghast at the seemingly recency of this problem as if its some new blight. The fact is its always been going on in one form or another but as our world matures and technology lengthens our lives and new certainties seem possible we are adapting by expanding the protections around children worldwide. This is a good thing but it does not shut down the reasons we have the problem in the first place and part of that is simple biology. The laws exist because among some the desire exists, otherwise why bother? If we demonize Ginsberg for his possible desires, and who really knows, we are simply rejecting part of the real human experience. Ginsberg railed against phonyness and self serving contrivances. He just wanted to get the truth out, no matter how tarnished or vulgar. That was his specialty. Nobody has to support any organization nor do they have to throw everybody in prison for what they think. Its what people do that matters and that is where we should set the boundries as a sane society. We know when we are dealing with an insane organization. The idea of criminal law is to prosecute after someone does something, otherwise the law itself will degenerate into an over-reaching anarchy. The human mind with all its variations will deviate from the norm all the time. Ginsberg didn't have to be a statistician to know this, and that is what he is trying to communicate. When Kerouac makes reference to Carlo Marx in On The Road he doesn't paint a well organized political action committee, but instead a half-mad beat poet and really gone guy living his own uniquely puzzling life which isn't on any menu. He is off the media- grid completely, yet acutely sensitive and aware of the humanity teeming all around him. He isn't the kind of person to vett his memberships according to anyones political agenda. He stubs his toe all the time. It just happens because he is there at that moment squinting through his little special lens. Freedom of expression means freedom of inquiry and that should not ever be relegated to the bin of thought-crimes of the day. Even things like this can be as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.236.168 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is highly problematic. There are no references for the numerous assertions made about Ginsberg's membership in the organization, or what this implies (or seems to imply) about Ginsberg's own particular sexual desires or urges. This section has been edited several times over the course of the past week, mostly by anonymous users, to say various things about the organization, Ginsberg's membership therein, and, once again, vague implications about Ginsberg's sexual activities. This section needs to be referenced, it needs to be short and to the point, and a consensus needs to be reached here on the matter, or the section should be deleted entirely. ---Charles 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. There's been so much argument about this one point. The section is useless and makes Ginsberg look inaccurately like a child molester. The problem is, I believe, those against painting Ginsberg as a child molester seem like they're trying to white wash the bad parts of his life. Those for making him look like a child molester seem like conservative character assassins. I beg of you: step back from it a second. The way I see it, the whole NAMBLA/pederasty thing is a very, very, very, very insignificant part of his life. There are things missing from this page that are tremendously more significant than this crap. I say we just erase that whole section. I tried to improve this section a long time ago with a little thing called CONTEXT ("Thoughts on NAMBLA" Ginsberg's '94 article about why he joined). Somebody erased all that context and made the section just useless and silly. Either give prope context or the section should be removed entirely. F. Simon Grant 19:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with seeing it deleted entirely. ---Charles 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be some mention if it, now this undoubtably provocative stance he chose is simply censored away from this page. 'this makes him look like a child molestor' is a ridiculous statement. So are the philosophers like Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Lyotard, Guitarri, Deleuze or Sartre made to look like a child molestor because they petitioned against age of consent laws? the truth is that he, like them, chose a provocative and unpopular position in that debate, he is no more a child molestor because of it than is service done to him by choosing to omit or apologise for that stance, for all such approaches simply dismiss him and his actions on this point. Given the extreme frankness of his character this is particularly unfortunate. Id love to see the contextualised section that Simon says he has written about it. why didnt you fight for that revision of you though it was good? --83.131.156.104 13:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a taxonomy problem, which I may attempt to edit this morning. No matter what you think of NAMBLA, there is no reason why it deserves its own category outside the topic of Ginsberg's political activism. In fact, compared to Ginsberg's other forms of political activism, it was a very minor chapter; more like a footnote. The fact that the right wing has made a concerted effort to turn it into a cause celebre is not sufficient reason to elevate NAMBLA into its own category in this entry. I previously added Ginsberg's own statements on the subject to this entry, which have since been erased. That is inappropriate. If necessary, I will go to Wikipedia and ask them to lock anonymous posters out of this entry to prevent similar actions. --Digaman 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that course of action. The majority of edits in that section---both in its previous incarnations and recently after its recreation---have been by anonymous users, and the majority of those edits have amounted to vandalism. As you say, Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA and his advocacy on behalf of the group is a very small part of his political activism, and does not deserve its own section. A brief, and well-referenced, subsection would be appropriate. ---Cathal 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I went back through the history, and this is the longest version of the section I could find. It's far from perfect, of course, but if we're going to make a quality section you might as well have a lot to work with. I didn't mean to imply that it was "good," but I think more context is better than less context. I added the Deliberate Prose stuff; I don't know who added all the other stuff. A lot of it is very pro-Ginsberg and can be easily fixed. I definitely vote for eliminating the section, not based on any sort of agenda, just based on the fact that it's a footnote of a footnote in his life at best. When I said the Nambla section made him look like a child molester, I just meant with the vague phrasing and the lack of context how would anybody know he's not a child molester? Before I deleted it, the section definitely leaned toward conservative character assasination and away from fact. And I believe that's what's elevated such a minor issue into something we spend so much time debating: anti-Ginsberg folks wish to focus on a very minor part of his life and leave of the proper context to make him look bad; the pro-Ginsberg people react the other direction, but then it starts to look like they're trying to hide the "dirty truth." There are dozens of things this page needs that are more important than Nambla; I say we forget Nambla for now, and focus our energies on more important things. But that's my opinion. If we keep Nambla, it needs more context; here's something to work with:

While there is much evidence in his poetry and his journals that Ginsberg (like his friend William S. Burroughs) was sexually attracted to pre-pubescent ["pre-pubescent" of course is wrong, "teenage" or "underage"? -- Simon] males (see for example, "Sweet Boy Give Me Your Ass"), there are no indications that he ever broke any age-of-consent laws [Is this true? -- Simon]. Ginsberg saw his attraction to youths as the celebration of the beauty and holiness of youth (a celebration of "lambs" or "angels")[Biased -- Simon]. As Camille Paglia put it, "Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless." [1] [Biased source? -- Simon] Like much of his political activism, Ginsberg saw this as a demystification of a baseless taboo.

- Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. He saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue and [claimed he] joined to make a statement. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA" published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision: many who supported his gay rights advocacy could not support this decision. In "Thoughts on NAMBLA" Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art."

F. Simon Grant 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for using just this section:

Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. He saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue and said that he joined to make a statement against government surveillance and harassment. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA" published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision: many who supported his gay rights advocacy could not support this decision.[citation needed] In "Thoughts on NAMBLA," Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art."

--Digaman 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would support use of only the second paragraph. The first is entirely too-plagued with unsubstantiated and/or biased statements. The 2nd paragraph sums up his membership, his reasons, etc. I also would like to see this made a subsection of the political activism section, as has been discussed previously, rather than a section of its own. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. --Digaman 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference that discusses the NAMBLA association. Mrdthree 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please help me understand what User:Jar1945 and others find objectionable to the addition of a reference for the section on NAMBLA. I know of no good reason to edit out a reference an insert an unsubstantiated claim. Mrdthree 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to erase User:Jar1945 statement on Ginsberg if no citation is provided prior to October 12; original research is not part of wikipedia.Mrdthree 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely vote for eliminating the section, not based on any sort of agenda, just based on the fact that it's a footnote of a footnote in his life at best.

You wanting to eliminating the section is cleary based on an agenda. You want to make him political correct.

When I said the Nambla section made him look like a child molester, I just meant with the vague phrasing and the lack of context how would anybody know he's not a child molester?

Someone can know he is not a child molester by listening to what he said. And of course by the lack of molested children in his life.

anti-Ginsberg folks wish to focus on a very minor part of his life and leave of the proper context to make him look bad

But that is the whole point of his advocacy for this matter: the media only portrays pedophiles as the disgusting child molester and rapist, and he shows that this is not what pedophilia is all about. It's like portraying heterosexual men as rapist. Of course, some heterosexual men are rapist, but that doesn't mean all are nor does it justify to portray and/or treat them as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.11.161 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Though the formatting is confusing, I think somebody is trying to respond to the NAMBLA discussion, and I think at least part of it is stuff I posted a long time ago. Right now all I want to respond to is the accusation that my advocacy of eliminating the NAMBLA stuff is agenda-driven PC censorship. To that I would reply that most of Ginsberg's life is very anti-PC. He never said anything delicately in order to spare someone else's feelings. That's why he said what he said about NAMBLA. Please look at my original argument and please take it seriously. NAMBLA is simply not an important part of his life. It gets a lot of attention because it does make him look bad, but the amount of attention it gets far exceeds the importance it actually has. I would say please, by all means, focus on the very controversial, very anti-PC parts of his life that make him look good, bad, polka dotted or striped, I don't give a crap -- but I say focus on those parts of his life that actually meant the most and constituted a significant part of who he was.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV as per the article, people with POVs other than your own find it to be a controversial part of his legacy. As for its relevance, it was intentional behavior and Ginsberg was interviewed on the topic multiple times. As for other comments, WP:OR, verifiability, etc. Mrdthree (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This argument degenerated into ridiculousness a long time ago, so I'm reluctant to take the bait this time, but the problem with this argument is lack of support. I question for example the claim that he was "inteviewed on the topic multiple times" as a reason why it's necessary to bring up what I would argue is an irrelevant point; part of the problem with the phrasing is the word "multiple" -- I've found very few references to it at all with in his interviews and only one substantial essay reprinted in Deliberate Prose explaining his reason for joining, which he says quite clearly is for free speech. I know you can't argue from a negative, and me not seeing "multiple" interviews doesn't mean he didn't do "multiple" interviews. I just think more specific support for claims like that would be much more useful. I'd be willing to back down from my adamant claim -- that NAMBLA is a very minor part of his life and therefore attempts to make it seem more significant are violations of NPOV -- if I see evidence that what you claim is true, that Ginsberg did consider it significant and Ginsberg scholars should consider it significant, and not just one among many many many other controversial protests he lodged in the name of free speech. The most useful Wikipedia arguments involve people finding and discussing serious sources on the talk page, so I urge you or somebody, if you really think NAMBLA was significant other than a conservative smeer campaign, please prove it with evidence, post it here so that we can discuss it.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick google search, not finding much. Here's a sampling from the Bill Morgan biography: "To him, NAMBLA should be free to speak their minds like other fringe groups such as the American Nazi Party or the Flat World Society" (612). Here's an interesting one from Norman Podhoretz, one of Ginsberg's most notorious critics, at a time when he had grown to accept Ginsberg: http://books.google.com/books?id=HLazuD8-fUgC&pg=PA54&dq=Allen+Ginsberg+NAMBLA&hl=en&ei=gOEoTMvmG4WclgfknrTvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=NAMBLA&f=false

Most references I'm finding are about that level of specificity. Basically, "he was a member" and not much else, a lot of very brief snippets in sources like The Advocate. I'm still open to changing my mind if I find good evidence (and as I said, this was a quick google book search -- I'll look other places as time allows) so I invite others to help clear this up since this seems to be an obsession of so many posters.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ginsberg made a number of statements on NAMBLA and his position cannot be reduced to a free speech protest as he made statements that support not just the free speech of NAMBLA but the issue of pederasty. The article should reflect all his statements on the topic.NAMBLA is notable because Ginsberg is famous in part for his controversial opinions on sexuality. His support of NAMBLA falls in this category. Note that Ginsberg did not join the John Birch Society (or Nazi party or whatever) in defense of free speech however he did join NAMBLA. More statements should be included than just those defending free speech. Mrdthree (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you if you could find sources to support this. You say he made "a number of statements" -- please find references to these statements to back up what you're saying. That's the only way we'll solve this debate. I am perfectly willing to give up my side of it if you find really valid support. We have the article from Deliberate Prose where he says very directly it was a free speech issue. Other than that, what do we have? I have had difficulty finding anything else substantial -- a reference here or there by very anti-Ginsberg types or just very vague indications that at some point somewhere in some universe Ginsberg made a bunch of statements about Nambla. Somebody please find these statements so we can call an end to this argument because the He Did/He Didn't arguments based on no actual sources have no way of ending. Just to address the argument you make: he didn't join the Nazi party because his free speech advocacy had a lot to do with sexual freedom. Nambla may be an organization we consider disturbing because of the kind of sexual activity they advocate, but Ginsberg, in his own words, advocates their right to discuss their abnormalities. A better argument on your part would be, "He didn't join the North American Man Donkey Love Association" or "He didn't join the well known polygomy advocates, the North American Man Woman Woman Woman Love Association." But seriously, to end the ridiculousness, let's rely on sources instead of hearsay and close down this argument for good, please.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mrdthree. There seems to be an effort to spin Ginsbergs motivations with NAMBLA. It also appears revisionst editing (spinning toward "free speech") is also taking place at Harry Hay and at NAMBLA itself. We definitely need to add the sources which document Ginsbergs association. Lionel (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not spin. I am not spinning, and I guarantee those who are against overblowing this Nambla nonsense are not spinning. Please actually read my words before you insult me. What I'm advocating is encyclopedic process. Nambla was just not important to Ginsberg. It was a very very very minor thing for him. The very small amount of sources that say anything about Ginsberg and Nambla either say he joined it for free speech or barely have anything substantial. Please read "Why I Joined Nambla" written by Ginsberg himself, printed in Deliberate Prose, the only source I've been able to find that gives more than a dozen substantial words on the issue. He says he joined for free speech. The free speech thing is not just something us dumb old spinnin' Ginsberg lovers made up. It comes directly from him. Most incarnations of this ridiculous nonsense tend to say "According to Ginsberg himself, this is what Ginsberg says, in the only valid source on the issue Ginsberg himself says..." I'm tired of saying this over and over and over again. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia. People don't actually read and they don't put the work into something to actually prove it's true. I've put way too much time into this crap and I've come up with nothing. Please PUT THE WORK INTO IT before just casually accusing well intentioned people of spinning. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the section and added a line under free speech which is all this issue seems to be for the subject of the article. Despite the vigilant work of a few editors we need to read what the sources actually state. NAMBLA is shown as only a pedophile activism group, which is misleading at best. They were a group of pedarist and pedophile advocates but simply linking someone to the group does not treat the subject intelligently. It's similar to saying so-and-so supports Hitler with no context. Please produce reliable sources that clearly demonstrate this topic deserves more than a mention, a sentence - and we can go from there. Similar problems have occurred at both Harry Hay and NAMBLA but it's not anyone "spinning", it's deliberate use of reliable sources and sound judgement. Cat clean (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cat clean, I agree. I did some quick research on Google -- because I realized in all the research I had done to try to find support for other people's arguments, I realized I hadn't just done a basic Google search of this; I know it's not the best method, but it's a good way to guage how issues are generally viewed or the importance they have to the broader culture -- and I went through four Google search pages full of very uninformed anti-Ginsberg blogs and opinion pieces which mention very out of context that he was a member of Nambla (at the same time calling him a dirty hippie pervert, usually misspelling his name Ginsburg). That told me clearly that if there's any "spinning" going on, it's in the other direction. The handful of pro-Ginsberg comments were equally informal opinion pieces which tended to cite the one reliable source I've found, "Why I joined Nambla" written by Ginsberg himself. I did find a lead, though, that might be useful if those on the other side really want to make a well informed argument. Apparantly Ginsberg appeared in Chicken Hawk, a movie about Nambla. The only thing I could find about it is that he gave some inflammatory defense of Nambla and read an erotic poem (I'm guessing his "defense" was the same free speech defense he gave in Deliberate Prose, but I'm willing to believe, if I see the evidence, it's as bad and significant as the anti-Ginsbergists claim it is). So there you go. There's the lead. If anyone wants to make a decent case, you need to do your own work, but I'm willing to help if it brings an end to this ridiculous argument.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Ginsberg's support of nambla is not only in the context of free speech, but also in the context of his support for pedophilia. These sources (full cites coming) speak to his support of nambla/pedophilia:

1. IJN 2002
2. Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review 1997
3. Chickenhawk (1994) - he's mentioned in several reviews of the nambla documentary
4. Zalkind's bio
5. Haggerty 2000

My point is this: this topic is notable. It's addressed in several sources. It justifies it's own section. Additionally we must remember: there is no consensus to remove the nambla section. Lionel (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start. But what did these sources say? I'm guessing these came second hand from IJN. I'm guessing they say essentially what we've been saying all along. Zalkind even says nambla was barely a blip in Ginsberg's life. The thing you need to prove is not that he was a member. He was. Nobody denies that. The argument is whether he did it as a free speech protest as most sources support & whether it was barely a blip, not worth mentioning as the paucity of sources demonstrates. Please argue against that. p.s. As for the intensity of your claim that there was "no consensus" on deleting the nambla section, as indicated by the bold, that section has gone back and forth for several years now. There is no consensus that it should stay. If you really asked, you'd probably find the vote pretty split. The best way to solve this is to use sources (which is why this is a very good first step) but also to be clear and honest about what the sources say and make sure you're making the correct argument. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Haggerty 2000 (and I assume you mean Gay histories and cultures)(and I'm able to type it all here because it is, well, one sentence. This supports what I and others (who aren't part of a "consensus", the "consensus" that supports keeping nambla?) have been claiming, that it is very, very unimportant: "Allen Ginsberg, the group's most famous member and defender, whose poems extolled the love of boys, spoke at NAMBLA's November 1989 membership conference in New York City." Using evidence is the right thing, but let's judge it on its own terms. Damning evidence that nambla was so important to Ginsberg it deserves a place in this page? We Ginsberg whitewashers are suppressing that one sentence because the evidence is so overwhelming? Not amazing evidence. This is the right direction to go, so sorry for the sarcasm but I've had three years of this stupid argument and I'm sick of it. You need better evidence. p.s. Since I've had three years of this stupid argument, I know how the other side thinks. "The love of boys" is hardly damning. "Boys" just implies they're young, not illegally young. Kerouac called himself and others "boys" when he was in his mid-20's. This is something I have to remind my students when they write about On the Road: they'll say "young boys" about Sal and Dean when Kerouac really means men in their 20's. Now, you can look at other evidence that Ginsberg is writing about illegally young "boys," but the biggest problem by far with this argument is lack of evidence, and the word "boy" is far from definitive.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Been looking through my school's database for leads, not coming up with much at all (just that Podheretz article over and over) but I did find a lead: Jeanette Walls wrote an article for Esquire called "The Beat Goes On" -- can't get a full text. I know, Esquire, not a great source, but Jeanette Walls has to be trustworthy, right? Anyway, don't know what the article says, but if somebody can get access, maybe it'll be helpful.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: http://allenginsbergschildren.com/

I'm not saying it's a good source at all -- a very biased blog essentially -- but he uses a lot of other sources. Arguably, they're cobbled together from dispirate fragments, and arguably the use of the term "boy" is taken out of context quite frequently (he wonders why Bob Dylan and Joan Baez didn't get outraged at Ginsberg's pedophilia -- well, probably because they knew him well enough to know what he was really talking about), but it seems like this guy, despite the chip on his shoulder, put together some leads we can follow that have potential to be useful here. It's hardly proof for what is our top argument here, that nambla held any importance for the understanding of who Ginsberg is (I had to go through a lot of sources to find one bad sources that may or may not have good leads), but it may work for the other argument, that Ginsberg's support for nambla was something other than a free speech protest. I'm still a bit dubious (especially since there's no proof that the "boys" he had sex with -- raped according to this guy? -- were underage and that "boy" refers to an underage male in this case) but I'm trying to help you move in the right direction.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very bias blog and it simply churns the same sources we already have all of it with due alarmist "Save The Children" refrains. They mention the raids of pedophiles and of NAMBLA but fail to mention NAMBLA denies any connection to crime and as far as I'm aware has never been convicted of anything except in the court of public opinion. Picking out a quote to beef up a linkage of Ginsberg to pedophilia conveniently glosses over the rest of what that article and what editors here have been stating 1. Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA was a free speech issue 2. Ginsberg was never a pedophile -- no matter how you read his life. 3. NAMBLA was an unfortunate blip in his life. It never tainted him personally." The effort to posthumously taint him is incredibly distasteful and pulls focus off the real danger to children - heterosexual relatives in a child's extended family. Pedophiles by most studies account for a very small percentage of child sexual abuse and get a lot of media coverage which causes misinformation. We should not be a party to it at all. Cat clean (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I totally agree with you one hundred percent (except maybe that last point, which is beside the point on Wikipedia anyway). You seem to have taken my last post to mean the opposite? Your points are very relevant to this discussion and they just reiterate what I've been saying all along. My last few posts were trying to help the opposition out because I wanted a serious balanced argument. They just weren't doing the work, so I wanted to help them. The best I could find is that crappy blog -- and I swear he had some sources we hadn't discussed, so I was just using that as a lead to follow up, not as a genuine source itself. I've been trying to find anything better than that, but it's very hard. You can't prove a negative, but I think this helps prove a serious lack of importance.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We have been down this road. Please re-read the sourced article. http://web.archive.org/web/20061018211729/http://www.ijn.com/archive/2002+arch/062102.htm#story8. You will find it DOES NOT support the statement that he joined simply in defense of free speech. It also outlines his defense of pederasty: Ginsberg's defense of pedophilia is well known in the alternative press. For example, he gave an interview to the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review which was published in the summer of 1997, shortly before his death. The public's propensity to narrowly define or label sexual feelings is like "the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters,'" Ginsberg told interviewer Lisa Meyers. "Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. "So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous." . Now we had this argument, and I did the research, its all in the archive. We ended up with an agreed statement and that I will dig out.Mrdthree (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Second, it is not my duty to defend any changes. YOU made the changes AND YOU did not seek consensus for the changes. NOW someone named airplane or whatever has protected any editors from reverting your changes to the original phrasing. The previous consensus involved a section labelled Association with NAMBLA discussing it is distinct from free speech because NAMBLA is infamous and Ginsberg defends the repeal of pederasty laws. THe consensus statement was HEAVILY NEGOTIATED from more detailed statements. It was consented to because it was a sseparate section. Part of the arguments for this change are directly above (2007) the original consensus passage (that was changed by someone besides me): Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. Ginsberg stated "I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech..." Ginsberg, in "Thoughts on NAMBLA," published in Deliberate Prose, elaborated on these thoughts, stating "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, (it is) a discussion society not a sex club." Ginsberg expressed the opinion that the appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art", and that laws regarding the issue needed to be more openly discussed. Mrdthree (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Cat clean with the emphatic capital YOUs? I didn't change the crap, so don't blame me. If I was any part of the consensus, it was probably because I was sick of arguing about it, not because I actually agree. I've looked a lot of places to find good supporting evidence. IJN is probably the best we have, but that's sad. Taking that IJN quote out of context really obscures what a hypocricy hating smart ass Ginsberg was, but I see how you read it that way. Look, I agree that you can probably find support for one of our arguments (whether he did it for free speech) by scraping toether remnants and reading quotes in the way you want to read them, but it's very difficult to prove the second, that this issue had any importance. No amount of wacky capitalization is going dissuade me of that point.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the capitalized you refers to Catclean, since that is where the accusation came that I was making changes without consensus, when in fact the converse is true. While the last edit of the paragraph had been substantially revised from the consensus paragraph, the thing to do is to restore the paragraph to consensus version and discuss the edits proposed by catclean. Mrdthree (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the earlier rejected versions were (perhaps useful for additional references,but discussion pared down the entry so as to rely on IJN as an accepted source): Allen Ginsberg supported and was a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association, inregard to which he stated "...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity." [[2]][[3]]. Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Ginsberg said "...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity."[4].He also saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue, and said that he joined to make a statement against government surveillance and harassment. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA," published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision, and many who supported Ginsberg's gay rights advocacy could not support it.[citation needed] In "Thoughts on NAMBLA," Ginsberg claims that this stigma on the sexuality of those under 18 exists only because America has an archaic and fear-ridden view of sexuality in general. He says that appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican to Florence's Uffizi galleries to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art." Mrdthree (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A review of the history indeed shows that the section was much longer and the Talk page shows that a lengthy discussion arrived at it's current state. F. Simon Grant, are you saying that you are in favor of doubling or even tripling the size of the section? Because we have the sources to do it. Lionel (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The history of this talkpage and article doe snot equal reality for how much weight this content deserves in the article. What matters is how much do the most reliable sources put into this aspect of teh person's life. see WP:UNDUE. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Cat clean (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So, here is where we are on sources:

1. Harvard Gay & Lesbian (1997): He said "Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents..."
2. Deliberate Prose (1994): He wrote "I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech"
3. Newsday (1994): in Chicken Hawk he "read a "graphic ode to youth"
4. Rosenthal (biographer): "Ginsberg's membership in NAMBLA was a free speech issue and that Ginsberg was never a pedophile"
5. IJN: Zalkind says "It was a blip in his life." However Katch said "This is not about whether you believe in free speech. No matter what kind of language Ginsberg used to advocate pedophilia -- and he wasn't exactly subtle -- he encouraged the victimization of children."
6. Haggerty (2000): NAMBLA's most famous member and defender
7. Adams. NY Post (1992): Beat Poet Allen Ginsberg celebrates the joys of pedophilia at a North American Man/Boy Love Association convention
8. Geiser, Hidden Victims: "he said he had a sexual preference for young boys"
9. Vogue Magazine (1984): He is asked by the young journalist if it is true that he had a sexual preference for young boys, which Mr. Ginsberg answers in the affirmative.
10. Blush, Dangerous Minds (2005): ""...I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity."

10 sources!!! Many are direct quotes of Ginsberg and stand on their own. They provide a nice balance. Some say he had ped inclinations, others say it was a blip. This is what we do at Wikipedia: present both sides of the issues. Point and counterpoint: NPOV at its best. Uncensored. I think we should verify the sources, greatly expand the section using these 10 sources, and the additional sources Mrdthree is working on. Lionel (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Howl and The Six Gallery Reading

Respectfully, I would like to bring the following to your attention:

Wally Hedrick – a painter and veteran of the Korean War – approached Ginsberg in the summer of 1955 and asked him to organize a poetry reading at the Six Gallery…At first, Ginsberg refused…But once he’d written a rough draft of Howl, he changed his “fucking mind,” as he put it. Reference: Jonah Raskin, American Scream: Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” and the Making of the Beat Generation.

Thank you...--Art4em 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced by

It seems to me that the lists of people who influenced Ginsberg, and the list of those who were, in turn, influenced by Ginsberg have become unwieldy. There is no reason to mention every single author, singer, artist, whathaveyou, in the author box. Some of those named---e.g., Bono---seem like a stretch. The author box should be reserved for important information and it should be brief, not overloaded as is currently the case. Let's cut that down to those of real import. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Slam as genre

On two related points: I don't think the list of influences is unwieldy, though I do wonder if some really need to be there. Who says slam isn't a genre? What really defines genre? I bring these both up together because the purpose of the names in the box, I think, is to show the scope of Ginsberg's influence, to place Ginsberg in interconnected tapestry, to point the curious reader to some significant connections. So firstly, if slam is not a genre, how do you define genre? The type of performance requires certain similarities from poem to poem, for example the fixed base (where would they get the idea of the fixed base in an orally performed poem, I wonder) or the repetition of the last line. Sure, not every slam poem has a fixed base or a repeated last line, but the poems themselves have far more similarities than saying its simply a kind of performance. More importantly in the context of this rant, Ginsberg had a lot of influence on a lot of slam poets, and I think slam is on the verge of becoming a very important genre/kind of performance, so I think that's a valid one to keep in the "influenced" box.

Here's how I'd break down the rest (and I would like to know how everyone else feels):

Most important influences: Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, William Blake, Walt Whitman, William Carlos Williams

Fairly important influences Percy Shelley, John Keats, Ezra Pound, Christopher Smart, Arthur Rimbaud, Antonin Artaud, Jean Genet, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Hart Crane

And where's Andre Breton? I thought he was up there. He should be based on Ginsberg's claim that the structure of Kaddish was based on Breton's Free Union. And where's Appolinaire and Baudilaire?

Slightly less importnat: Franz Kafka, Herman Melville

Questionable: William Shakespeare (of course he was influenced by Shakespeare, but who wasn't? and is Shakespeare really a significant direct influence? for Kerouac I'd say yes, but I don't know if it was for Ginsberg), James Joyce (of course a very influential person, but I don't remember reading anywhere that Joyce was a direct influence on Ginsberg, Proust maybe, but not Joyce)

Most important people influenced by him: Bob Dylan, LeRoi Jones

Amount of influence in question: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Saul Williams, Jim Morrison, Robert Lowell, I think we should definitely keep these because the movements, tendencies, genres (or kinds of performances I suppose in Saul's case) they represent make for interesting comparisons. Ginsberg was certainly an influence on all of them, but I'm not sure how much of one.

How important are these?: Bono, Andrei Codrescu, I like them both, but could be cut.

Never heard of them: Michael Savage, Beau Sia, Jacob Ehrlich, I'll willingly admit I don't know who these three people are. Michael Savage I'm guessing is the guy I hear sometimes on NPR, but there's no disambiguation for me to be sure. Beau Sia is apparently a slam person, and I'd vote to keep him(?) for the reasons mentioned above.

Overall, I'd prefer if they were simply reorganized with the most important being first. And I think slam should be put back in. That's my vote, at least.

F. Simon Grant 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

meditation master of the Vajrayana school?

Shouldnt it say 'Kagyu meditation master' since 'Vajrayana school' seems simply incorrect; perhaps one could say Vajrayana tradition or maybe Vajrayana branch (or more typically simply Vajrayana buddhism, since the 'yana' part, meaning 'vehicle' serves this role already) but theres certainly no overarching school. Sounds like saying 'of the protestant school' or 'of the protestant church'. Even meditation master seems a strange formulation, hes a tulku ? --78.3.21.243 02:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Naomi

One problem I had with that unending nambla debate is that nambla is among the least important things in Ginsberg's life. One thing that was very important in his life and in his work was Naomi. The info here is scrimpy. In order to understand Ginsberg, Howl, and Kaddish (his two most important poems) a clear understanding of Naomi is essential. Does the info on the page so far really help us understand Howl and Kaddish? A little bit. If we beef up that, the nambla stuff -- which is essentially trivia if you ask me -- will seem less like the page is full of trivia. If somebody asked me, "What are the top ten things I would have to know about Ginsberg in order to better understand him and his work?" somewhere in the top two or three would be "A full understanding of his relationship with Naomi." I would also include his love for Neal, his respect from Jack, his lessons from Williams, his study of Blake and Whitman, his relationship with the other "best minds", -- all of these can and should be beefed up. But I'd say the one that needs the most beefing is the info about Naomi.

What we have so far is this:

Ginsberg's mother, Naomi Livergant Ginsberg (who was affected by epileptic seizures and mental illnesses such as paranoia was an active member of the Communist Party and often took Ginsberg and his brother Eugene to party meetings. Ginsberg later said that his mother "Made up bedtime stories that all went something like: 'The good king rode forth from his castle, saw the suffering workers and healed them.'"

And this:

When he was in junior high school, he accompanied his mother by bus to her therapist. The trip disturbed Ginsberg - he mentioned it and other moments from his childhood in his long autobiographical poem "Kaddish for Naomi Ginsberg (1894-1956)."

The fact that she suffered from paranoia should not just be a parenthetical comment. The disturbing (and what specifically was disturbing about it?) instances like the bus trip are essential formative aspects of his life: the way he treats loved ones, his sympathy for outcasts, his views on politics and religion, etc. Naomi herself was in the background of Howl and the foreground of Kaddish and integral to a lot of his poetry. But what do we know about her from this statement? Paranoia, communism, bedtime story (more trivia if you ask me), and vague weird bus trip. How do all those fit together and how do they inform our understanding of Ginsberg. Many important enlightening narrative details are missing: Naomi's time in institutions, the extent of her paranoia, the lobodomy, her death, her last letter (the whole "key is in the light" thing), Allen's attempted Kaddish, that sort of thing. All of that is about a million times more significant to the understanding of who Ginsberg is than a brief stint in nambla.

F. Simon Grant 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Corso as influence

Someone seems to have the impression that there's a consipiracy against Corso on this page. But this is not the Corso page. As far as Corso in the "influences" box, you might as well put every other beat poet up there. Why not Gary Snyder too? Kerouac was Ginsberg's biggest influence, Burroughs influenced everybody with his force of personality and his intillectual challenges, Cassady influenced Ginsberg because Ginsberg was madly in love with him, but I'd say practically every other Beat poet influenced one another at a near-equal level. The influence doesn't flow as heavily the other direction in the case of the above three (Kerouac, for example, wasn't as heavily influenced by Ginsberg as the other way round). So how many of his friends could/should we put in the "influences" box? You could put all of them or you could put none of them. This goes back to a question asked above. I think it should still be discussed. F. Simon Grant 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bono/Beck

Speaking of the dropped discussion about influnces/influenced by, the Bono/Beck back and forth indicates to me that this issue should be more thoroughly discussed. I could find more sources about Beck than Bono (interestingly most of the sources that come to mind are Ginsberg saying how much Beck was influenced by the Beats). We could also put Johnny Depp up there since he said Ginsberg was a huge influence ... but is that relevant? I'm still adamant that Slam needs to be put back up there because it is a genre and was heavily influenced by the Beats (live performance poetry) and specifically by Ginsberg (fixed base repitition). F. Simon Grant 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Corso's view on homosexuality

Is there any particular reason for writing: "Ginsberg claims he was immediately attracted to Corso, who was straight but understanding of homosexuality after three years in prison."? This is a minor issue, but does spending three years in prison equate with understanding homosexuality? The part should read "Ginsberg claims he was immediately attracted to Corso, who was straight but understanding of homosexuality[citation needed]. Lzdreamer (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter part ("who was straight but understanding of homosexuality after three years in prison") is a quote from a biography of Ginsberg entitled, I Celebrate Myself: The Somewhat Private Life of Allen Ginsberg. My opinion is that it's a valid quote but taken out of context when used on this page as the biography provided backup information on Corso. HaydenDerk —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Getting rid of popular culture

Im proposing getting rid of the popular culture section, and replacing it with this. Although primarily known for his written works, Allen Ginsberg has made many other appearances in both recorded music and film. “Howl and other poems” was first recorded and released in 1959, and was kept in print “until the late 80’s”.[5] Also a live recording was released of Kaddish in 1964. This was taken from a reading at Brandeis University.[6] Ginsberg has made several other recordings including "Lion For Real," and "First Blues." In film Ginsberg had had many appearances, most notably of which were with friend Bob Dylan. These include non-speaking parts in “Don’t Look Back”, and a small role in the film “Renaldo and Clara.” One notable appearance in film took place in the form of an interview in the 2005 Martin Scorsese Documentary “No direction Home: Bob Dylan ”. His role was his reaction to Bob Dylan in saying that “Charlie Plymell… played me a record of the this new young folk singer” and while listening to “Hard Rain (“A Hard Rain’s A- Gonna Fall”) and wept, cause it seemed that the torch had been passed to a new generation, from early bohemian or beat.” The interview itself was taken in 1997, and would be one if his last, before his death. Comments. If you have any comments please share them. Laugh-O-Gram 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxism

When I first saw the recent additions to the communism section I thought it was one of the regular anti-Ginsberg activists (the fact that the poster had no name and only has that one post gave credence to that assumption)-- It's common for anti-Ginsbergians to call him a communist pedophile, essentially taking little pieces of evidence and blowing them out of proportion. But then I couldn't find solid proof that he wasn't a marxist and didn't admire Castro. I found plenty of evidence of him criticizing the totalitarianism of many communist countries, but I know he read and liked Marx. He talks more about religious belief than specific political ideology -- certainly he's very political, and certainly it's inspired in part by the politics of his mother and father, but rarely does he ever give his politics a name. Anyway, I'll keep looking, but I thought I'd put that question out there in case somebody knows for sure one way or the other to save me some unnecessary researching.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Is there any chance of getting a picture of a bearded Ginsberg - as this is how most people will think of him. He wore a beard for most of his life. --Totorotroll (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist?

Can someone contribute a citation for the anarchist categories included on this page? Is there any quoet of Ginsberg self-identifying as an anarchist?--Cast (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been months since I posted this, and there still is no response. I've been doing my own research, and haven't found any mention of him supporting anarchism. I'll be removing the categories now. --Cast (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish background and Hare Krishna affiliation

From everything that I've ever read, Ginsberg came from a Jewish background. In almost EVERY biography that can be found on him online and elsewhere, this has been stated and restated, so I can't see why someone would have removed all the Jewish category tags from the article! Well, I put them back in because it was just ludicrous that someone would do that. Even if Ginsberg wasn't always a "practicing religious Jew", he still came from a Jewish cultural and ethnic background and never denied that. I found an Allen Ginsberg interview with Gary Pacernick from February 10, 1996, which appeared in the The American Poetry Review, Jul/Aug 1997 here :

"GP: Have you ever considered yourself a Jewish poet?

Ginsberg: Yeah, I am a Jewish poet. I'm Jewish.

GP: You are? You surprise me.

Ginsberg: I'm Jewish. My name is Ginsboig. I wrote a book called Kaddish.

GP: No, that's great!

Ginsberg: My last book has a long poem called "Why I'm Jewish."

GP: I'll have to take a look. I've got it.

Ginsberg: It's called "Yiddishe Kopf."

GP: Cosmopolitan Greetings?

Ginsberg: Yeah. "Yiddishe Kopf."

GP: I'll have to look it up. So you're a Jewish poet."

If that's not enough, then look up biographical information on Ginsberg from just about every page with a biography of him on the net and elsewhere. Like here: "Allen Ginsberg was born on June 3, 1926, in Newark, New Jersey, to Russian-Jewish parents.", "Ginsberg is buried in his family plot in Gomel Chesed Cemetery, one of a cluster of Jewish cemeteries at the corner of McClellan Street and Mt. Olivet Avenue near the city lines of Elizabeth and Newark, New Jersey. {9}", "Moloch is mentioned a few times in the Torah and references to Ginsberg's Jewish background are not infrequent in his work.", "Ginsberg claimed he developed such a long line because he had long breaths (saying perhaps it was because he talked fast, or he did yoga, or he was Jewish)." And here: "Louis Ginsberg, the moderate Jewish Socialist and his wife Naomi, who was a radical Communist and irrepressible nudist are the parents of Irwin Allen Ginsberg, the poet and man of many other things...", "The man who would become one of the most famous and influential American poets of the second half of the 20th Century was born Irwin Allen Ginsberg on June 3, 1926, in Newark, New Jersey, to a Jewish family." And so on and so on. So, please, don't remove things from Wikipedia articles that are well known and documented so many places.

As for Ginsberg's affiliation with the Hare Krishna movement, this is also well known and documented. Allen Ginsberg basically helped get the Hare Krishna movement off-the-ground in New York City. Behind A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Allen Ginsberg is probably the most important person who helped get that movement started in the United States. He chanted Hare Krishna on the Firing Line TV show in 1968[7], and he chanted Hare Krishna outside the Pentagon to try and stop the war (Turn Off Your Mind by Gary Valentine Lachman, 2001, page 301, Knocking on Heaven's Door: American Religion in the Age of Counterculture by Mark Oppenheimer, 2003, page 219, Postmodern Supernaturalism: Ginsberg and the Search for a Supernatural Language by Amy Hungerford, The Yale Journal of Criticism - Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2005, pp. 269-298). The Hare Krishna mantra is in praise of Krishna. When Ginsberg was on Firing Line, he asked if he could sing a song in praise of Lord Krishna. There's information about Ginsberg's affiliation with Prabhupada and his pre-ISKCON group here. Also, there's an interview with Peter Barry Chowka which appeared in the New Age Journal, April 1976[8]:

"PBC: You knew Swami Bhaktivedanta (leader of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness) as well.

AG: Since '66 I had known Swami Bhaktivedanta and was somewhat guided by him, although not formally -- spiritual friend. I practiced the hare krishna chant, practiced it with him, sometimes in mass auditoriums and parks in the Lower East Side of New York.

PBC: You really did a lot to popularize that chant. Probably the first place I heard it was when I saw you read in '68.

AG: Actually, I'd been chanting it since '63, after coming back from India. I began chanting it, in Vancouver at a great poetry conference, for the first time in '63, with Duncan and Olson and everybody around, and then continued. When Bhaktivedanta arrived on the Lower East Side in '66 it was reinforcement for me, like "the reinforcements had arrived" from India."

From different comments on such matters over time, it seems that Ginsberg's views on spirituality and religion can be described as a type of Universalism, with reasonable acceptance for all as well as some healthy skepticism and rational thought, and based on the evidence it seems that his Universalistic spirituality also included respect and praise of Krishna as well. Geneisner (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See - this is where I get a bit concerned. If he's a Universalist, then he's not a Hare Krishna, and he's not Jewish, and he's not Buddhist. While his brand of spirituality (and mine, truth be told) may incorporate elements of those particular religions (and more), would he himself have said "I'm Buddhist"? And would other Buddhists have recognized his practice as "Buddhism" as they saw it? If not, can we truly put him in those categories? If he wouldn't call himself a member of a particular religion, or if others of a particular religion wouldn't recognize him as a member, then is that a "defining characteristic" of the person? Because that's rather strongly the guideline of WP:CAT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, see that's where I think you're wrong. He's a Universalist, as well as a Jew, a Hare Krishna, and a Buddhist. A Universalist is all of those things, and I have shown through sources where he was involved in all of those particular forms of spirituality as well. He even said so himself. From the above mentioned interview with Gary Pacernick[9], he said:

"Ginsberg: I'm also a gay poet.

GP: I know that.

Ginsberg: I'm also a New Jersey poet.

GP: You're a Buddhist poet.

Ginsberg: And I'm a Buddhist poet. And also I'm an academic poet, and also I'm a beatnik poet, I'm an international poet,

GP: What was the Jewish influence? Your mother, essentially?

Ginsberg: No. My mother, my father, my grandparents were all Jewish. My whole family is Jewish and that's just the whole thing in my bones."

Terry1944 previously said, "A fundamentalist Baptist may believe that he is a Christian and that a Catholic is not, but the rest of the world will consider both the Catholic and the Baptist Christians." I would like to add that if someone considers themselves something, and/or praises God/Krishna in their own way, then that is for them to decide how to go about it and not really any organized "church" to decide who is "pure" or whatever. Allen Ginsberg was involved with the forms of spirituality previously mentioned, and this is documented and has been shown. As with nearly everything else about Ginsberg, he did it his own way, and he did what he did.

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, these spiritual matters were VERY IMPORTANT to Allen Ginsberg. I would say that his spirituality was definitely among his defining characteristics. Ginsberg helped expose many in the West to Eastern philosophy and religion. He performed mantras and chants at his live performances, and the quest for enlightenment and spiritual knowledge was a big part of his life. Geneisner (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest, please, that you review the fact that there are *SIX* categories relating to his Jewishness and perhaps, just maybe, remove one or two of them?

While you're at it, review the *SIX* categories about where he's from and perhaps, maybe, trim those?

I'm honestly trying to help out here, and I realize that I'm wrong and have nothing to add and am just annoying you, but could you WP:AGF and consider for a moment that I'm trying to help out?

Thanks - I'm gone. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I believe you have good intentions. I have nothing against you. I try and get along with everybody as best as I can. I'm sorry if I did not assume good enough faith with you because of all of our past arguments. No harm, no foul. You are all right with me. You are a very good arguer too. I would rather be on your side in an argument for a change, and hopefully that will happen at some point if we ever cross paths on Wikipedia again. We are all supposed to be on the same side here (the side of making Wikipedia better.) I am sorry to have argued with you so much, but I believe in certain things strongly enough to speak out about them. You are good at what you do too, and hopefully we all can try and make Wikipedia better. Peace! Geneisner (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ginsberg Jewish?

I can't believe there is even a debate on this topic. Of course Ginsberg was Jewish. One might as well ask if Golda Meir was Jewish. Terry1944 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I got a good belly laugh out of that too. But, as you will see, there's a particular individual who has been feuding with me on Wikipedia regarding the issue of homosexuality and religion lately, and they took it a bit too far this time. I've simply been trying to say that there definitely are gay Jewish people, and gay Hare Krishnas, and gay Buddhists, and Allen Ginsberg was really ALL of these things at once because he was open and practiced all of these types of philosophies and spiritualities in his own way. Geneisner (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The question comes up for several reasons:

• First, Ginsberg is now in six categories that label him as Jewish. Please read WP:OVERCAT.
• Second, does it matter? Did Ginsberg's Buddhism play a part in his writing? Is it even mentioned anywhere?
• Third, he's now in the categories relating to three different religions. As someone who practices a multitude of faiths myself, that's not a big deal. But as far as the category system in this encyclopedia goes, WP:CAT is pretty clear - the categories should be "defining characteristics" of the subject of the article. Since Geneisner had to add in all the information, these religions may not have been "defining characteristics".
• Fourth, it's specious at best to say that Ginsberg is a Hare Krishna because he was asked to perform the chant on Buckley's show. If I sing "O Canada", does that make me Canadian?

So this spate of seven categories needs to be examined more clearly and only the ones that actually are important in the life of Ginsberg should be kept. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Ginsberg did WAY MORE than just chant the Hare Krishna mantra on Television. He helped promote and fund the group during its earliest stages. He helped introduce Swami Prabhupada to lots of people around the United States at concerts and events on college campuses. He practiced the spirituality openly, and much information is available and out there on this topic. There are a number of discussions with the Swami and Allen Ginsberg online, like this one, and this one. Ginsberg even chanted the mantra in court during the Chicago Seven trial[10]. If you read the first two discussions with the Swami, it seems that Ginsberg took the material rather seriously. They both discussed the chant as being recitations of the name of God. I think I have shown enough material that indicates that Allen Ginsberg took this spirituality seriously enough to be included in the article. I don't think you have shown otherwise, and it seems to me that you might just be bothering here. Geneisner (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I'm bothering to make the article better, just as you are :) Thank you for bringing up those points, and if the article accurately reports on how Ginsberg participated in the Hare Krishna movement, that's great. Now - what about the six Jewish categories? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, point well made and point well taken. We are bothering to make the article better. As has been tried with articles such as Talk:Boy_George and Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. After awhile, we might be bothering to make a lot of articles better it seems. :-) Geneisner (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that Ginsberg was affiliated with both Buddhism and Hare Krishna. I cannot question that he was Jewish. As for Buddhism having an influence on his writing, I believe the poem, “Sunflower Sutra” is one example.

When I was in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention, Allen seemed to be practicing Buddhism or Hare Krishna when he was chanting during the ensuing mayhem. Ginsberg's association with Chögyam Trungpa at Naropa University and his co founding of Naropa University’s Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics lends credence to his association with Buddhism. When one says that he is a Buddhist or follows Hare Krishna, and appears to be practicing it in one way or another, we must take him at his word. A fundamentalist Baptist may believe that he is a Christian and that a Catholic is not, but the rest of the world will consider both the Catholic and the Baptist Christians.

Terry1944 (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly. I'm not questioning his beliefs. This is an encyclopedia, and the category system was set up with a specific purpose. It was *not* set up to label every possible adjective that could be used. It *was* set up for defining characteristics. So if Ginsberg had a significant impact on the Hare Krishna movement, as seems to be indicated above, then the cat should be used. On the other hand, the article mentions his Jewish background a few times, but it doesn't seem to be a "defining characteristic". So is it necessary? My biggest concern is that there are six or seven religious categories on this article, which totally dilutes the way categories are supposed to work, and makes Ginsberg look like a comparative religion scholar rather than the writer that he was. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ginsberg wrote poems exploring his Jewish background. For example, Kaddish, as well as "Yiddishe Kopf" and "Why I'm Jewish." He was always interested in exploring his Jewish roots and in other concepts of spiritual transcendence. These spiritual matters were VERY IMPORTANT to Allen Ginsberg. I would say that his spirituality was definitely among his defining characteristics. Ginsberg helped expose many in the West to Eastern philosophy and religion. He performed mantras and chants at his live performances, and the quest for enlightenment and spiritual knowledge was a big part of his life. Geneisner (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me what's lying under this issue of categories is what I see as a more significant issue: The significance of religion to Ginsberg is poorly represented. It shouldn't even be question how important his Jewishness was to him. It was hugely important. Likewise with his Buddhism. He may not have been a practicing Jew or a conventional Buddhist, but as much as Kerouac defined the Beat Generation as a religious generation and he was defined as a Catholic and a Buddhist, you have to understand Ginsberg's intense fascination with his own heritage (Jewish), his fascination with the concept of God, his searching for his own belief, and his ultimate relationship with Buddhism. It's such a huge part of his poetry, his activism, his personality, and his life that the present content on the page just doesn't do it justice. Anyone unfamiliar with Ginsberg should be able to read the article and the presence of all those religions in the categories should make perfect sense because that's who he is. I think that particular weakness in the article should also be discussed here so that it can be improved.F. Simon Grant (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Thought it'd be a good idea to go ahead and pull it out of the text, so as to remove the temptation to add more. Seen it done a few different times. I'm eager to rework some of this stuff, hopefully some of the rest of y'all are too. --Leodmacleod (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the idea. For a related suggestion, see Getting rid of Popular Culture. Allreet (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• James Franco is to portray a young Ginsberg in the forthcoming Gus Van Sant-produced biopic, Howl, which is set for release in 2009.
• Ginsberg was portrayed by David Cross in the 2007 Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There.
• Ginsberg read for the last time on stage in the UK at Heaven nightclub London on October 19 1995, at megatripolis, the underground club-night, captured in the Steve Teers film Allen Ginsberg Live in London.
• The Life and Times of Allen Ginsberg on DVD features the 84-minute documentary, plus six hours of extra interviews and features.
• "Give Peace A Chance" by John Lennon makes a reference to Ginsberg.
• In 1981, Ginsberg recorded his poem "Birdbrain" with the Denver punk band, The Gluons.
• In 1982, he was featured on "Ghetto Defendant", a song by The Clash from their album Combat Rock.
• In a June 1981 concert by The Clash at Bond's Casino in New York City, Ginsberg sang his poem "Capital Air" set to music.
• Rage Against the Machine performed "Hadda be Playin' on a Jukebox", a poem of Ginsberg's, at a live concert. The song is available on their Live & Rare album, released in 1998 and as the B-side' on both their "Bulls on Parade" CD single released in 1996 and People of the Sun (EP) released in 1997.
• Sonic Youth dedicated their song "Hits of Sunshine" from their CD A Thousand Leaves to Ginsberg.
• The 1994 song "I should be allowed to think" by They Might Be Giants uses the opening line of "Howl".
• Ginsberg recites "When the Light Appears Boy", on the 1997 Cornershop album When I Was Born for the 7th Time.
• In 1996, Ginsberg played a leading role as an actor in the John Moran opera, "Mathew in the School of Life", and went on to record a song on Moran's 2nd album, Meet the Locusts.
• In his song "Enchanted Thoughtfist", Jello Biafra relates an undated incident when he met and hung out with Ginsberg in the latter's apartment, where he "confessed" to Ginsberg that his own literary background was "mostly songs and cartoons" (an admission that Ginsberg had no problem with, according to Biafra's lyrics).
• Ginsberg appears in the background throughout the film clip for the song "Subterranean Homesick Blues" in D. A. Pennebaker's documentary Dont Look Back of Bob Dylan's first tour of England in 1965.
• He released an album on Folkways Records in 1981, entitled First Blues: Rags Ballads and Harmonium Songs, on which he sings and plays harmonium. This was his second project with Folkways. He had recorded on an earlier album Poems for Peace: A Benefit Reading for the New York Workshop in Nonviolence in 1967. He also released a single called "Ballad of the Skeletons" with music by Philip Glass and Paul McCartney playing guitar.
• On the Leonard Cohen album Death of a Ladies' Man, Ginsberg and Bob Dylan sing back-up on the song "Don't Go Home with Your Hard-on".
• The book Illuminated Poems is a collaboration between Ginsberg and painter Eric Drooker.
• Folk-rock group The Mammals performed his poem "Lay Down Yr Mountain" on their CD Rock That Babe.
• Ginsberg thrilled hundreds of young Czechs and ex-pats during his reading at the Cafe Nouveau in the Obecni dum in 1994 shortly after the break-up of Czechoslovakia.
• Ginsberg inspired the opening of The Beat Book Shop in Boulder, Colorado, in 1990. Whenever he was in Boulder, he visited the shop, which was owned by poet Thomas R. Peters, Jr.
• Ginsberg played harmonium and sang on "Hare Khrishna" for the Fugs' album Tenderness Junction, which has a picture of him nude among various photos of the band.
• Ginsberg is referenced as one of the world's intellectuals in the song "Pee, Po, Belly, Bum, Drawers" by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann.
• On the bonus disc of U2's remastered The Joshua Tree, Ginsberg is heard reading from his poem "America."
• Patti Smith used footnote to "Howl" in her 1997 song "Spell".
• Paul McCartney's duo The Fireman borrowed the album title "Electric Arguments" from Ginsberg's poem "Kansas City to St. Louis."

Style and Technique

The whole Style and Technique section is unsourced and therefor as it stands constitutes Point of View and/or Original Research. I think it should be either properly documented or removed. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ginsberg's damaging influence on youth should be noted

Quote from PBS site www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/ginsbe... - 35k - where they credit Alan Ginsburg with being a HUGE influence (maybe the largest single influence?) on the 1950's 1960s youth counterculture.

Drug usage was popularized and surely some of the damaged and yes the dead from 1960's on-- are part of the Ginsburg cultural legacy. I remember.

Ginsberg, and his fellow travelers also made "rebellion" a rite of passage for many youth...which included so called "free love". I remember.

"... For much of the youth of the day, Ginsberg’s embrace of illegal drugs and unrestrained sexuality made him a central figure in the rebelling movements of the time..." These behaviors were always around, but Ginsburg and co. encouraged more unrestraint. And thus damaged the following generations to this day!

Ginsberg was a gifted poet but a corrupt teacher. Your article will deny historical reality if it fails to add the long-term destructiveness of much of his brilliant but incredibly self indulgent words.

He might be a fashionable Marxist -railing against the Capitalists oppressing the workers...but what of the oppression suffered by the persons burned, damaged, mutilated and even killed in the process of such intense well-marketed and widely popularized popularized self indulgence?

The effects of promoting such quasi-righteous self indulgence are still with us. Nothing says "Ginsburg & co. " like a baby born on drugs--who must go thru painful withdrawal...Many such beautiful children suffer for their parents' selfish indulgences. Anyone in foster care (like I was) has seen them! I have more foster care horror stories...many come from parents who live the 60's self indulgence lifestyle to the fullest.

This article is only a Ginsburg press release or puff piece if it does not teach students the BAD of Ginsburg along with the good.Victorianezine (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ginsberg was an icon to many who knew but smattering about him. For example, how many hippies actually read "Howl!" or even heard of Gregory Corso? But in the scheme of things (that is, the context of his life and art), Ginsberg's bad influence is no more notable than that of many other figures of similar stature, for example, Byron, Poe, Kerouac or Lennon. We all know ways in which these artists may not have been fitting role models, but none of them, including Ginsberg, can be held responsible for the evils of the world that preceded and followed them. As for this being a puff piece, the article mentions all the specific "sins" to which you refer. Since Ginsberg's chief notability is as a poet and not a sinner or a saint, little more needs to be made of them. Besides, it strikes me that teaching personal responsibility would be much more productive in curing the ills you point to than looking for someone to blame. Allreet (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Allreet. Victorianezine's suggestions are about as encyclopedic as an article on why Rock and Roll is from the devil and dancing leads to sex. The article may have some pro-Ginsberg pov problems, but they are mild. Adding the extreme pov you suggest is as logical as calling Fox News "fair and balanced". If you have any ratoinal suggestions for how to make the article more neutral within the bounds of Wikipedia's actual function, please make them. They will be welcomed. Otherwise, talk pages are not a complaint blog for personal issues, and posts along that line will not be taken seriously.F. Simon Grant (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Victorianezine is not alone. Michael Savage has publicly called Ginsburg one of the three most inimical influences to emerge from the 1960s. The other two men who damaged their country were Timothy Leary and William Kunstler. This is obvious to some people, ludicrous to others.Lestrade (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

And I wouldn't trust Michael Savage to write a neutral, informative article on Ginsberg. Perhaps an encyclopedic way to address this issue is to have a "criticism" section. I've seen criticism sections get way out of control -- see earlier versions of "Postmodernism" for example -- because people with an agenda come along and drown the page. Just to go back to the Postmodernism example, there was no "Why Postmodernism is Great" section, as well there shouldn't have been, so there ended up being more criticism than actual neutral encyclopedic information. Likewise, on this page I wouldn't want a "Praise" section. Also, look at the whole Nambla nonsense all over the discussion page. I can't point out how inaccurate it is because suddenly I'm being biased, but overexaggerating his Nambla connections is not being biased ...? Anyway, I think a criticism section might work as long as we make sure it's neutral and encyclopedic. And Michael Savage is not really a serious source just as Keith Olberman (or however you spell his name) would not be a serious source.F. Simon Grant (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Biographical references in "Howl"

This section, quoted below, needs to be rewritten:

Ginsberg claimed at one point that all of his work was an extended biography (like Kerouac's Duluoz Legend). "Howl" is not only a biography of Ginsberg's experiences before 1955 but also a history of the Beat Generation. Ginsberg also later claimed that at the core of "Howl" were his unresolved emotions about his schizophrenic mother. Though "Kaddish" deals more explicitly with his mother (so explicitly that a line-by-line analysis would be simultaneously overly-exhaustive and relatively unrevealing), "Howl" in many ways is driven by the same emotions. Though references in most of his poetry reveal much about his biography, his relationship to other members of the Beat Generation, and his own political views, "Howl", his most famous poem, is still perhaps the best place to start. See "Howl".

I don't know what the parenthetical comment about "Kaddish" is supposed to mean, and nothing in here recommends having a section just for this--especially as none of the biographical references are actually explained. 145.116.9.201 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good call, I think I wrote that paragraph a long time ago. It's confusing and not well written. I think I inserted that because I had inserted so much Ginsberg biographical information in the "Howl" page that was simply missing in the Ginsberg page proper that the quick and easy (and lazy) thing to do was just link it to the Howl page. But it's one of those quick off rambly blurbs I wrote and forgot about almost immediately. Feel free to do whatever with it. However, I worked about ten times as much on the biographical references in "Howl" and there is a lot of biographical information in that section (much of it trivia, admittedly). Whether or not it's necessary to link directly to that from the Ginsberg page might be something worth talking about, even if the phrasing above is scrapped (as I vote it should be). P.s. I think some of the confusion might be because this link used to be on the Ginsberg page but died at some point: Biographical references in "Howl"F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions to lead section

I have added more detail as requested. I will probably refine this section more as I conduct more research. Bwark (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it, for what that's worth. Should we add something about Kerouac & Burroughs in the intro ... or even Orlovsky? Or maybe something about Naropa? A lot of basic intros like this list accomplishments, so the JKSDP is probably worth mentioning. Also, why not mention the Pulitzer for Cospopolitan Greetings and the NBA for Fall of America. It would conform (ironically) to the tendency in other intros of this sort. (By the way, thanks for working on the intro. I just got frustrated with so many of the little problems in the body I totally neglected the intro and pretty much forgot about this page for a long time. I still have the intention of one day -- maybe in the distant future -- filling out the info on Naomi. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and the right intentions, so please feel free to take a crack at adding more about Naomi, one of the biggest defecits of this page in my opinion.)F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I agree a mention of Kerouac and Burroughs might be fitting in the intro. I have a couple of biographies of Ginsberg at hand --- by Barry Miles and Jane Kramer --- plus some essays on "Howl" "Fifty Years Later" as well as a study by Thomas F. Merrill, so I'll go through them to see what I can find. Plus, of course, I've got Ginsberg's collected essays. Lots of materials to work with. Thanks again, Bwark (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found the Miles biography very useful, though I'm not familiar with the Kramer. "Howl: Fifty Years Later" was interesting, but I didn't find much truly useful informaiton in it. Deliberate Prose, of course, is quite useful. Good luck!F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Howl made Ginsberg famous because of a 1957 obscenity trial"

Is this true? Perhaps he became (or would have become) famous because of the merit of his work. How about: A 1957 obscenity trial saw Ginsberg getting mainstream attention...

Even saying that "Ginsberg got notoriety due to a 1957 obscenity trial" is better.

I for one like Ginsberg with or without any obscenity trial. 115.242.176.17 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not me, I only like people who have trials. --71.205.219.29 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the entry to make it clearer that Ginsberg did not owe his immense fame to one infamous obscenity trial. Bwark (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Family information

Hello all. This is a fantastic and extremely in-depth portrait of such a great and original American artist. He was my second cousin by marriage (my mother's first cousin.) After the tragic death of Naomi, his father Louis married my great aunt, one of my role models and a fascinating, brilliant, amazing woman in her own right, named Edith. They were married around 1950 and Louis died in 1976. Allen passed away in 1997, and Edith, the older of the two, passed in 2000. The two of them developed what can only be described as an amazing friendship and kinship during that time. She had always been supportive and loving to both him and his brother Albert (Brooks) but during those 24 years the two came to depend on each other and rely on each other for love, support, and the kind of understanding and acceptance and admiration that comes from long-term friendship. It was a beautiful and warm and loving thing to witness and be a part of; tangible, enveloping, welcome to all that came into contact with them. The New York Times wrote a great obituary for her and I believe she should be mentioned in more detail as well as his relationship with his father, and his family in general, because (in my humble opinion) they impact even those poems that don't directly deal with his family. My great-aunt Edith's obituary can be found on the NYT website search or just a google search (Dg3677 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

I emphatically agree. I've been saying for a long time that the most significant thing lacking in this page is more info about Naomi (which I've been planning to add as soon as I reach that vague imagined space called "When I get around to it" or "when I have more free time") but I also agree that more about Louis and Eugene would be great. Naomi is probably the single biggest influence on his early poetry, but Louis is up there and has a huge place in his later poetry especially. I didn't know that much about Edith really, but I would certainly support more info about her being added. I think family is the most important thing that needs attention on this page; I plan to contribute ... you know ... one of these days ... but I strongly encourage everyone to take Dg's post as a call for something we need to improve.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm going to request that this article be placed under protection due to edit warring. Lionel (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) If you stop re-adding disputed content there wouldn't be an issue. In the section above sources have been cited and there is no consensus to re-add a lengthy pedophile section. Cat clean (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. My most recent edits were on 9/15 and 8/27. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I second your decision, Cat clean. Lionel may not have been individually edit warring, but this is clearly a problem, multiple editors going back and forth -- not just recently but for the past three years. I tried to submit this issue for arbitration a couple of weeks ago, but I'm mostly an idiot and I don't think I did it right, so thanks.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing to do is restore the consensus paragraph and then discuss any additional changes or deletions. Please refer to earlier discussion on NAMBLA (above) for the consensus paragraph on NAMBLA, changes should be discussed there, in the context of previous edits to the section, rather than implemented without discussion. Mrdthree (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Splicing bits of phrases together to paint Ginsberg as a pedophile is completely unacceptable. If he were living this would be thrown out immediately. Instead we have to look at what the consensus of sources state. The majority of sources don't address this issue at all and those that do state it's an extension of his free speech ethos. If Ginsberg was well known for this it would be widely covered not a scrap from here and there. Cat clean (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and applied {{Controversial}} and restored the sourced nambla section to the pre-edit war version. The tag requires consensus for substantial changes, e.g. the removal of a section. The pre-edit war version is the stable version because a nambla section has been in the article since 6/26/05 per consensus. This was done hopefully to avert further edit warring. This is not saying that the section is permanent: a new consensus could very well decide to delete it. Lionel (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Slapping on a controversial tag so you can enforce your preferred version is not concensus, the burden is on those who want to restore the content to show it is presented not only reliably sourced but also with the same weight that all reliable sources give this subject in relation to his life. That is the point, that a fringe want to try to label Ginsberg as a pervert in some way does not make anything more than a sentence needed when the most reliable sources dispute the connection was anything more than a free speech issue. Cat clean (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)