RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard | Result: Keep

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. While Kirkegaard's journals have red flags of pseudo-journalism, the content itself is not pure pseudoscience. Please see my conversation with FuzzyCatPotato. I couldn't find anything pseudo-scientific. According to the felixonline:
   

His activity is sprinkled with many uncited graphs and figures. But due to their concealment in a flurry of unrelated material ranging from BBC News posts to Nirvana video clips, and posts from reputable scientific sources such as Nature and Springer, it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience that would otherwise damage his scientific authority.

So I ask the mob, with this info, should the article exist? —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Delete. Emil's a smart guy with a lot of knowledge of statistics and the scientific method - you might not agree with the focus of his research concern, but he practices science, not pseudoscience. His aim in setting up open journals with open and public peer review is laudable - where the mainstream publishers are not blocking access to a large body of original scientific knowledge without the reader having to pay through the nose, they are requiring researchers to pay through the nose; Emil makes his research, peer-review and data available for free. His approach should be celebrated, not condemned. Incidentally, it's curious that in many ways, Emil is "one of you": he, like most RationalWikipedians, is a skeptic-atheist-materialist who prizes scientific knowledge and despises pseudoscience, crankery and "woo". In a sense, to leave this article up would be to "attack one of your own".Laird (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

   Racialism is pseudo-science. Emil is also a "research fellow" for a white supremacist institute set up by Richard Lynn, that received $609,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996. The Pioneer Fund was founded by Nazi/fascist sympathisers and is a far-right organisation. The institute Emil is a fellow of also publishes the Mankind Quarterly described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal" (see Mankind Quarterly); just clicking on the institute's website and you find racist pseudo-scientific literature.MrOrganic (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. You are talking about one article? Google those journals to see all kinds of racialist pseudo-science. One of Kirkegaard's journals published Nature of Race that was "peer-reviewed" for the journal by the Neo-Nazi Kevin MacDonald. This sort of stuff is as notorious as Answers Research Journal. MrOrganic (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   I don't think Kevin MacDonald is a Nazi, though I haven't read his stuff. From skimming Wikipedia, it seems that he did deny he supported Nazism. Besides, this is extremely poor research. You are trying to argue a case based on a single review. OP has published 48 papers. I don't know exactly how many reviews there are in total, but it will be around 150. MacDonald is not an internal reviewer, he was a one-time external reviewer. EmilOWK (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   MacDonald is a virulent anti-Semite who is a Holocaust denier; last year he attended an event hosted by the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review. He's also a prominent member of a Neo-Nazi/white nationalist political party - the "American Freedom Party", formerly named "American Third Position". Despite the name change, the American Freedom Party still openly identifies as white nationalist and you don't have to look far to find pro-Hitler posts on their Facebook page. Your journals are racialist junk that attract extreme anti-Semites, Neo-Nazis and other racist kooks. You should be ashamed of yourself! MrOrganic (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not doing my own research. The methodology is questionable, however, as the quote suggests: "it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience" in his material. Show me pseudoscience in his journals.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   I think you could have misread the article, now having read it -that quote is talking about someone else? Its about some scholar, not Kirkegaard, although the latter is mentioned in the article. I also noticed RationalWiki is mentioned in the article. It says Kirkegaard is a pedophilia apologist, but this was oddly removed from his RW article recently. Regardless, if you just run some Google searches you find the fact Kirkegaard is a pedophile who wrote he supports raping kids in their sleep. He's one of the most sickening #:::Seems you're right about the quote:

Kirkegaard also has an entry dedicated to his work on RationalWiki, a resource dedicated to critically reviewing pseudoscience, accusing him of conducting racist and paedophilia-apologist pseudoscience.
Besides the questions these recent tweets raise about the scientific credibility of Dr. Perkins, his political agenda, and his suitability to teach young people at one of the country’s leading universities, they also raise concerns on the rest of his social media activity.
His activity is sprinkled with many uncited graphs and figures. But due to their concealment in a flurry of unrelated material ranging from BBC News posts to Nirvana video clips, and posts from reputable scientific sources such as Nature and Springer, it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience that would otherwise damage his scientific authority.

1. Nevertheless, the points still stand, I cannot find pseudoscience. As seen on the talkpage, Kirkegaard is anti-pedophile and the issues surrounding pedophilia advocacy are part Internet drama and quote-mining. The removal was supported by me and FuzzyCatPotato.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   Kirkegaard wrote he supports legalising child porn and proposes "as a compromise" pedophiles should rape children while they and mentally disturbed individuals I've ever read about. He even looks like a pedo in his twitter photos.MrOrganic (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   sleep; this is somehow "quote-mining" or "drama"? Kirkegaard is a pedophile/pedophilia apologist for sure. Do normal people write on their blogs they support child rape? The issue with this website is it doesn't have a zero-tolerance approach to pedophiles. And if you cannot find pseudo-science in the journals, you shouldn't be a sysop here. Are you then saying racialism isn't pseudo-science? What's next? Do you think creationism is real science too? This place needs competent sysops who actually have scientific knowledge, there's been a huge decline over the years; Bongolian and Scepticwombat are among the few left. MrOrganic (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   "Kirkegaard wrote he supports legalising child porn [blah blah blah]"

   This has been argued many times before with welliver, so I'm not going to bother further. Subjects on people need to handled with respect. Kirkegaard has said he doesn't agree that Child Porn should be legal and is not pro-pedophile, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

   "And if you cannot find pseudo-science in the journals, you shouldn't be a sysop here."

   A sysop is a regular user that cleans up vandalism. Nothing more.

   "Are you then saying racialism isn't pseudo-science? What's next?"

   I see a Slippery slope fallacy and straw man. RationalWiki doesn't support racialism. I do not see hard evidence of him supporting racialism, although he has appeared on the video "IQ And The Future Of Eugenics".—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   Just Google the institute I mentioned above. Isn't that enough? It publishes a white supremacist journal; it has 3 books for sale on the website, all of them are racialist pseudo-science, including the notorious J.P.Rushton who wrote bizarre racial theories trying to link penis size to brain size.MrOrganic (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2. I'm voting keep. Everybody run and tell their friends!-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. I say keep. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep. Even if Kirkegaard is not a pseudoscientist, he is a pseudoscience promoter by dint of his running pseudojournals that publish John Fuerst, for example. Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)