Talk:William S. Burroughs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Headings

The Headings are too short, or too many, IMHO, and don't seem to follow a logical theme, so I tried to refit them. I also started an archive because as one person stated, the previous page was long and not easy to read/make sense of, although it is available in the archive, maybe a fresh page will help things. --Mikerussell 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, Mike. That other page was damned near indecipherable. I like the other edits you've made to the article, as well. But, I do have a problem with the whole "Burroughs-family-money" topic, and the edits you made in that section. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that there is contradictory information available on the subject, and it is difficult to figure out what the truth is. That Burroughs received money from his parents is beyond dispute; that the money did not come from the so-called Burroughs fortune is, I think, also firmly established; how much money WSB received, and how often, is another matter entirely. ---Charles 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Burroughs fortune" again

Reading from Allen Ginsbergs Bio "Dharma Lion" Burroughs only got a one time payment of 10,000 from the burroughs fortune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.10.20 (talk)

I haven't read that source, but if you read the published letters between Burroughs and Ginsberg that Oliver Harris edited and published (forgot title but has to in bibliograohy) Burroughs is constantly waiting for parental cheques to get to him in Tangiers especially. There definitely is a repeated amount of money being sent to him, and his drug habit makes the money more and more crucial to his survival. I know when his mother finally died, he got about $10,000 inheritence, but that is partially because he was receiving so much cash regularly throughout his lifetime. Now, if you want to talk about dispelling the myth that he was rich, and was a wealthy "junkie gentleman" writer, I agree with you. He was barely getting by most of his life, and I think his parents supported his son too, sending him to private school. Even late in his life he was having constant fincial stress. He had to leave New York City for Kansas partly because "the Bunker" in the Lower East Side lost rent control status and the rent doubled. He never owned his own home until very late in his life, if you exclude the farm in Texas which didn't have proper plumbing or electricity. --Mikerussell 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that when Burroughs finally did own a home in Kansas, it was a sears catalog house in a kit, which must have only been worth a few thousand dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.145.253 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vollmer shooting bribery

I agree the statement about the bribery needs to be cited. I'm sure any number of Burroughs biographies might be able to confirm or deny this, such as Ted Morgan's "Literary Outlaw". I personally had never heard of any sort of bribery happening, though if I remember correctly there was some family influence thrown around to get WSB out of Mexico. 23skidoo 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I missed that when it was first inserted into the article, and such a fantastic claim certainly has to have a reference. In all the reading on the subject I've done over the years, I've never seen any mention of it. ---Charles 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can verify this claim or at least provide a source, I support deleting it entirely. 23skidoo 05:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with that. Who added that salascious bit of information in the first place? Can we perhaps get an answer from him as to what his source was? If no answer is forthcoming, out it goes. ---Charles 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to wait. I've removed it on the grounds that it is unsourced and unverified. If someone can provide a reputable source then we can put it back (with proper citation). 23skidoo 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vollmer shooting bribery II &Grauerholz essay

I did not add the info (the stuff discussed right above on this page), nor do I really object to it being withdrawn, but I thought I would say that there is some support (see this link http://old.lawrence.com/burroughs/deathofjoan-full.pdf) for the ideas therein; namely, bribery and changing stories the day after the shooting. The source is a 70 page essay by James Grauerholz himself. After reading it I changed some things in the Vollmer article. Considering Grauerholz was such a devoted friend to Burroughs I was quite surprised at some of the stuff he wrote/uncovered, if I get more free time I might include some additions here. But whoever added the material may not be as off base as we are usually to think. I wonder if any more research from Grauerholz will be coming out?--Mikerussell 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me who added the material, and anyone who typed "burroughs bribery" into google would have found that Grauerholz article at the top of the list. I'm about to add the statement about bribery again, and I'll see if I can squeeze in a ref to the Grauerholz essay somehow. (What is so astoundingly absurd about the thought that someone might bribe their way out of a charge in Mexico?) -- Doom 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing absurd at all, but Wikipedia asks that information be referenced with a citation whenever possible, so therefore if there is a reputable source to support the claim, then no problem. 23skidoo 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Opiate subculture?

In regard to the following paragraph:

A collaboration with other writers of the opiate sub-culture, including Nick Cave and Tom Waits resulted in a collection of short prose, "Crack my Smack" later released as a spoken word album in 1987.

What, exactly, is the "opiate subculture"? This seems to imply that Waits is or was a user of heroin or opium, which I do not believe to be the case. Before I change the wording, can someone provide some information that supports such a description? Thanks. ---Charles 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Evil River

Anyone have any additional information on Evil River? I only learned of its existence via Amazon today, but it was written about as a "coming soon" book back in 2004[1], and was apparently referenced in Word Virus. 23skidoo 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a stub for Evil River, but it needs to be fleshed out considerably. Anyone with additional information about this new book is invited to drop by. So far I've been able to track down an ISBN number and a listing at Amazon, but otherwise no other online sources despite the fact the book is due out within a month. 23skidoo 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image needs to be replaced ... or can it?

Thanks to a newbie screw-up, we've lost the image of Burroughs that was previously used in this article. Although I was able to find the image again thanks to an Answers.com Wiki-mirror I find I now cannot upload it as the image use tag that has previously been used ("promophoto") has now been discontinued as promotional photographs are apparently no longer allowed unless they're clearly released as non-copyright or press release photos. The Burroughs image had been essentially "grandfathered" (that or the copyright police hadn't gotten to it yet). So any ideas what we can do? I suppose we could always toss up an image of a Naked Lunch cover, but apparently we can't do THAT either. So does this mean no images for this article from here on in? 23skidoo 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Son's liver problem

This article says Burroughs son died of liver cancer, but the son's article (William_S._Burroughs_Jr.) mentions cirrhosis (though only as a header) and liver failure. Can someone who knows clarify his son's cause of death, and balance this point in the two articles? That'd be great. Doctormatt 02:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Billy Jr died 3rd March 1981 in De Land Florida. Complications following a liver transplant two years previously. He continued drinking and stopped taking anti-rejection drugs. The cause of death is listed as a heart attack. Refrence; Cursed from birth; the short unhappy life of William Burroughs Jr. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.110.93 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New articles

I've started several new articles on a few of Burroughs' short works; if anyone can add detail to these articles, please do. I've created Blade Runner, a movie, Ghost of Chance and The Cat Inside. It would be nice if we could get Book of Breeething out of redlink territory as well but I know virtually nothing about that book. 23skidoo 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Commonplace experimental prose?

Regarding the following statement:

"The trilogy Cities of the Red Night, The Place of Dead Roads and The Western Lands - these are written as commonplace experimental prose."

Perhaps I'm simply up too late but I can't understand what "commonplace experimental prose" is supposed to mean, mainly because it seems contradictory. Can a literary work be both commonplace and experimental? If so, does this accurately describe the three books? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, where do his other books fit into those categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.141.203 (talk)

I wondered about that sentence myself. It is both contradictory and inaccurate, and should be changed. ---Charles 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Influences

It seems to me that the influences section should be revised. Denton Welch needs to be listed (from the Welch wikipedia page: "William S Burroughs cited Denton Welch as the writer who most influenced his own work, and dedicated his novel The Place of Dead Roads to Welch."). Probably Celine should be referenced too. I would delete Spengler, because I wouldn't call him a top influence on Burroughs' writing (just one among many). -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.141.203 (talk)

You are correct about Denton Welch. Burroughs stated in his interview with Larry McCaffrey (in the book "Across the Wounded Galaxies") that Welch was a huge influence. Spengler, however, should stay. Burroughs quoted Spengler frequently, and had absorbed Spengler's view that Western civilization and culture were coming to their conclusion. He encouraged Ginsberg and Kerouac to read Spengler when they first started visiting him at Columbia. (There are references for this in Ted Morgan's "Literary Outlaw".) ---Charles 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Welch was a huge influence. I'm also puzzled that the article mentions a friendship with Anthony Burgess, a man who never figures in Burroughs' diaries or correspondence and whose work he despised ("... awful 'tour de force' novels... ") in Early Routines (1982). I tried to add this but it was omitted a day later. Fair enough, but drop the Burgess mention too. And by the way, it's impossible to read ten pages of Burroughs without his mention of a literary influence. Spengler it ain't. This isn't rocket science. -- User:Egomet Bonmot|Egomet Bonmot ("I never met a Dane that wasn't bone dull" -- WSB)

This article on our most quintessentially American author was clearly written by an Englishman, and even worse he phoned it in. It needs a floor-to-ceiling rewrite and please God let it be a yankee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.198.157 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

What exactly requires revision? And I think you need to examine Wikipedia policy. For one thing, "this article" was not written by one person. It has been written by a number of people from all parts of the world -- including the United States. Requiring an American to write an article on an American goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. If there's something here you think can be improved, then improve it. 23skidoo 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Burroughs and cats

A rather bizarre passage was deleted regarding Burroughs experimenting with cats. I support the deletion; while The Cat Inside is an actual book I don't know if it really covers the experiments mentioned in the edit. If we're going to have this sort of material, it needs to be cited from a non-fictional source (as Cat Inside, while autobiographical to an extent, is to my understanding considered a work of fiction). 23skidoo 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Word is a Virus" Citation

I'm looking for the first occurrence in Burroughs's writing of the phrase "word is a virus." It is quoted in many places, and I have found several paraphrases of it, but for whatever reason I have not yet been able to find the actual source and date of the exact phrase. The phrase would be good to add to this article and it should be sourced properly for wikiquote. Thanks Amber388 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the novella "WORD" contained within the Interzone collection? I haven't read it in years so I can't remember if the phrase appears there. The thing with Burroughs is phrases and themes reoccur in his writings, therefore "word is a virus" -- or "language is a virus" as quoted by Laurie Anderson -- could actually appear in any number of novels, short stories or essays. 23skidoo 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in his essay "The Electronic Revolution", and it's quoted on The Nova Trilogy page. The exact quote is "My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made the spoken word possible". Nixdorf 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And the good news is not only does The Electronic Revolution have an article, but the entire text is also available online (however as of Oct 15 the link isn't working, though the site says it's only offline temporarily). 23skidoo 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So am I correct in thinking that "word was literally a virus" is the closest he comes, but that he never actually says "Word is a virus"? Amber388 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this source, anyway. I still contend he used the phrase elsewhere, plus Laurie Anderson quotes him as saying "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" which must originate from somewhere. I also recommend checking the introduction to the collection Word Virus which might give additional insight into the phrase. 23skidoo 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a spoken quote on wav where he says "word begets image and image is virus" and there is an interview where he states "language is obviously a virus since it depends on replication" but no quote like that. Nixdorf 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Paedophilla

This is a bit of an odd question, but it is somthing that I have wondered for a while-

It seems evident from his writing that he did engage in sexual relationships with people underage (for instance his 'boyfriend', of sorts, in Morocco who was 14, if my memory serves me right), as well as the occation when he mentions paying a couple of underage boys to have sex with him watching and him watching underage boys swimming naked in Latin America (as mentioned in Queer). He also refers to various people he is attracted to (particularly in Mexico, Morocco and Latin America) as 'boys', however this could just be that it refered to males of any age as boys.

At the same time, much of this comes from Queer and Junky which are largely autobiographical, but still qualify as fiction. Other parts come from his letters to Ginsberg. I'm not suggesting that we have "William S. Burroughs was an avant garde author, social critic, unrepentent drug addict and DIRTY PAEDOPHILLE" at the start of the article, but I think that this needs to be explored further and mentioned. I'm definately not a Burroughs expert, so others may already have answers to this question... - Gegen

I don't know how much detail this article needs to go into with regards to this (or for that matter Burroughs' sexual relations in general). Certainly the fact that he carried on with a boy in his teens I believe is supported by some of the biographies, but in some respects there's little difference between this and adult males marrying girls as young as 14-- legally-- in some countries and even parts of Canada and the United States. There may be moves afoot to curb this today, and the whole "sex tourism" thing is a concern as well, but we're talking the 1950s with Burroughs, and that was a different time. If someone can provide a well-sourced, NPOV discussion, it might work, but I don't know if it's overly necessary, save for the fact that the boy inspired a number of characters in Burroughs' work. 23skidoo 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always read Burroughs writing as a kind of apology- in the epic and tragic sense of the term- many persons afflicted with such a host of anti-social traits might try hard to camoflauge or disown their true vices in public. A "respectable" writer like Jeffrey Archer lies about his procurement of prostitutes and ends up in jail because of it, but how many others do the same and we never know? What about that preacher in Colorado recently too? In my opinion there is a rare and perhaps twisted type of courage that Burroughs exhibits while writing about events many, for good reasons, would regard as personally humiliating. Also, often the most vile sex criminals (i.e. rapists, paedophiles and even fathers that carry on incestous relationships with their own daughters, serially raping them in effect for years) have been known to blame the victim or justify their actions as just a 'lifestyle' choice or claim to be 'normal'. Years ago on of my former girlfriends was a social worker and she had to deal with such a circumstance- the father thought his incest was just against the law, but did not really "hurt" his daughter. I think there is some group of child molesters called NAMBLA that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause. No one, especially someone who has read a lot about him, would reasonably claim Burroughs is trying to justify or popularize his attachments to a variety 'vices'- from heroin to guns to erotic longing for teenage boys. Much of his writing is repulsive for a reason, a reason that a lot of readers just cannot appreciate, and yes much would qualify as paedophilla or worse, and yes he has stated in interviews he was attracted to teenage boys, and yes he lived in a male bordello in Tangiers and he doesn't really present a convincing portrait in his writing about how the prostitute might feel as a result of his actions except to relate they constantly stole from him (wonder why?), but somehow because he shares all this with the reader- any reader who wants to read it- it absolves him of any indictment. I never ever get the feeling he is trying to encourage others to follow his numbers or outline (although others may try to justify their own actions by citing him), except to say he might encourage that 'lonely courage' whoever you are- straight or gay, rich or poor, Republican or Democrate, sharp or dull etc. Thus I think people who want to include some Paedophilla stamp on this article are too preoccupied themselves with sex. That's more than I thought I would say about, but in short, yes, I agree with 23skidoo and his points and wouldn't necesarily think a NPOV couple of sentences could succinctly represent the whole long paragrah I have written above. The reader has to be free to judge themselves on this count IMHO.--Mikerussell 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said from the outset, I'm not trying to demonise him and I agree with pretty much all you've said- it's not about sex and isn't fundemental to his writing (he could have been solely attracted to middle aged men and left about 90% of his work unchanged)- but this article isn't about his writing, it is about him as a man and then by extension his writing. Even if we don't want to make any hard assertions due to a lack of solid evidence (and indeed, there is the possibility that he never had relations with anyone under the age of consent; though my personal opinion is that he did. But this isn't about personal opinions) I still think it definately should be mentioned in the same way that Allen Ginsberg's (alleged, but seeminly confirmed by his letters to Burroughs) Pederest tendencies. However I think there is probably much justification to move back from 'Paedophillia' back to 'Pederest' (which is seen more as morally questionable, as opposed to non-consentual and I seriously doubt that he ever he ever participated in non-consentual sex) as his desires seem to be fairly similar to Allen Ginsberg, however from his fiction and letters it seems as if he acted on these desires when it seems like Allen Ginsberg did notGegen 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot readily think of how to succinctly include this info, even a pederest comment seems like it would have to be included with a larger couple of sentences stating that he was married, at least common-law, had a child, and was involved in relationships of short-term duration with adult males like Ian Sommerville Ian Sommerville and others, to properly balance the picture. Allen Ginsberg and Burroughs are not one-in-the-same, and I know very little of Ginsberg compared to Burroughs work and biography, perhaps except for where they most intersect. Each had different life paths and very different politics too. Maybe somebody else can skillfully meet the requested inclusion, or yourself, after all- anybody can edit an article they just need to be able to defend it reasonably for it to remain over the long haul. --Mikerussell 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (#1) & 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (#2) & Jerzy•t 10:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (#3)

I have made an edit to the immediately preceding signed contribution (and enclosed it in a box) to clarify that the version that stood for 24 months had a false combination of signature and timestamp, and was in fact created in minor part by another editor who left no indication of their role beyond (a) the system generated edit-history entry and (b) the edit summary "Amended link to wrong (living) person (per WP:LIVING)".
The rendered text following edits #1 and #2 was the same, but the link was (as stated by the changing editor) altered: the link that i restored but struck thru in #3 is the original lk to Ian Sommerville, and its replacement in edit #2, which i have bolded in #3, is a lk to Ian Sommerville (disambiguation). The result of #3 is to include both lks, to indicate which was the old or the new, and to provide a time stamp (belated in the case of #2) for each of the three edits.
-Jerzy•t 10:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think each of my colleagues showed only good intentions. Still, i have to be on record that

1. Whatever WP:LIVING may have said two years ago, treating, today, either a mistaken lk as a BLP violation, or WP:LIVING#Non-article space as justification for the unsigned modification of a signed talk-pg contrib, would IMO be terrible, and probably irresponsible, judgment.
2. I note well that WP:Forgery and WP:FORGERY have no edit histories, and that Wikipedia:Signature forgery is a Rdr that now points (on a page that never uses the word, nor says anything elsewhere on that aspect) to a 'graph beginning

Never use another editor's signature. Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden.

But still i think the contrast, between a valid and accurately dated signature and the concept of forgery. should logically be so meaningful, that responsibility means one must -- the term "signature" having been chosen with more than a moment's deliberation -- forgo changing what a colleague has signed (or they themselves have signed and dated), unless they, on one hand remove the signature (or substitute the new time-stamp for their own old one), or on the other, provide clear information by other means about who said what and when.

--Jerzy•t 10:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be deleted. There are OPINIONS expressed here about pedophilia. OPINIONS about NAMBLA. OPINIONS about William Burroughs. This discussion contributes nothing to the article. Furthermore, people express their opinions about pedophilia and NAMBLA as if their opinion is fact. The truth is, there are people who don't like NAMBLA and people who do, but this (ie. Wikipedia) is not the place to duke it out or even talk about such things. I have to make it clear that there is no agreed upon definition of what pedophilia is, everyone definition of pedophilia is different. For example, some people think pedophilia is an adult who is attracted to people ages 1 to 14, some think its ages 3 to 12, some think its ages 4 to 15, some people think that pedophilia includes 12 year olds who are attracted ot other 12 year olds, thus the title of pedophile would be applied to children and teens aswell. There is nothing in nature that makes it clear what is a 'child' or what is a 'teenager' or what is a 'pedophile'. These are fabricated terms created by humans and humans, to be frank, are totally misguided and well...crazy. Now there is a definite definition for NAMBLA since it is an organization, but no such definition for pedophilia. The universe doesn't care if you think "there is some group of child molesters called NAMBLA that presents their selfish blindness as a political cause" and it doesn't care if you label NAMBLA child molesters. Ultimately they are just labels invented by man. Wikipedia is not the place for your opinions and its not the place to talk about your distaste for something either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.218.69 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Exact Location of Grave

May God Bless You Always!

I was reading this article and came across the portion where it discusses the burying of his body at BellBellefontaine Cemetery. In the section it lists what are supposely the exact cooridates for William Burroughs' grave. This leads me to two questions.

1.) Can we confirm the location? What is the source of this exact date? Are we sure that William S. Burroughs' grave is located on this exact spot?

2.) Importance? Is this exact location important enough and encyclopedic to include in this article?

Yours in Christ, (Steve 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

I can't answer the first question. As to the second question, I don't think it's necessary to give the location of his grave. Other articles don't. If Burroughs' grave had become a shrine like Jim Morrison's or Elvis', that would be a different story, but to my knowledge it hasn't. 23skidoo 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Grave is unmarked as of March 26, 2007 and to the right of William S. Burroughs (1857-1898) white granite obelisk.

confirmed by bellefontaine cemetery 314-381-0750 posted by69.19.14.35 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) christina rutz

Thanks

Thanks to everybody for this high quality article Moe Aboulkheir 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits and corrections including Junkie book cover

At some point in the last month, the bibliography was terribly screwed up. Why was Port of Saints and My Education removed from the novel list, for example? I'm puzzled; I put them back. I oppose the removal of the Junkie cover. It is historically significant, plus, to be honest, without it the only image in this entire article is the cover of Dead City Radio. We should be adding more images, not taking them away. I have put it back.23skidoo 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a digital picture taken by moi of the cover of my copy of Literary outlaw, which I believe satisfies the copyright conventions and policies held out herein. I still think this article is too 'loose' with the facts and opinion, and I tried to add some stuff to straighten out some gaps, but I can't say I have the time to devote to it much. People should try to work away from the editorial comments or at least source it better. example- Whereas Junkie and Queer were conventional in style, Naked Lunch — although not Burroughs's first foray into the cut-up technique What does this refer to exactly? What were his previous attempts at cut-up?--Mikerussell 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under Wikipedia's Fair Use image policy, the Literary Outlaw cover might not be allowed. Only free use images such as copyright-released publicity photos and the like seem to be acceptable these days. If no one makes an issue of it, it should stay for awhile, although when I have a chance I might replace it with a scan (unless someone beats me to it). Putting on my administrator hat for a moment, I'd like to request you cool it a bit with your comments like "this poor article" etc. which you have done a few times now. No Wikipedia article is perfect and all are expected to be improved over time. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith if you haven't already done so. 23skidoo 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the assuming of good faith applies equally to me, or the above cited contributor on 7 Jan 2006, who went so far as to request a total 're-write from top to bottom'. I am quite shocked at the quality of the article, and expressed it, without identifying any individual contributor, or contribution. If you are personally offended, then please deal with the errors in content, or opinion, and not to accuse me, a contributor trying to better the article, to 'cool it', whatever that means. This article is a collective work, in good or bad- what's with the possesivness? If I am in err point it out, otherwise, let's work collectively to make it at least an accurate portrait of his life and work, and not a hobby spot for a select few. Just to point out why I consider it flawed, it has huge gaps, the biggest shock was that it went from Tangiers to New York City w/o mention of Paris or London, which certainly used to be in the article. I hope my tone will spur others to action, since I am only one contributor. That's what you should be worried about, not my opinion and efforts to improve the article, imho.--Mikerussell 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Junky cover re-inclusion

If the book cover does not even depict Burroughs, and it has a spot in the book article itself, why is it appropriate to include? This is my honest opinion, and I assume good faith in the addition, but honestly, for a new reader looking at this article, the cover looks very out of place. A girl getting strangled by a man? I think others may want to re-think the addition. Pictures should fit the topic- I say this having contributed a couple pictures recently and think the article might be improved if the focus was shifted from the pictures to just the text, pulling even mine. I will leave it at that. --Mikerussell 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• II don't see it as out of place at all because the article indicates its historical import. We could replace it with the first edition cover of Naked Lunch, which is undeniably his most notable work, but as you can see, that one doesn't depict him either (although there was a 1969 edition that showed a photo of him on the cover). Not all images must depict the subject if the subject is a creator of works; Of the numerous images in Leonardo da Vinci, only one is of the subject himself (just a random example). The article also (at least at one point; I haven't kept track of the revisions) addressed the fact that his first work was released under a pseudonym by a pulp fiction company; it's an important part of his history. 23skidoo 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of article

This article is poorly presented with errors of fact. The writing style, in spots, is similiar to People magazine's worst Paris Hilton-type celebrity prose. It needs immediate attention to salvage its value to the subject and wikipedia in general. Contributors need to discipline themselves by using the REF system, and applying sources from the bibliography to back-up assertions. About a year ago, I think, this article was better. What happened? --Mikerussell 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article since I was critical of it. I actually now think that part of my criticism was based on my own faulty memory about reading another bio of Burroughs that I erronously thought was this wikipedia article, so it probably hasn't deterioated as much as I thought in the past year. It still doesn't mention a lot of things about him like his misogynist tendancies (i.e "Women: A Biological Mistake?" and his interview comments published in The Job), his libertarianism ideas, his friendships with a lot writers of note, and the idea that he was haunted by his past and he had a lot of regrets at the end of his life. It seems like the article just lists a lot of the people he worked with near the end of his life and that he was some "countercultural giant" etc. But I am not an expert on him, so others will hopefully add more or correct errors I made myself.--Mikerussell 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Evil River

I'm starting to wonder if Evil River, despite being listed with a 2007 release date by Amazon and assigned an ISBN number, isn't either becoming vaporware or is being delayed. The release date keeps creeping back and I still haven't been able to find any official announcement of its release. I recall that the "Restored Text" edition of Naked Lunch was also delayed for something like a year after its initial release announcement, and apparently Evil River has been considered "coming soon" since 2005. If no one can offer verification that the book is in fact coming out this year, I'd be willing to support deleting the article (which I created) until such time the book is actually released. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Barris and RS Exile on Main Street

This is edited out.

In 1972, Burroughs and Southern unsuccessfully attempted to adapt Naked Lunch for the screen in conjunction with American game show producer Chuck Barris; during this period, he was present at Villa Nellcôte for the the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street sessions with Southern.

I know he was around the Beatles in London during the 1960s because Ian Sommerville worked with Mcartney on something, but have never read anything about them (Burroughs and Southern) travelling to French Riveria to hang out with the Stones. In the Brockris book With Burroughs in the Bunker, he meets Jagger for the first time ever, so did they forget they met in early 1971? If I am wrong, re-add with refs. Even more, Keith Richards, I remember in a Rolling Stone Interview, the famous one in 1971 just before Exile came out, says he never had met Burroughs, but they were talking about dope in the interview and his name came up that way. --Mikerussell 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

According to a review of the book A Grand Guy: The Art and Life of Terry Southern by Lee Hill, Barris did indeed attempt to option the film. The review is included on the book's Amazon page here though it might be helpful if someone who has a copy of the book could provide the page numbers, etc. This is the only online reference to this fact that I could find; perhaps the person who added the information has the book in question. Haven't found anything on the RS connection. 23skidoo 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the sentence about Barris then, although like you say maybe excat page number will be added by someone with the book.--Mikerussell 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Last Words of Dutch Schultz

I changed the text today from novel to screenplay. I don't know why it is categorized as a novel, but if it is then one can change it back. As far as I know a novel has to be at least 40,000 words to be classsified in publication as a novel, anything less is a novella. I haven't looked at the book in quite awhile but I doubt it is that long and even the article says its only 81 pages. I always undertood it to be a movie script, but maybe I am confusing it with his Blade Runner. Not that this is a big problem, but I did change it and thought I would mention it here. --Mikerussell 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been some discussion on this at the Novels WikiProject. There really is no hard-and-fast rule regarding what is a novel and what is a novella. That's actually the first time I've ever seen 40,000 words cited. I more frequently see thresholds like 80,000 and even 100,000 words cited. The reason why I referred to Last Words of DS as a novel is because it was never written with the intent of being produced as a film. It was written as a novel in screenplay format. I believe if you check Ted Morgan's book this is mentioned. And I do believe there is an edition of DS (possible the first?) that include the words "A Novel" in the title, but don't quote me on that. Robert Anton Wilson did the same thing with "Reality is What You Can Get Away With" which likewise was a novel disguised as a screenplay. I'll adjust the wording in this article to make it a bit clearer (I checked the article on the book and this is explained). 23skidoo 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Band names

An unregistered user added the following incomplete sentence to "Band names": "Rock Band "The Mark Inside" from Burroughs opening quote in the movie "Naked Lunch"." This needs to be cleaned up being put back in the main article. I couldn't make head nor tail of it, and am unfamiliar with the band in question so I don't know if this is the name of an album, a song, or what. 23skidoo 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William Tell

In the Paris Review interview (and elsewhere) Burroughs vehemently denies the William Tell story as "absurd and untrue". He says that he was cleaning the gun to sell it to a friend when it went off and killed his wife. I don't have the source on hand, but I can get it.

• It's worth noting that he denied it -- with a source -- but all the authoritative biographies including Ted Morgan's definitive Literary Outlaw support the William Tell incident (as does Cronenberg's Naked Lunch in which it is depicted). If you read the article here you'll see the "went off when it was loaded" was a story concocted by witnesses in order to protect Burroughs (at least according to the source cited here). I'm also pretty certain Burroughs himself refers to the William Tell incident in one of his books as well. I thought he did so in the introduction to Queer but I just checked and he does not refer to how Joan died. 23skidoo 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well summarized 23skidoo, but I will add that this source from James Grauerholz, available online at American Studies Department, University of Kansas discusses the cover story about cleaning the gun which is attributed to Burroughs Mexican lawyer at the time. What year was the Paris Review interview anyway?--Mikerussell 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is first hand eyewitness evidence stated in Rob Johnson's - 'The Lost Years Of William Burroughs' that the 'William Tell' routine was something that had been practiced on numerous prior occasions on the farm using watermelons. The realibility of this evidence is uncertain, but it is published. Burroughs was no doubt a good shot. He blames the quality of the gun on the Brookner interview and states that he had never tried to practice the 'william tell' stunt before. But then again, why would he admit to it being premeditated, when his case states the contrary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.110.93 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Slanderous Accusations & Libel against Paul Bowles, Bachir Attar and Bowles' friends.

Recently someone, but possibly others including an anonymous writer named "Paul H." wrote an interview which has been published on Brink.com and two (2) links to this interview were posted on various pages of Wikipedia, including William S. Burroughs, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Brion Gysin and Mohamed Hamri, as well as their own pages for Master Musicians of Joujouka and user:Opium jones23. He makes libelous statements against living persons, two close American friends of Paul Bowles in Tangier, inferring that they are pedophiles and condone and/or participate in the sexual exploitation of children. He probably did this himself. He has accused Paul Bowles of being a murderer by allegedly trying to kill Hamri, etc., which is preposterous, and of regularly entertaining young adolescents in his Tangier apartment, which is patently untrue and libelous. I want an Administrator to keep these links to Brink.com off, as well as it mutation on other sites until a lawyer can contact him and take appropriate action. Wikipedia is supposed to be fair, but by allowing these links on, you are perpetrating falsehoods and deliberate slander against myself and a close friend, as everyone in Tangier knows that Paul Bowles had close American friends who still live in the city. I do not wish to have police knocking on my door because of some irresponsible, inaccurate and sloppy "journalism" written by a man who won't even use his full name, only "Paul H."? Furthermore, someone has completely vandalized the biography of Bachir Attar on Wikipedia and changed everything to spell the group as Joujouka, when his official site says it is Jajouka, put in words such as drinking vodka, etc., when this is not what Wikipedia said only 2 weeks or less ago. If this kind of behavior is tolerated by editors at Wikipedia, then I will contact the administrators to take action against user:Opium jones23 for vandalizing and slandering as well.--BKLisenbee

Libel concerns and slandering aside, personally speaking, i am against using the Brink.com links. Brink.com is not notable enough. The website declares itself as a "group of companies is a bite size conglomorate of entertainment companies"! You do the math. However, i am also concerned by the massive sockpuppetry and block evasion in all related articles. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I take no stand on the accusations of libel and slander, as I have not seen enough evidence either way. I did read the interview to which one of the links pointed, and the individuals in question were certainly very opinionated. As far as the notability of the Brink.com links, I will defer to the opinion of FayssalF. Also, as FayssalF has indicated, the edit wars between sockpuppets must end. ---Charles 04:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered if you could elaborate on the lack of notability of links from The Brink. They make widely distributed films, create and host web sites. When looking at how they describe themselves to prospective clients from around the world on their website, did you look further into what they actually do ? you may be surprised. They seem a highly notable company, upon closer inspection. have a look and report back, if you can please Hannahdolly 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant to return to this issue and got distracted by other wiki-related and real world issues. As I said above, I agree with the judgment of FayssalF when it comes to brink.com: they simply are not notable enough to include here. By their own self-description (see http://www.brink.com/about_us.php), they are very small and only just in their formative stages. Furthermore, given the very controversial nature of these links, we should defer to Wikipedia's guidelines on these matters (see [[2]]), and I quote: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. ([[3]])" As such, these links should be avoided, and I am going to revert. Whatever BKLisenbee's reputation, whatever "investigations" may be underway, we have to avoid taking sides in the argument. Thanks. ---Charles 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the article and the user is not mentioned. Bowles being dead is beyond libel. However the user BKLisenbee is a serial POV editor employed by the subjects or the heirs of many of his edit page subjects. His talk page comments seem to claim illegal activities by named and presumably living people. At the same time he claims to be abused in the some way while spreading potentially legally damaging stuff for this community. This seems strange. I will try and contact the site that says they reported this user to the police and get more details. I advise caution. Abelelkrim 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, and will now repeat, neither Wikipedia as an entity, nor any of the individual editors involved in editing this article (or any other article related to Burroughs, Bowles, the Master Musicians of Jajouka, etc.) can or should take any side in any ongoing dispute involving Mr. Lisenbee or any other individuals. It is neither the purpose nor the role of Wikipedia or any of the many editors who volunteer their time to improve same, to offer any opinion as to who may have been wronged, who is correct in their assertions, etc. The only matter before us is the notability of the links that were posted, and the verifiability of the assertions made therein. It is the opinion of the majority of editors who have commented here that the guidelines involving notability and verifiability have not been met. Beyond that, I have no comment. ---Charles 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One last comment on the matter: Please see WP:REDFLAG for related policy. ---Charles 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Junky

At the end of this book, WB states that he is going to find a drug (I think it was called "telepathine") which he knows can induce psychicness. Anyone know what the hell he was on about? I have NEVER heard of this drug anywhere else, and would be willing to bet that it was a hippy myth. Anyone got any more info?

Do you mean the yage?

As to the article:

"After Vollmer's death, Burroughs drifted through South America for several months, looking for a drug called Yage, which promised the user an ability for telepathy. "

Quoted from another entry, Junkie (novel):

"Burroughs wrote a follow-up novel entitled Queer, which furthered his experiences in Mexico and South America looking for the ‘telepathic’ substance yage, "

See also: The Yage Letters -- 220.102.228.148 09:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a hippy myth, but a real drug, this guy Andrew Weil supposedly went to SA to try the thing out too in the 60s, but I am not sure where or when I read about it with him. It is used in many drugs now, I think, at least the chemical compound was extracted and used for purposes beyond my interest or knowledge. As far as it being telepathetic- that seems to be completely mythiocal and points more to Burroughs unsettled needs at the time than a valid claim. But I think native medicine men did use it some for purposes similar to telepathy and thuis the lengend.--Mikerussell 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the reference in front of me, but general background memory identifies it as harmaline, which you find in various of the plants in the numerous ayahuasca recipe combos that people used to write about in letters to Entheogen Review. I think the name harmaline is derived from the scientific name for the Syrian rue plant.9eyedeel (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of the book title needs to be consistent; it is spelled both "Junky" and "Junkie" in the article. - Mark Dixon (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evil River again

I remember how the expanded edition of Naked Lunch was continually delayed over the course of about 2 1/2 years before it suddenly appeared. it's starting to look like this is happening again with Evil River. I created the article based upon strong indication the book was going to come out (including an ISBN number and the Amazon listing). But that was back in the late summer/early fall of 2006 and now it looks like the book "may" come out at the end of July. Yet the Viking Penguin website still does not list it. If July 30 comes and goes without a release, or if the date is pushed back yet again, I'm willing to submit the article for AFD unless anyone can think of a good reason to keep the article active. Have any of the Burroughs experts here found any firm indication that this release is actually forthcoming in the near future? 23skidoo 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly hold myself up as an "expert," but I definitely try to keep up on anything going on with Burroughs, and I have heard nothing. I have almost reconciled myself to the very real possibility we will never see it... ---Cathal 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "never" might be a bit pessimistic. I had the same feeling regarding Naked Lunch: The Restored Text which as I say was delayed by about 2 years before it suddenly started showing up in the bookstores. I expect the same will happen with Evil River -- it'll just show up one day in Barnes and Noble or Chapters with no advance warning. 23skidoo 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole book, comprising of correspondence with Ginsberg and autobiographical snippets, entitled The Yage Letters. This is an entertaining book which was published long after it was concieved and completed. This is not even very obscure now, just look it up on Amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.136.151 (talk) 18:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Informal poll: keep Evil River article or send to AFD

Amazon is now saying Evil River is not due for release until "2019" -- translation; it's vaporware, or at least in limbo. Viking Press has no mention of it, and according to a site referenced in the article on the book, this game has been going on since at least 2005. I created the article on Evil River more than a year ago now, however since others have since edited it, I cannot delete it outright; it has to go to AFD. Before nominating it, however, I want to get the feel of the Wiki-Burroughs community on this. We do have articles on unpublished works -- And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks by Burroughs and Kerouac being the applicable example here. Evil River could continue as an article, but changed to an unpublished work. Or, the article can be nominated for AFD and, if deleted, be recreated at a later date if and when publictaion is officially announced. I have placed a poll on the article's talk page to gauge opinion on this. If no one posts any objections or alternate suggestions in the next week or so, I will go ahead and nominate it to AFD. If folk want the article kept, no worries, though I'd welcome suggestions on how to handle a book that is in limbo like this. 23skidoo 05:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I've always suspected that this book was going to linger in limbo. I would say delete the article, and then our grandchildren can recreate it when the book is finally published. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If we do delete the article, I think a small section on Evil River should be added to this article (with the sources) to indicate that an unreleased work has been bouncing around in limbo since at least 2005 and probably much earlier. I'll still wait a few more days for further comments before I decide whether to AFD or not. 23skidoo 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard used is low for listing a book on Amazon, even self-published cranks can apply for a ISBN and get a listing on Amazon for their vanity press novel. From what I know about publishing, it isn't the most well-organized of production processes. The only thought I had was that maybe James Grauerholz is holding out for more money or some book contract where he gets to publish his autobiography after on the same meal ticket sort of speak. Or there is a legal threat that hasn't gone public, someone will sue about what's in it, but that seems unlikely. I am late tot he party, but I voted to delete the arcticle in the poll there. --Mikerussell 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Based upon the above comments I will submit this to AFD, just on the off chance it can be rescued by someone who might have information. Additional: actually, I checked the user history and except for a couple of bots and people who edited for format rather than content, this doesn't have to go to AFD. I will send it to PROD instead. I'll make sure the links are cleaned out from the template, etc. after it's been taken down (if no one contests the PROD). I probably don't need to even PROD it, but the article's been up for a year now, so I might as well. 23skidoo 12:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to come back fix this. Evil River has been removed from the template, for now. 23skidoo 19:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But I forgot to fix some outdated information in the main body of the article, so that's been done. It's still worthwhile mentioning that this work has been mentioned as a potential release (it's still listed for $19.99 at Amazon.ca with a release date sometime in 2019 if anyone wants to preorder it... heh) but it still looks like vaporware for the time being. 23skidoo (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sartre influence

An editor removed Jean-Paul Sartre as an influence on Burroughs, however there are printed sources that say Sartre was a contemporary and an influence (much like Henry Miller). I don't have time to go through my library to find the source, so if someone can jump ahead of me on this, please do. 23skidoo 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the reference list, 'cause I have never heard of Sartre being an influence on Burroughs. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I would like to see a reference for this. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at Ted Morgan's Literary Outlaw, and there are only two mentions of Sartre in the whole book, and both are in passing. This does not necessarily prove anything, but it is an indication... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance as TV Salesman in "Einstein's Brain"

I am pretty sure that William Burroughs appeared in the UK TV documentary "Einstein's Brain", in which a Japanese professor attempts to track down the offending organ. The whole thing is delivered straight until our hero asks for directions in a TV shop in a small US town. Every TV seems to be playing footage of a nuclear test detonation, and the TV sales man (if memory serves) was none other than William Burroughs - so I guess the "documentary" was a little closer to "Borat" than "BBC News".

So, my question to the community is: what sort of evidence should I gather before I change the main article?

By the way, that was my first ever Wikipedia edit!

Jim-the-blim 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

REM - F*ck Me Kitten?

Does anyone know anything about the REM song, "F*ck Me Kitten", sometimes labeled as "Star Me Kitten", that WS Burroughs performed? 74.132.11.37 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee edits

just revrted an old edit miss tagged and POV . We dont care if the editor is an American man living in Tangier but facts are facts and he deleted under false edit summery to

User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please check what's in the edits before reverting everything, though, as I had to repair a misformed Wikilink and remove a duplicated citation that appeared in the article as a result of this revert. I haven't been following the current edit war so this has no connection to that. If warring continues, however, we may need to lock down the article until a consensus is reached on edits. 23skidoo (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks did not spot the shift. yes agreed Buroughs article priority to Joujouka semantics User:Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Band names

With the exception of Steely Dan, the band names section is completely berift of citations. We need sources to verify where these names came from. For example, my understanding is Dead Fingers Talk takes their name from the book of this title, not a line from either Naked Lunch or Soft Machine (an IP changed it just now). 23skidoo (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Yes the BOOK

Heavy Metal Kid is from Naked Lunch eg Heavy Metal Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bukowski?

Being a Bukowski fan, I was specifically under the impression that Bukowski was not a fan of the beats, and was especially critical of Kerouac and Burroughs. He even wrote a short story mocking Burroughs. Though this is true of about 99% of his literary icons, can anyone show me an example of how Bukowski was an admirer of Burroughs work? CrowleyHead (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Charles Bukowski: Locked in the Arms of a Crazy Life, p. 141, viewable at Google Books here. To find it quicker, use the "Search Book" field at bottom right and type in the words "only one he admired" and you'll see a section where it describes Burroughs as the only one of the Beats he admired (albeit it describes him as being angry at Burroughs for snubbing him, but still). 23skidoo (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 23skidoo! God, I can't imagine being present at a conversation between those two cantankerous bastards! This is a helpful reference. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bribed vs. distributed funds

The recent change makes the sentence look silly. I believe Morgan and other sources outright use the word "bribed" so I think this should be retained. I will revert the change once I have a chance to check my sources. 23skidoo (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. Morgan, on p. 202, clearly says that 300 of the 2300 Burroughs paid his lawyer was used to bribe the ballistics experts who testified for the prosecution. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Saved me looking it up. I knew it was in Morgan. Maybe it might not hurt to add a page reference there, just to be on the safe side. 23skidoo (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evil River again

I see someone added Evil River to the Non-fiction list and I have removed it after confirming, once again, that the book has not been released nor does anyone seem to know when or if it is coming out. Amazon now has a date of the end of May 2008 which is an improvement over 2025 or whatever date they had a few months ago. The existence of an ISBN number, as I have learned, is NOT proof that a book exists. It's just a number reserved for the work, sort of like a company reserving a URL for a future movie release that could be years in the future. One book that HAS been confirmed as released is the new Everything Lost notebook facsimilie edition, which I have added to the list. Regarding Evil River again, I don't profess to have access to all the sources imaginable, so if someone out there can provide one to suggest the book is available or, better still, has actually purchased a copy, I'm more than willing to be corrected with extreme predjudice (just send me a PM so I know where to order it from!) 23skidoo (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junkieace.jpg

Image:Junkieace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

annoying rule and useless bot. Image is important on this article to illustrate historical and cultural context of Burrough's first publication. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As such, it is better suited for the Junkie (novel) article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

as well sure but here is where people look first and it IS important here~. Again these photo stealing/deleting bots are a huge disruption Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold much hope for that image of Joan to survive much longer, either. 23skidoo (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but why should editors feel pressured by anon bots? This is the begining of the end here I think. Editors might be best served by just reverting these bots continuously until the policies are properly addressed and re -drawn. It is yet another way for dweebs and spank monkeys to exert control over editors Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I certainly sympathize with the sentiment, reverting bots like this only ends up with blocks being done against the editor doing the reverting. The fact is the owners of Wikipedia, the Wikipedia Foundation, have made a mandate and the bot is carrying it out. The only way to change policy is to lobby the people in power. Reverting just gets you banned and then you can't lobby anyone anymore. The image situation has resulted in people exercising their right to leave the project, and in my case it has resulted in me deciding to no longer provide images of any kind. Obviously I can't stop anyone from doing what they want to do, but as Wikipedia is not a democracy, the only thing that can be done is lobby the powers that be. And a lot of people have been doing that ... though to no avail, from what I have seen. 23skidoo (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology probation

For some weeks now I've noted that this article has a tag on it regarding the Arbcom probation on Scientology articles. This article isn't about Scientology; it's about someone who was once a member and has written criticism regarding Scientology. It's a very minute part of his body of work. (Indeed, if all references to Scientology were removed, it wouldn't negatively affect the overall article). Is there any reason to keep the Arbcom warning up on this particular article? 23skidoo (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

according to Terry Wilson the Scientologists declared Burroughs a "natural clear". He tried it and later debunked it. He was also sending questions to a supposed supercomputer called Control. See Terry Wilson and Brion Gysin's Here to Go. The idea that this article about this subject is labelled "Scientology" is however plain ridiculous. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. Burroughs' experiences and his stated opinions on Scientology are pretty much self-contained and don't really have anything to do with the bigger Scientology articles that are at the heart of the Arbcom situation. 23skidoo (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

plus the case is closed. This page should not have been includedOpiumjones 23 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to follow the Be Bold philosophy here and remove this article from the Scientology Wikiproject for two reasons: 1. As noted above Scientology plays a very minor role in Burroughs' life and canon and 2. I do feel the Arbcom probation (which appears to still be in place since the case was closed in September 2007) is an unnecessary distraction. I'm not particularly a big fan of placing an article under a WikiProject on the grounds of a passing reference (I'm OK with categories, however). If someone vehemently objects to this, they're welcome to state their case or Be Bold and revert me. 23skidoo (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct move. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Split suggestion

While I do not oppose the idea of splitting the Bibliography into a separate article, I would caution that there first be extensive research done as to whether such articles are allowed in Wikipedia. These sorts of splits invariably result in AFD challenges. Fortunately one of the main pieces of ammo used by deletionists - lack of sources - can be defeated by the fact that there are actually multiple professionally published bibliographies of WSB's work in circulation, something 99.99% of authors cannot claim. Nonetheless, I would counsel with the Novels WikiProject and perhaps someone involved with WP:N to ensure that splitting the article won't just be a waste of time. 23skidoo (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I based my suggestion on the example of Works of William Gibson, a featured list. There are at least a handful of other similar FL. I suggested a split because the list of his works is extensive and takes up a sizable amount of space in the article. Sources are necessary, of course, as they are with any biographic article, but I doubt that would be problem with Burroughs. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at what get's AFD'd around here. Anyway, I don't oppose the move by any means (I see it's already been done). 23skidoo (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Band names (again)

This section is getting too messy and speculative. While Steely Dan and The Soft Machine are widely known to have been based upon Burroughs, and the other ones listed here seem to have connections, the section needs a bit more sourcing to establish verifiability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also reported that Burroughs named Juliana Hatfield's first band, "Tha Blake Babies" after a discussion at one of his readings. Anyone have a cite for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.155.2 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I never heard that one... that would need one heck of a source for me to believe it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)