Talk:Emil O. W. Kirkegaard/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Intro

"Emil O. W. Kirkegaard is a Danish pseudoscientist who founded two "hereditarian" pseudojournals in 2014. His journals have attracted white nationalists and neo-Nazis to publish in the guise of "racial realism" or "human biodiversity" (HBD)."

- Intro makes it seem this guy isn't a racist himself, but just allows racists to publish in his pseudo-journals. In actual fact Kiregaard is a racist himself, he's part of the "HBD" movement with Hbdchick etc. and is obsessed with trying to show "blacks" have lower IQ than "whites" - just look at his twitter to see this. OldSword (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Doxx

I'm the IP this guy doxxed on his forum. I simply pointed out that his journal is not peer-reviewed and it is publishing racialist pseudo-science and also showed to the neo-Nazi/white nationalist connections (e.g. John Fuerst). Bizarrely, he reacted by publishing my IP etc and then banned. This has also happened to someone else on the forum. This is all strange considering Kirkegaard claims to be pro-freedom of speech. He's obviously one of these poser hipster libertarian types.86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dropping this here

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/4j1apj/scientist_doxes_70000_okcupid_users_and_refuses/ FuzzyCatPotato of the Baffling Kittens (talk/stalk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow!

Just read around on this guy's website — phew, what a pseudointellectual jackass! The mere fact that he confuses being an autodidact with being a polymath really says it all. His RW article certainly deserves expansion; there's much crankery to cite, from his interest in seasteading to his love of Human Varieties to his lauding of overtly antifeminist garbage tracts of various sorts. Add to that his support of transhumanist woo, his hailing of The Bell Curve and his suggestion that immigrants should be subjected to cognitive testing to ensure that they will not burden the already paper-thin welfare system of his ideal Rapture — also note that this concern for welfare check abuse is literally one page away from where he himself brags about how he managed to pass a bullshit thesis while skipping classes (showing up only for the last few days each semester) in order to keep sneaking government handouts for "studying". Clearly the ****ing Leibniz of our time, no? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, what with his penchant for meme-grade technobabble, this guy comes off more and more as the William Dembski of the "race realist" alt-right. His transhumanism, nootropic fanboyism and dabblings in (what he claims to be) computer science places the proper analogy closer to him being some kind of unsavory combination between proud parents Ray Kurzweil and Theodore Beale, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Old archive.is screenshots of his webpage say he was an MA student, but he has since removed it. He no longer claims to be an MA student. Is there any evidence he even enrolled on an MA course in the first place? 86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Since he's Danish and thus has access to a free higher education system which automatically qualifies him for a monthly government stipend, it's hardly implausible that he was an MA student, especially since hardly any Danish university students leave with just a BA. What it actually suggests to me is that he's in effect a university dropout (who managed to finish his BA but not the entire BA+MA education which in reality tends to be a single "package" in Denmark due to the aforementioned lack of tradition for leaving with just a BA). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

An important article with poor writing

It needs to be rewritten (not for content, per se, but style and clarity) and expanded (there are so many more things to cite on this dolt). Regardless, we're being cited on it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He's noticed

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/631haf/on_the_commentariat_here_and_why_i_dont_think_i/dfrf0su/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 11:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to once more stress a point I've made earlier. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit

I talked to Emil about this page, which is getting cited by the MSM, and suggested he dispute some of the allegations. He is, for whatever reason, uninterested in doing so. However, my name comes up, and I take issue with that:

"co-authored several papers in his pseudojournals with white nationalist John Fuerst."

This point about being a White Nationalist, per Rationalwiki's definition, was already discussed and the claim was removed from the page dedicated to me. I would like it removed here, too.

Thank you"Chuck" (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Most of Kirkegaard's papers are published in these journals."

• With the last journal entry to date being "Country of origin and use of social benefits" for the journal Open Differential Psychology (ODP), Kirkegaard wrote for 17 out of the 30 pieces.

• With the last journal entry to date being "The Nature of Race" for the journal" for the journal Open Behavioral Genetics (OBG), Kirkegaard wrote for 1 out of the 7 pieces.

• With the last journal entry to date being "Net fiscal contributions of immigrant groups..." for the journal Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science (OQSPS), Kirkegaard wrote for 8 out of the 11 pieces.

Kirkegaard wrote 26 out of 48 as of August 23 2017. This is 54.17%.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Kirkegaard is a sickening pedophilia apologist-

• He openly states he wants to legalise child porn.
• He posted a sickening "compromise" that pedophiles should rape children in their sleep.
• He thinks raping children does not cause them harm.
• He narrowly defines pedophilia like pedophiles or pedophilia apologists do.

All the above is in his own words as quoted, so there's no need to remove the fact he's a pedophilia apologist.Welliver (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

As FCP has said:

“”When somebody holds views like Fuerst's, it is often easier & funnier to let them speak for themselves.

Obviously, anyone with half a brain who actually reads the quotes can gather this. It seems this is more for defamation more than anything to say he's an apologist in the tile. And you don't seem to have a problem that I removed "racist" or "pseudoscientist" from the page. Also, I'll go at each point, using the quotes as a primary source of info. It's important to not make assumptions, especially considering people articles have a higher chance of legal threats:

• "He openly states he wants to legalise child porn". Kirkegaard stated that discussing child porn is necessary to discuss freedom of speak. I didn't see any obvious statement saying he wanted child porn legal.
• "He posted a sickening "compromise" that pedophiles should rape children in their sleep." Yes, this is correct.
• "He thinks raping children does not cause them harm." He stated that raping children in their sleep would cause no harm.
• "He narrowly defines pedophilia like pedophiles or pedophilia apologists do." I haven't read much of pedophile apologist material, so excuse me. But, this fluffy evidence, considering we have much stronger evidence pointing to the fact he's a pedophile apologist.

My point. Yes, the guy is a pedo apologist, no shit. But don't go trying to find slight signs of bigotry — you'll find it everywhere — when there's clear and obvious bigoted statements.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the quotes that I stated were out of context. The thing is, he neither states or denies if he's pro or anti pedophilia. It's just vague as hell, unless I'm insanely blind or if not picking a side means he is pro-pedo (with the exception of the child rape part, obviously a bad part).—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I see Fuzzy Cat made a newer edit, some points that I forgot about. I like it.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need more reading comprehension. The idea with legalizing child porn possession was to avoid the creation of blatant internet censorship, which is now is place following the first ban on child porn possession. This idea does not originate with me, but from Rick Falkvinge, of the Swedish Pirate Party. I never proposed the compromise attributed to me, it was a hypothetical. I have public stated that I think the evidence shows that rape and child rape/sexual abuse (CSA) is harmful. For instance, this study using a MZ twin control method found that even within twin pairs, the association of a history (self-reported) of CSA and mental illness is found, making it likely that the association is causal. My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone while they are asleep and somehow don't wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be? As for 'my' definition of pedophilia, it is totally in line with mainstream research, as anyone can easily verify by reading Wikipedia. For the record, I'm not in favor of lowering the age of consent from the current Danish value of 15, nor do I propose legalizing the filming of child porn. As for possession, I'm unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven't thought much of the topic since. In fact, I have posted a total of 2 times on pedophilia, out of some 940 blogposts (as of writing). --EmilOWK (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed:

Kirkegaard created a study titled ''Predicting Immigrant IQ from their Countries of Origin, and Lynn's National IQs: A Case Study from Denmark'':<ref>http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/MQ-54-LIV-2-kirkegaard.pdf</ref> {{quotebox|Many recent studies have corroborated Lynn and Vanhanen's worldwide compilation of national IQs; however, no one has attempted to estimate the mean IQ of an immigration population based on its countries of origin. This paper reports such a study based on the Danish immigrant population and IQ data from the military draft.}}

Publishing a study examining something is not the same thing as endorsing something. While Kirkegaard is quite obviously racialist, this is weak evidence. Consider: By this logic, any article examining race and IQ is itself a tacit support of racialism. Suffice it to say that that is bull. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That was a bad example. I still do think we should cover the content of entries on the pseudo-journal.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a journal entry correlating height to climate to intelligence... Am I reading this right?

Principal component analysis was used to detect signals of recent polygenic selection for higher stature. This selection was stronger among sub-­Saharan Africans and weaker among East Asians. The principal component significantly correlates with mean male height in 9 populations. ANOVA shows that the frequencies of 46 height-­increasing alleles differ significantly across three continental races (Europeans, sub­-Saharan Africans, East Asians). We can therefore reject the null hypothesis that random drift accounts for these differences. GWAS hits from different population samples have similar loadings on the principal component, implying that the same alleles have similar phenotypic effects across human populations. These height­ increasing alleles are distributed among the three geographic groups in a way that inversely mirrors what we see for intelligence­ enhancing alleles. This pattern might be explained by Allen’s rule and the cognitive demands imposed by cold climates.

Principal component analysis and ANOVA produced similar results. Height­increasing alleles are significantly more frequent among sub­Saharan Africans than among East Asians, with Europeans falling in the middle. This pattern inversely mirrors the one found by Piffer (2014) for alleles that enhance intellectual capacity, whose mean frequency is highest among East Asians, lower in Europeans, and lower still among sub-­Saharan Africans.

—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, [1] height might be inherently linked to intelligence because of straight-up larger brains, and [2] this is a HELL of a lot better than the "bigger dicks, smaller brains" theory some racialists still promote. As usual, it'd've been swell if Piffer got peer reviewed by unaffiliated geneticists, biologists, and statisticians beforehand. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really spotting anything obviously crazy content from the journal that jumps at me. @Reverend Black Percy claimed to have spotted a lot of moonbattery. Identifying pseudoscientific content is crucial.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Make Rationalwiki great again, since when did articles get completely rewritten over legal threats?

It seems if someone threatens to sue this website or take legal action against it, sysops here wet themselves, then make amendments to articles, in some cases completely destroying them.

In the last two days two racialist pseudo-scientist cranks showed up on their talk pages: Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and John Fuerst, threatening to take legal action. Sysops here now re-wrote their articles to their liking. Even pseudo-science has been removed from the article(s); so you cant now even call John Fuerst a pseudo-scientist in the opening paragraph/intro.

Both articles have been completely destroyed if you compare what they looked like very recent, to now.

In the case of Kirkegaard he's a sick freak who wrote a "compromise" for pedophiles is to rape children in their sleep and in his view this doesn't cause them any harm. This is clearly pedophilia apology, yet now that has been removed from his article or with a "citation needed".

Like I said, people here should just go through the old articles how they looked less than 24 hours ago in the case of Kirkegaard. Welliver (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

1: We've always rewritten articles in response to legal threats. Showing that the community actively revises pages is a helpful defense, if necessary.

2: These pages are only "destroyed" in that they stick exclusively to citeable content. If this is a downside for you, Goat help us.

3: The pages stick to more-neutral adjectives and let the words speak for themselves.

If you can find sources calling Kirkegaard or Fuerst pseudo-scientists, feel free to add them to the talkpages.

And though you don't say it, it's obvious you've a bias against this group of people. Please consider your bias when trying to form objective criticisms. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

See the RationalWiki guidelines, this is not anything new. I give real-life people the benefit of the doubt, despite of their really, really shitty opinions.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• RW lists racialism as a pseudo-science, and there is a racialism nav-box that says racialism is pseudo-science... So I find it strange you need actual citations/sources to call Fuerst or Kirkegaard as pseudo-scientists (?). They both openly identify as racialists or with "human biodiversity" (HBD). I don't need a source to call them pseudo-scientists when racialism is a pseudo-science; this would be like questioning whether creationism is a pseudo-science and requiring sources on articles, when none are needed.
• Everything I wrote was based on citations anyway. What I don't though do is play word-games where Fuerst denies being a white nationalist despite posting he is "sympathetic to white nationalism". Is there a difference? Furthermore, its clear from the citations he is a white nationalist since he supports anti-Semitic canards that Jews are behind "non-white immigration" to the US - this is sort of the stuff you read on Stormfront; Fuerst also links and rates white nationalist articles as "excellent" etc. Its also clear from the citations his mind-set is "whites" vs. "non-whites" hence his only opposition to immigration is "non=-whites"; typical white nationalist thinking. So like I said I'm not into word games and just prefer to call a spade a spade. There's also the fact very few, if any, white nationalists actually call themselves by this term.
• Fuerst is tying to pose as a legitimate scientist, when he's agenda driven and is just a white nationalist. Everyone who has debated him has come to the conclusion he's intellectually dishonest and a racist. None of his stuff is in genuine academic journals, but pseudo-journals. Furthermore, he appears like Kirkegaard to have no scientific qualifications; he says he has a "half" PhD, meaning he doesn't actually have one. Kirkegaard describes himself as a "polymath scientist" but only has a BA in linguistics, and all his papers like Fuerst, are published in pseudo-journals (two of them he set up and edits himself).Welliver (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

AS FCP stated before, you seen to have a grudge against these individuals. Aside from John Fuerst's opinions, Fuerst was sensible on what he found problematic and we were having a reasonable discussion (if he hadn't made a legal threat, he wouldn’t have been banned). You on ther other hand, treated the article's talkpage as a shitfest to give him the "fuck you". He didn't mind the inclusion of him being racist in the article because I showed evidence. As for labeling them as psuedo-scientists, this requires a lot of evidence to back it up. It's a strong label and not worth using on living people because of defamation. Keep in mind that these people are alive. Be nice.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not "defamation" if it is truth; a court will throw out a defamation case, with absolute exoneration for the defendant - if they can show what they have said is truthful. In a court it would be very easy to show everything written on Fuerst's and Kirkegaard's article is fact-based; they have no case:

• Fuerst: "I've suing you for defamation!, you called me a white nationalist! I'm not a white nationalist, I'm only sympathetic to white nationalism, recommend white nationalist literature and oppose non-white immigration into the US."
• Kirkegaard: "I've been libelled, since RationalWiki calls me a pedophilia apologist when I only support raping children in their sleep as a compromise for pedophiles, it won't hurt 3 year olds after all if they are anally penetrated; I also support legalising child porn. But if you dare call be a pedophilia apologist, I will sue you!."

You shouldn't be scared when these two clowns show up and make legal threats about "defamation". Welliver (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is strongly against you. Drop it. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

David, or another sysop put pseudo-science back in Kirkegaard's opening paragraph, so you might as well put in back in Fuerst's. By "consensus" you mean just you, and Cheeseburger. The latter has posted he is not competent to discuss racialism and so it appears he doesn't even know if it is pseudo-science. There is also the issue that either you, or Cheeseburger seem to not fully denounce or condemn the pedophilia apologetics of Kirkegaard, for example one of you disturbingly wrote this on his article: "Kirkegaard advocates legalising child pornography (not necessarily a problem in itself). I normal person wouldn't right this, its as if you think legalising child porn is acceptable. I say whoever wrote this comment is sick in the head. Welliver (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Every line is now cited. It was not before. If you want to make stronger articles, find citations for new content and post 'em on the talkpage. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have not been following this entire debate but on the article for Emil O. W. Kirkegaard it says "Kirkegaard advocates legalising child pornography" which is accurate because he does according to his comments but Rationalwiki then writes this is (not necessarily a problem in itself)". Well now... Wtf. Is this not supposed to be Rationalwiki? Are you guys saying legalising child porn is not a problem? Really? I am not impressed. Update Sorry didn't see Welliver's comment... I totally agree. 'Rational' wiki has messed up on this one. 172.252.127.239 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fair. The more important point is that Kirkegaard advocates far more than just child porn legalization. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not threatened to take legal action like some claim. I am in general critical of libel laws and would not use such even against people who post lies, distortions, mined quotes etc. about me online. As for harmful effects of child rape/sexual abuse (CSA), as stated above, you are incorrect about what my views are. To recap, I generally think that sexual assault is harmful to mental health and that properly done research shows this (e.g. this study). The compromise of which you speak was hypothetical thinking, common in moral philosophy. I do not and have never advocated anyone rape children or anyone else in their sleep. If you must know what I advocate, is it medical sterilization (forced if necessary) if pedophiles are unable to control themselves (e.g. get convicted for CSA). As for papers, it is not true that they are all published in 'pseudojournals' (in your view). I have a well-cited paper in Intelligence too, the most respected journal in this field, and have more on the way. Furthermore, I have given both a talk and a poster at ISIR, the main conference for this field of research. Lots of academics follow my work on Twitter and ResearchGate (including a large proportion of the world's experts in this field), hard to square with pseudoscientist label. Editing my own journals has no impact on ease of publication, as editors have no role in this. The editor's job is simply to post stuff that's gone through review on the site. -Emil --24.45.165.178 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have looked through your journal publications, and I have not found anything obviously psuedo-sciency as people make it out to be. As for the pedo blog post, from an outsider's perspective, it is quite revolting to read: "Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape." Aside from the non-traditional peer-review, a really bad point from a blog post, and some internet drama with OK Cupid, I challenge someone to find missional material, because I can’t find anything else. While Fuerst is a raging racist, I don't see any clear evidence from Kirkegaard that leads to this, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 02:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:CheeseburgerFace. It would be helpful if you or someone else could remove my block. I have never made any legal threats against this site. I have been made aware of this by a 3rd party, but it was NOT done by me and I didn't know about it when first posting on this talk page. This is the only page I have posted on for RationalWiki. There is no email I can find to email administrators to challenge this block despite the instructions. Quite peculiar to block people without asking them first???. I understand that with quotemining, one can make the pedophilia comment seem bad, but this is one part of a blogpost made 5 years ago on a topic I don't normally write about, and which was hypothetical in nature. -Emil ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.182.230.245 / talk / contribs}

this article is another RationalWiki "hit" piece

I contacted Emil today - and he did not post the legal threat on RationalWiki saloon. That was an impersonation, a sock of the same editor who wrote this article, originally as "Ben Stiegmans" which is yet another impersonation account. This entire article was designed to attack the character of the subject the full extant that the community will allow. There is a very familiar pattern happening with this article and the editors who created it. This is really not a wise path for RationalWiki to take, all that is happening is one lone nut editor with dozens of socks targets individuals, impersonates others, and then manipulates these communities to act on his own grudge. Then this same editor taunts the community "Make RationalWiki great again!" again through multiple socks.

Why does RationalWiki allow this? The proper thing to do would be to remove the article, and all articles created by this lone nut editor, and I am sure everyone knows who I am talking about. Heyguy (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

heyguy is a sock of banned user Rome Viharo. He has also been impersonating others. 166.88.193.139 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprising, but do you have proof? RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Its the crank Rome Viharo spreading misinformation and trying to create drama here, again. And the impersonations are always by him, that he then tries to pin on me, or others; I'm well familiar with his internet antics and his RW article logs his shenanigans. If someone actually bothers to look: the user "Ben Stiegmans" has zero actual contributions to the article since the article was re-written by two sysops. So where is the "hit piece"? Oops... I also said "Welliver" was a temporary account for editing on separate IP I don't own (since I was editing from a different location.), hence "Once I get back home in a few days I will edit from my public IP" -- as I am now. I don't own sock-puppets, that's more lies from Viharo who actually is the user with dozens of banned socks and who shows up on a new account every month trying to cause trouble. Viharo above claims to have "contacted Emil today", hence I already see Emil attacking me on twitter. This is Viharo's main MO, he tries to side with people to attack me - he's been cyberstalking for the past 2 years. And a final point: this article was inactive for well over a year. Why all the drama now? Suddenly all these people show up. If they had really cared about their RW pages and thought they were being "defamed" they would have should up over 500 days ago. We never heard anything in all that time. This Emil person has only showed up now because Viharo impersonated him then emailed him. This fool has been tricked and now blames me for the impersonation, along with some other wild allegations on his twitter. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

86 sorry you have been abused by Rome. Rome Viharo (heyguy) is now working with pedophile/racist Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (check Emil's twitter where he confirms they are in email communication), Viharo is an internet troll with a notorious criminal internet history who has been impersonating Emil and others on this website and blaming it on someone called "Krom". I recommended the admins he ban heyguy and Rome's other socks. 166.88.123.190 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

he hasn't been abused by anyone - he is just exposed for his disgusting, disturbing online activity. He is also manipulating you - so I recommend applying some good old fashioned skepticism to everything he posts. Heyguy (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Heyguy (Viharo) is working with pedo/racist Emil and is creating sock accounts and trying to delete content on this page. Can an admin lock this page? 166.88.123.46 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks. but who are you? Suddenly all these fishy IP or accounts show up with Viharo's drama. Someone just got blocked on the racialism talk for even trying to dox and smear me. The weirdest thing is Viharo claims to be a "progressive" anti-racist, but he is now siding/defending white nationalists and racists, just in order to attack me! 86.14.2.77 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You are all morons, why do you care what Emil O. W. Kirkegaard thinks? He is a white racist who advocates child rape, he has no credibility at all. Antifa Ireland (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP addresses and accounts used here are all mainly just one person who has a very very nasty history of stalking and impersonations, specifically attacking his targets often as pedophiles. This person stalks Viharo along with many others. His compulsive lying and obsession with people who cross him on the internet are aspects of a clear mental illness. Heyguy (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have worked with Emil and will continue to close Rationalwiki down. David Gerard will be taken to court. Heyguy 4 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You have 24 hours

I will sue and take CheeseburgerFace and David Gerard to court for writing a Rationalwiki about me that has lost me business clients. I will no longer tolerate it. Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)‎

I am Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. I did not make the above edit. I did not and will not pursue any legal action towards this site. I support internet sites' freedom to criticize people for whatever reason, including myself. I generally oppose libel laws. The above edit was an impersonation. Proof of this post's identity will follow on Twitter. -Emil ^{— Unsigned, by: 107.182.231.6 / talk / contribs}

This is link to Emil's certification:[1] Bongolian (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Emil do you parents know about your paedophilic comments? Why do they think about it? You wrote "Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape." Have you slept with children yourself Emil? Are you known to the police? I do not approve of your vile comments. 166.88.123.112 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve the article

I briefly edited the article to give the same treatment as John Fuerst. Kirkegaard is less obvious about his BS, but I can spot bread crumbs. He also seems to have deleted some blog entries in the past.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Some improvement was made to the John Fuerst article. A few more changes are warranted. The "is NOT a racist" is clever. My concern is with inaccurate statements, not cheeky wording. Regarding the wording, if editors are going to include commentary on quoted statements, they should ensure that the summary of views is more or less accurate (i.e., Fuerst things ... A reasonably accurate summary). In some cases, this currently is not the case, for example:

1. "Fuerst claims that non-whites are being set up by minorities to look evil. It's because of evil invaders that whites look bad. This is true because Fuerst is NOT a racist."

No. The view is that the German liberal establishment's reaction to native German complaints about unfettered immigration and associated problems more or less accords with Lawrence Auster's "First Law of Majority-Minority relations in a Liberal Society," according to which "any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority." In this case, the original article being discussed was: http://www.unz.com/isteve/okay/

"Cologne sex attacks ‘require police rethink'"

"Police in Germany will have to rethink their tactics following attacks on women in the city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve, a senior official has said... Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, said police had to “adjust” to the fact that groups of men had attacked women en masse...Mr Jaeger also warned that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees."

There was no claim about "non-whites" "being set up by minorities to look evil" or about "evil invaders" making "whites look bad". Rather, the claim was that this, the Cologne sex attack situation, was an example of liberal establishments covering up minority problems and insinuating that complaints by majorities are not reasonable but are made "to stir up hatred" (and thus are evil).

2. "Fuerst thinks a group composed mainly of Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration" to US, an Israeli lobby controls the Republican Party who are "moral signalling" against "white Christian" America, but that Trump is a not a part of the "Jewish Coalition".[3] Trump is a true American patriot who will make America great again. This is true because Fuerst is NOT a racist."

No, and the mistakes with this summary are particularly egregious. The statement was: "the founders of "neoconservatism" were primarily jewish leftists"; the [current] jewish [and e.g., not Catholic] element [of neoconservatism] explains why they [neoconservatives] are hostile to all forms of (American) populism and nationalism; "Trump is dangerous to them [neoconservates] because he is a genuine American patriot [i.e., populist and nationalist], who isn't indebted to Republican Jewish Coalition/Israel lobby." And, separately: "neoconservatives [who are made up of a number of groups]: wars for Jewish nationalism (Israel) while a war against a coherent American nation, tax cuts for mostly progressive billionaires while open borders to keep wages down, dog whistling to while moral signaling against a mostly White Christian base."

While the wording was perhaps crude, I don't disagree with the general points. But what I said was not:

"a group composed mainly of Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration"

"an Israeli lobby controls the Republican Party" the Republican Party is moral "signalling" against "white Christian" America "Trump is a true American patriot who will make America great again."

Too much is being read into the original statements. And the first sentence of the summary does not make sense at all. Neither neoconservates nor the republican party are "composed mainly of Jews". Neoconservatives, the intellectual movement, not the Republican Party, do the "moral signalling" against their base. The US Israeli lobby, which is not synonymous with the Jewish element of Neoconservatism, controls neither the republican or the democratic party but rather influences both of them, etc.

You are making my view sound much more dumb than it is/was.

3. "This is NOT a racist statement because it's just simple fact that whites are smarter than blacks, DUH."

Since the qualifier, "on average" (as opposed to "all" or "some") is made in the previous comments, and thus implicit in this, and since the veracity and meaning of the statement turns on the particular implicit qualifier used, one reasonably should be added.

4. From what I can tell, repeating "To be blunt, Fuerst is an intellectually dishonest racist" at the end rationalwiki is still repeating defamation. I don't think adding "Jonathan Kaplan displays a strong opinion against Fuerst" alters this point. I will have to check into this, though.

Anyways, I am not sure how well the editors knew that some of the statements were false/misleading. The original creator of the page noted he created the page "to warn the internet about these people": "I debated John Fuerst (a neo-Nazi/white nationalist) who Kirkegaard has published in his pseudo-journal on the OpenPsych forum - it ran to about twenty or more pages. Also, I created both their entries at Rationalwiki to warn the internet about these people." That he did this soon after I dismantled his silly arguments in a discussion is suggestive of spite, but I guess he could have been deluded. If he looked me up, as he seems to have, he would have seen that I married a mainland Chinese girl (in 2009), the knowledge of which -- along with the fact that many of my research colleagues are African, Jewish, or Asian -- should have given pause to the idea that I was literally -- or at least committedly -- a "neo-Nazi/white nationalist" posting on "neo-Nazi/white nationalist" sites across the internet (or whatever the precise claim was).

Of course, and I am trying to be as reasonable here as possible, if someone mostly posts about race differences, one might suspect, human nature as it is, that he has some nefarious racial agenda -- and doesn't have instead e.g., an obsessive personality which leads him to fixate on taboo-ish topics. Who knows? Anyways, I want to make it clear to the editors that the original idea of the rationalwiki page, created in the form it was, was misguiding, and also make it clear to third parties that further false, defamatory, misleading statements or a failure to remove such -- which I don't expect to happen -- should, now with the situation clarified, reasonably be interpreted as reckless disregard, etc.--Maybe"Chuck" (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy

This section is odd. The quote I posted is a real reply from researchers in control of a large genomic dataset. I have removed their names for privacy reasons, but if a reputable sysadmin wants to confirm its veracity, I can forward the original on the condition that it remains private. Obviously, it is not my intention to harm the researchers by association with me or evidence that they essentially try to hide data to avoid causing a scandal. --EmilOWK (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

The article currently states incorrect things about OpenPsych peer review, namely that it doesn't exist. This is patently false as anyone can quickly ascertain by browsing the forum. For instance, here's the review thread for a recent publication (Carl, 2017). Reviewing took a total of 43 days, which is short-ish by academic standards, but not quite as fast as the fake pay-to-publish journals. It depends on how fast reviewers and the authors are. Usually authors take a week or more to submit revisions. As one can tell by actually reading some reviews, the reviewing part is quite ordinary with reviewers making various requests for changes and authors debating them and revising their papers until reviewers agree they are ready. As such, the description given in the text is far off the mark and furthermore unsourced. BLP applies here, but of course I won't edit my own page due to NPOV. As for the authorship rates, these are correct as far as I know. I am quite productive and this is reflected in the numbers. --EmilOWK (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't exist here, we're not Wikipedia. It's still a good idea not to edit your own article though. Christopher (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, I would like to avoid any NPOV attacks, so I will still refrain from editing it. However, I will add content to this talk page, I'm assuming that is okay. --EmilOWK (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"One of the questions is "Should sex with someone 16 years old be a jailable offense[?]" He tried to see if there was a correlation with the answers to IQ — there was none."

This sentence is currently in the page, but both citations given for it are irrelevant as far as I can tell. I don't recall looking at this specifically, but I did skim all the 2500 generated plots and might have posted that figure somewhere (I published all the figures in the study's supplementary materials). In general, data shows that pedophiles are below average in intelligence (Blanchard et al 2007), as one would expect from media accounts (usually low social class). Interestingly, there seems to be a dose-response relationship such that those interested in he youngest children (pedophiles) are duller than those interested in the early and later teenagers (hebephiles/ephebophiles). Age of consent makes it legal to have sex with 16 year olds in a very large number of world jurisdictions (see Wikipedia), including every European country except for Ireland (where it is 17). As such, one probably has to be an American to find that question disturbing. --EmilOWK (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Important note here. In Kirkegaard's country, the age of consent is 15 years old. So the question is asking if the individual thinks the age of consent should be raised, not lowered.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 20:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

While true for Denmark, almost all the responses given on this website (OKCupid) are from English-speaking countries, especially USA and Canada. As such, interpretation of raised vs. lowered vs. kept the same are not so straightforward -- one has to compare to the country of the respondent (and the state for some countries!). I did not conduct any such analysis. By the way, the age of consent varies by US state from 16 to 18 (Wikipedia), and for Canada, it is 16. --EmilOWK (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Interestingly, Kirkegaard narrowly defines pedophilia as adult-prepubescent sex, which excludes teens who're still under the age of consent."

There is nothing particularly interesting about this. As Blanchard et al 2007 note:

The term pedophilia may be defined as the erotic orientation of persons whose sexual attraction to prepubescent children exceeds their sexual attraction to pubescent or physically mature persons (Freund 1981). Similarly, the term hebephilia (Glueck 1955) refers to persons who are most attracted to pubescent children, and the term teleiophilia (Blanchard et al. 2000), to persons who are most attracted to physically mature adults. Although most authorities are careful to define pedophilia in terms of erotic interest in prepubescent children (e.g., DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association 2000), the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia is somewhat artificial. Many child molesters—sometimes called pedohebephiles (Freund et al. 1972)—approach both prepubescent and pubescent children. Such patterns of offending correspond with the realities of physical maturation. The external body shape changes gradually and continuously from childhood though puberty, adolescence, and maturity. Even the single most discrete, watershed event in either sex—menarche in females—produces no abrupt change in the individual’s outward appearance.

This article is not particularly unusual in its use of these terms, as can be seen by reading Wikipedia and searching for the terms on Google Scholar. The current text makes it seem like I made up/cherry-picked some especially narrow definition for nefarious purposes, while in actual fact I'm using the most common definition. --EmilOWK (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The section on ephebophilia in the manosphere seems to point to the implication. Basically, what that section is saying is that you point to pedophilia being wrong but not hebephilia (11–14 years) and ephebophilia (15–19 years of age), therefore, you technically advocate underage sex; however, the latter term is irrelevant because in your country, the age of consent is low as fuck; it's 15.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't generally read MRA stuff, so I don't know what they read or write. You are mistaken. By stating that I support keeping pedophilia illegal, I do not thereby support or oppose some other policy that was not mentioned. This is an implicature related fallacy. Again, age of consent of 15 is quite normal: Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Czech, France have this. Germany, Austria, Italy, Portal has 14. It seems to me that you are applying some 18-year old default assumption and regarding other ages as questionable/suggestive of pedophilia advocacy, whereas this age of consent is uncommon in any other Western country but the USA (some states). By the way, I note that the section you link to has 0 citations. --EmilOWK (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"claiming that the data was already public."

All these data are available to anyone who makes a free user and answers the questions. This to my mind means they are public. The site's terms of service includes:

You should appreciate that all information submitted on the Website might potentially be publicly accessible. Important and private information should be protected by you. We are not responsible for protecting, nor are we liable for failing to protect, the privacy of electronic mail or other information transferred through the Internet or any other network that you may utilize. See Humor Rainbow’s privacy policy for more information regarding privacy. The privacy policy is incorporated into and a part of these Terms of Use.

By simply writing that I claim something, it is left open to interpretation that these data were not actually open to the public, or that maybe I somehow sinisterly acquired them (e.g. various claims of hacking in the media). While one can debate the grey zones of scraping (courts frequently do this), the current phrasing is misleading. It would be better to note what kind of information was in the data we released i.e. usernames (pseudonyms), age, sex/gender, city, country (but no profile picture or profile text). Of course, since the data were a subset of the data on the website, whatever doxxing can happen in this way must be a subset of the doxxing that can happen via the website itself. The usual complaints about Iran using them to find gays to persecute makes no sense, as Iran would just go on the website proper and search for gays in Iran, including full photos etc. --EmilOWK (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

He's alt right

the fuss when he showed up here trying to present himself as something he's not.

when all you had to do is look on his facebook to see him post alt right memes, praise trump, and in his own words describe alt right promotional videos as "really nice".

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=35d9oqo&s=9 http://archive.is/mcXcD

He also spends his time on reddit and his blog criticizing miscegenation-

"is miscegenation bad for your kids" https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/62q8n2/is_miscegenation_bad_for_your_kids/ Skeptical (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Outrageous slandering

The entire article is a hitpiece written by an SJW, even edits are being made with someone with "ANTIFA" in their name, and on another socialist pro-Obama political boxes. These articles are smear jobs written by left-wing political opponents, can you not see that?Topseudoscience (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This may sound harsh but prove it. Prove that the statements made in the articles you object to are false. GrammarCommie (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

is this guy an actual pedophile?

Wow, I showed up to defend Emil, but then realised he wrote a very sick essay on his website defending child rape. He looks like an actual pedophile. shocking. I will no longer defend him.RationalP2 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He is obsessed with trying to lower the age of consent, he is not happy with 18 in some countries. He seems to be happy with 13 or 14. I honestly do think this guy is a pedo as well. His views are not accepted by the majority of people. Dan Grimy (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

On pedophile apologism

Has anyone here actually read the pedophile article, or the added disclaimer at the top after he was labeled a "pedophilia apologist"?

From article:

If one is a moral being, then one will avoid actually raping children.

From added disclaimer:

The main idea of this post should be obvious to anyone who has studied ethics/meta-ethics: it’s a straightforward application of utilitarianism to a hot issue. Given that some people are pedophiles, what is the best way to reduce the amount of problems this causes? This discussion is no different from Peter Singer’s other candid discussions of similar taboo topics, e.g. in Practical Ethics."

The whole article is crutched in this very concession: Yes, it is immoral to rape children. Full stop. There's no pedophilia apologism at work.

But, given pedophiles exist, and more, that they do not seem curable [see current hypothesis regarding sexual preference], what strategies should we employ to mitigate suffering? Those who aren't philosophically trained are likely to be shocked by Emil's considerations, but he's merely exploring ways to minimize suffering within the reality of living with pedophiles. People who are willing to engage in this sort of frank discussion need to be supported, not blacklisted.^{— Unsigned, by: Shameless / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Also, add new topics in a new section rather than continuing the last (this is only tangentially related to the above troll's comments in that they both mention pedophilia). You can do this by putting two equals signs (== like this ==) around your topic. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 03:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Shameless, he added that disclaimer after he was called a pedophile. His original article comment was:

Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont[sic] notice it is difficult to see how they cud[sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.

He thinks a sleeping child will not be harmed if a pedophile rapes them. Emil clearly has some disturbing and warped views. He also defends the rights of pedophiles in old twitter posts. Dan Grimy (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard was a former neo-Nazi

Kirkegaard was a neo-Nazi supporter in 2012-2013. There is a photograph of him here with a friend saluting [2], this was covered on an Antifa blog:

Emil Kirkegaard, has access to questions about racism and nazism, as you may only find, yes, Nazi groups. At the Pirate Party's forum he writes "If one's immigration consists primarily of low intelligent people, then it will be very, very expensive for the country. And that's exactly what we see in the western countries now." Both Emil Kirkegaard and several other party activists defend cooperation with the Danish party.

At the same time, Emil Kirkegaard's Facebook can see a photo where an unknown person is in the background, while Emil Kirkegaard is smiling at the camera. Emil Kirkegaard's comment reads: "There will be a heir to the driver".

Which describes Emil as a Nazi sympathizer. [3]

Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard, smiling next to someone doing a Nazi salute

Dr. Witt (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny how he tried to reinvent himself in recent years. Problem is once a Nazi, always a Nazi. Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

especially since all he does is obsess over "race and IQ" and other crank/fringe-topics only white nationalists/Nazis care about.Dr. Witt (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! There's no denying that Kirkegaard is part of the alt-right now. Good job guys, nice evidence.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not strictly true that only Nazis care about "race and IQ". Two examples that immediately occur to me are the HBD blogger JayMan and myself - we are both social democrats. And JayMan is mixed-race, by the way (if you don't believe that, he's posted photos of his mixed-race child).--Greenrd (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

JayMan is alt-right, just view his twitter to see all the signs of this. Alt-right is a broad movement with two factions: one Nazi/white nationalist, the other civic nationalist, so called "alt-light". Both though share a lot in common: they both are obsessed with opposing "sjw's" (like Jayman), oppose feminism, argue academia is "cultural Marxist" etc. Regardless, Jayman is a pseudoscientist and crank, his views on "race and iq" are equivalent to creationism. Nick Lowles Fan (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He's not only not alt-right, he's not even on the right! See here. You can't reliably determine whether someone is left or right based on their opinions on alleged/actual cases of racism or sexism. Some other examples of people on the left who are, to some extent at least, opposed to political correctness on issues of race or sex can be found at our page on the "realist left".--Greenrd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Him being a racist doesn't necessarily mean he's right-wing politically, but if somebody associates with and holds non-economic views that are largely similar to those of the alt-right (i.e. racialism, eugenics, etc.), then they can be categorized as alt-right. Hitler wasn't right-wing economically (at least, he opposed capitalism on paper), yet he's generally considered far-right, and the alt-right is basically defined by having similar views to him. $Spriggina$ $(talk)$ $(contribs)$ @ 21:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any photographs of JayMan? Didn't he used to pretend to be black, but then admitted to being mixed-race? It may be a tactic he is using to try and hide his racialist views. Ryan Faulk who has supported white nationalism came out and claimed to be "1/16th Negro". Asian dude (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He prefers to remain anonymous, for fairly obvious reasons, so I don't think you will be able to find any photographs of him - but as I already said, he posted photos of his child - actually, of both of his children. He is mixed black-white-asian, so, according to the implicit rules of racial self-categorisation that exist in the United States, it would not have been incorrect of him to say that he was black.--Greenrd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New articles that exposes Emil O. W. Kirkegaard as a racist attending Eugenics conference

"A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal."

Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as ‘Is miscegenation bad for your kids?’ and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy. His Facebook features alt-right ‘promotional videos’ and once featured a friend’s Nazi salute with the caption ‘There will be an heir to the Führer.’ By far the most disturbing of part of Kirkegaard’s internet presence, however, is a blog-post in which he justifies child rape.

Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links

Asian dude (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also other links that cover this, [4], [5] featuring Emil. Asian dude (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

From the Telegraph:

Speakers who have attended include researcher Emil Kirkegaard, who previously wrote that a “compromise” for child pornography would be for paedophiles to have “sex with a sleeping child without them knowing”.

In a blog published on his personal website in 2012, Mr Kirkegaard wrote: “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself.”

“If they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”

UCL launches 'eugenics' probe after it emerges academic held controversial conference for three years on campus Asian dude (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The coverage of this is pretty big. Emil is also mentioned in the Guardian newspaper [6] and Newsweek [7]. Asian dude (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet to see this guy get some dirt on him. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

David Lammy, British Labour MP comments on Emil [8] "I don't think that anybody who attends a 'secret eugenics conference' attended by someone who advocates the rape of children should be a) working in education at all b) in charge of schools c) running an education charity that takes money from the taxpayer." 77.245.65.2 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Very big coverage! Someone may want to create an article on the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI). Another article that mentions Emil is here "Toby Young spoke alongside Nazi who argues raping unconscious children is fine" [9] AstroPhysics (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Interesting to see some even more undeniable evidence this guy is a racist piece of shit. I can't believe I tried defending him at one point. Fuck this guy.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Patience is a virtue when attempting to nail down crypto-Nazis. Comrade GC (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: Today I learned what crypto means as a prefix for ideologies. We should have an article dedicated to this. What should the article be called? "Crypto-*"? (The asterisk is a BASH thing.)—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Wikipedia has a category on the subject called "Crypto-Politics" so I suppose that would work in a pinch. Comrade GC (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Toby Young and Emil Kirkegaard

What I find interesting is that Toby Young attended another conference that Kirkegaard had also attended, this was the 18th Annual meeting of ISIR, unrelated to the controversial eugenics conference but one about intelligence. Asian dude (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not terribly surprising - they are both interested in intelligence and eugenics, though Kirkegaard is interested as a "pro-am" researcher and blogger, and Young as a journalist, commentator and as an education professional.--Greenrd (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Another recent article that covers Kirkegaard and Young [10] Asian dude (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

is this guy an actual pedophile?

Wow, I showed up to defend Emil, but then realised he wrote a very sick essay on his website defending child rape. He looks like an actual pedophile. shocking. I will no longer defend him.RationalP2 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He is obsessed with trying to lower the age of consent, he is not happy with 18 in some countries. He seems to be happy with 13 or 14. I honestly do think this guy is a pedo as well. His views are not accepted by the majority of people. Dan Grimy (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

On pedophile apologism

Has anyone here actually read the pedophile article, or the added disclaimer at the top after he was labeled a "pedophilia apologist"?

From article:

If one is a moral being, then one will avoid actually raping children.

From added disclaimer:

The main idea of this post should be obvious to anyone who has studied ethics/meta-ethics: it’s a straightforward application of utilitarianism to a hot issue. Given that some people are pedophiles, what is the best way to reduce the amount of problems this causes? This discussion is no different from Peter Singer’s other candid discussions of similar taboo topics, e.g. in Practical Ethics."

The whole article is crutched in this very concession: Yes, it is immoral to rape children. Full stop. There's no pedophilia apologism at work.

But, given pedophiles exist, and more, that they do not seem curable [see current hypothesis regarding sexual preference], what strategies should we employ to mitigate suffering? Those who aren't philosophically trained are likely to be shocked by Emil's considerations, but he's merely exploring ways to minimize suffering within the reality of living with pedophiles. People who are willing to engage in this sort of frank discussion need to be supported, not blacklisted.^{— Unsigned, by: Shameless / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Also, add new topics in a new section rather than continuing the last (this is only tangentially related to the above troll's comments in that they both mention pedophilia). You can do this by putting two equals signs (== like this ==) around your topic. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 03:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Shameless, he added that disclaimer after he was called a pedophile. His original article comment was:

Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont[sic] notice it is difficult to see how they cud[sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.

He thinks a sleeping child will not be harmed if a pedophile rapes them. Emil clearly has some disturbing and warped views. He also defends the rights of pedophiles in old twitter posts. Dan Grimy (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard was a former neo-Nazi

Kirkegaard was a neo-Nazi supporter in 2012-2013. There is a photograph of him here with a friend saluting [11], this was covered on an Antifa blog:

Emil Kirkegaard, has access to questions about racism and nazism, as you may only find, yes, Nazi groups. At the Pirate Party's forum he writes "If one's immigration consists primarily of low intelligent people, then it will be very, very expensive for the country. And that's exactly what we see in the western countries now." Both Emil Kirkegaard and several other party activists defend cooperation with the Danish party.

At the same time, Emil Kirkegaard's Facebook can see a photo where an unknown person is in the background, while Emil Kirkegaard is smiling at the camera. Emil Kirkegaard's comment reads: "There will be a heir to the driver".

Which describes Emil as a Nazi sympathizer. [12]

Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard, smiling next to someone doing a Nazi salute

Dr. Witt (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny how he tried to reinvent himself in recent years. Problem is once a Nazi, always a Nazi. Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

especially since all he does is obsess over "race and IQ" and other crank/fringe-topics only white nationalists/Nazis care about.Dr. Witt (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! There's no denying that Kirkegaard is part of the alt-right now. Good job guys, nice evidence.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not strictly true that only Nazis care about "race and IQ". Two examples that immediately occur to me are the HBD blogger JayMan and myself - we are both social democrats. And JayMan is mixed-race, by the way (if you don't believe that, he's posted photos of his mixed-race child).--Greenrd (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

JayMan is alt-right, just view his twitter to see all the signs of this. Alt-right is a broad movement with two factions: one Nazi/white nationalist, the other civic nationalist, so called "alt-light". Both though share a lot in common: they both are obsessed with opposing "sjw's" (like Jayman), oppose feminism, argue academia is "cultural Marxist" etc. Regardless, Jayman is a pseudoscientist and crank, his views on "race and iq" are equivalent to creationism. Nick Lowles Fan (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He's not only not alt-right, he's not even on the right! See here. You can't reliably determine whether someone is left or right based on their opinions on alleged/actual cases of racism or sexism. Some other examples of people on the left who are, to some extent at least, opposed to political correctness on issues of race or sex can be found at our page on the "realist left".--Greenrd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Him being a racist doesn't necessarily mean he's right-wing politically, but if somebody associates with and holds non-economic views that are largely similar to those of the alt-right (i.e. racialism, eugenics, etc.), then they can be categorized as alt-right. Hitler wasn't right-wing economically (at least, he opposed capitalism on paper), yet he's generally considered far-right, and the alt-right is basically defined by having similar views to him. $Spriggina$ $(talk)$ $(contribs)$ @ 21:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any photographs of JayMan? Didn't he used to pretend to be black, but then admitted to being mixed-race? It may be a tactic he is using to try and hide his racialist views. Ryan Faulk who has supported white nationalism came out and claimed to be "1/16th Negro". Asian dude (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He prefers to remain anonymous, for fairly obvious reasons, so I don't think you will be able to find any photographs of him - but as I already said, he posted photos of his child - actually, of both of his children. He is mixed black-white-asian, so, according to the implicit rules of racial self-categorisation that exist in the United States, it would not have been incorrect of him to say that he was black.--Greenrd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New articles that exposes Emil O. W. Kirkegaard as a racist attending Eugenics conference

"A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal."

Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as ‘Is miscegenation bad for your kids?’ and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy. His Facebook features alt-right ‘promotional videos’ and once featured a friend’s Nazi salute with the caption ‘There will be an heir to the Führer.’ By far the most disturbing of part of Kirkegaard’s internet presence, however, is a blog-post in which he justifies child rape.

Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links

Asian dude (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also other links that cover this, [13], [14] featuring Emil. Asian dude (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

From the Telegraph:

Speakers who have attended include researcher Emil Kirkegaard, who previously wrote that a “compromise” for child pornography would be for paedophiles to have “sex with a sleeping child without them knowing”.

In a blog published on his personal website in 2012, Mr Kirkegaard wrote: “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself.”

“If they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”

UCL launches 'eugenics' probe after it emerges academic held controversial conference for three years on campus Asian dude (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The coverage of this is pretty big. Emil is also mentioned in the Guardian newspaper [15] and Newsweek [16]. Asian dude (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet to see this guy get some dirt on him. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

David Lammy, British Labour MP comments on Emil [17] "I don't think that anybody who attends a 'secret eugenics conference' attended by someone who advocates the rape of children should be a) working in education at all b) in charge of schools c) running an education charity that takes money from the taxpayer." 77.245.65.2 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Very big coverage! Someone may want to create an article on the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI). Another article that mentions Emil is here "Toby Young spoke alongside Nazi who argues raping unconscious children is fine" [18] AstroPhysics (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Interesting to see some even more undeniable evidence this guy is a racist piece of shit. I can't believe I tried defending him at one point. Fuck this guy.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Patience is a virtue when attempting to nail down crypto-Nazis. Comrade GC (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: Today I learned what crypto means as a prefix for ideologies. We should have an article dedicated to this. What should the article be called? "Crypto-*"? (The asterisk is a BASH thing.)—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Wikipedia has a category on the subject called "Crypto-Politics" so I suppose that would work in a pinch. Comrade GC (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Toby Young and Emil Kirkegaard

What I find interesting is that Toby Young attended another conference that Kirkegaard had also attended, this was the 18th Annual meeting of ISIR, unrelated to the controversial eugenics conference but one about intelligence. Asian dude (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not terribly surprising - they are both interested in intelligence and eugenics, though Kirkegaard is interested as a "pro-am" researcher and blogger, and Young as a journalist, commentator and as an education professional.--Greenrd (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Another recent article that covers Kirkegaard and Young [19] Asian dude (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please prevent this guy speaking in Edinburgh in July (ISIR Conference)

Kirkegaard is likely to attend and speak at the 19th Annual ISIR Conference: Edinburgh, 2018: July 13-15

Contact and leave a complaint on the ISIR website here.

Comment I left:

Hi,

Having checked the last conference speakers, I noticed Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst attended.

Both Kirkegaard and Fuerst are white supremacists/neo-Nazis.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Fuerst

Will you take the appropriate action to block Kirkegaard or Fuerst attending the 2018 conference?

Recently, the London Conference on Intelligence was suspended since Kirkegaard and other white supremacists had attended and this was reported by the media and newspapers:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/London_Conference_on_Intelligence

Can you confirm, you will not let Fuerst or Kirkegaard attend? If you allow them to attend, I'm sure there will be a public backlash like the London Conference on Intelligence.

Regards.

EvilGremlin (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Emil kirkegaard claims every single editor on his article is Oliver Smith

A rather bizarre allegation: http://archive.is/Ir18b

Like 90% of the accounts he lists are not mine and he provides no evidence I'm any of these users. For example "igobymanynames"/"Skeptical"/"Antifa Ireland"/Dinocrisis etc I've never edited or posted on. Basically he's looked at the history of the Emil Kirkegaard article, sees it has about 25 editors over past years, now says I'm all of them, when I;m not.

He then makes up falsehoods about me, ranging from living on government benefits, having mental illness I don't have. Also lies about my sexuality and just about everything else.

A nasty piece of work to say the least. The smear article he wrote on me was because he blames me for the press coverage exposing him as a neo-Nazi & child rape apologist.ODS (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"I stand by this action, as I don’t see any reason to protect the privacy of harassers. Rather, they should be doxxed if possible."

Fucking asshole. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 04:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I too suspected that there's some socks going around, but there's nothing factually wrong with the edits though. Plus, there's no way to prove that the editors are socks. However, doxing is going waaaay too far.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 05:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yea, but I own a tiny fraction of the accounts Kirkegaard lists. I created and edited the article in February 2016, then returned in August 2017. None of the users editing between that time were me, nor are all the editors currently. Only reason I returned - is because Kirkegaard & Fuerst showed up that month, doxxing me, that resulted in their bans. Kirkegaard/Fuerst were unaware of my real name throughout 2016 and early 2017:

A tale of two tweets...

https://twitter.com/kirkegaardemil/status/702679429953294336 Feb 2016: "anonymous"

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/900953498795229185 Aug 2017: "oliver smith"

So Kirkegaard was digitally stalking me between those dates trying to find out who I was and eventually found my identity in August 2017, doxxing me on Twitter, Reddit and RationalWiki; he got banned from two subReddits he doxed me.ODS (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "RationalWiki and Oliver Smith" section

It's a bit too introspective. We care about the woo and nonsense he says, not Internet drama. Also, fite me.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. The 'drama' now got picked up by Encylopedia Dramatica. I won't post the link but they now have an article on him. The ED article also points out Kirkegaard has been stalking a man named Oliver Keyes.ODS (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&curid=180391&diff=1940585&oldid=1938620#cite_ref-21

What's Kirkegaard's website listed in the diagram here: https://archive.fo/WFZ1D —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not listed, so he links to his website. In that Tweet though he is classifying his blog as alt-right.

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/statuses/921798884699131906

We need more tweets like this as evidence since kirkegaard is a dirty liar who tries to pretend he isn't alt-right. He's made slip-ups.MrsBlintz (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Emil+O.+W.+Kirkegaard Anatoly Karlin:

We seem to be doing pretty well, if SimilarWeb stats are anything to go by. The Unz Review is clearly the dominant website amongst the "Intellectual Dissident Right" (we are far ahead of VDARE

And kirkegaards reply:

My stats are inflated by the hosted PDFs. Since I don’t keep detailed stats logs, I can’t give those just for the blog (English) without PDFs.

MrsBlintz (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lol

Look at replies on this tweet: https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/949309843743150080

Kirkegaard's name is pretty toxic on Twitter.MrsBlintz (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Kirkegaard retweets an anti-feminist tweet

Wow

Just a reminder that, according to the US National Labor Relations Board, disputing the feminist explanation for occupational gender gaps constitutes sexual harassment, and is legitimate grounds for firing a person from their job. Cc @JamesADamore

—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, he retweeted this.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hollywood Jews

Does the term "Hollywood Jew" have anti-semetic implications because Kirkegaard used the term. Looking up the term gives me top results for jew watch and other anti-Semitic websites.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Kirkegaard watches his article here. He checks it often and has become obsessed with its editors, trying to dox them. https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1013677929052758016 Laughably he still denies being alt-right when he clearly is.209.95.53.223 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

yea, "Hollywood jew" has anti-Semitic connotations. You can find more anti-Semitism in Kirkegaard's tweets. Also remember in 2012 he uploaded a photo of himself next to someone performing the Nazi salute while writing pro-hitler comments. 209.95.53.223 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

http://projektantifa.dk/2013/06/07/article-nazisympatier-i-piratpartiet/ This article appeared on a Danish anti-fascist website in 2013 and documents Kirkegaard's links at the time to neo-Nazi and other far-right groups, as well as racist comments he made on a forum, and the Nazi salute photo. If someone dug up more Kirkegaard's internet history on those Danish forums, I'm sure they would find plenty of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately the article doesn't link to the forums Kirkegaard posted on.209.95.53.223 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard has attended ISIR 2018 in Edinburgh

Emil Kirkegaard has attended the International Society for Intelligence Research meeting 2018 in Edinburgh [20]. He has given a speech at the 19TH ANNUAL MEETING OF ISIR: Edinburgh 2018. His talk was "Is national mental sport ability a sign of intelligence? An analysis of the top players of 12 mental sports" and seems to be racist claptrap taken from sources such as his buddy Richard Lynn.

ISIR seem to be unware about Kirkegaard's racism. They have not done background checks on their speakers. James Thompson has also attended this event. Racists and white supremacists are now attending the ISIR annual meeting, since the London Conference on Intelligence was banned. I am surprised no newspapers have (yet) picked up on this. Antifa activist (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The full list of speakers [21], racist Michael A. Woodley of Menie is also giving a talk. Antifa activist (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Antifa and the SJWs failed. The conference went ahead.Emil Kirkegaard (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

racism

Kirkegaard appears to confess to being a racist in some recent tweets:

“”Well, they have literally redefined the word so that racism is an empirical claim that's true in moderate form.

— Twitter

Here kirkegaard also defends racism.

“”It's reverse skin in the game, actually. If they don't publish more PC findings, or publish unPC findings, they risk their career. The incentive is towards PC findings. If truth is racist, and you can't publish racist stuff, then you can't publish true stuff about these matters.

—Twitter

In a recent interview, the alt-righter Ryan Faulk says this about Kirkegaard:

“”People like Emil Kirkegaard and Sean Last know many more racial hate facts than me. I think I’m the best presenter of such facts though, although maybe J. F. is.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/07/interview-with-ryan-faulk/ https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1020817182173917184 MrSheen (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Impersonations

I've been informed that the recent vandal accounts: Emil Kirkegaard, Emil Kirkegaard 3, [22] etc, are not the real Emil, but an impersonator who has been caught creating fake accounts of Kirkegaard on Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emil_Kirkegaard MrSheen (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've caught and dealt with these accounts already. Though for future reference, before believing if an account claiming to be the real deal is true, we should wait for confirmation from the person themselves (verified Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's one deranged individual creating all the impersonations or pretending t be different people: [BLANKED URL] has a page on RationalWikiWiki logging his socks.MrSheen (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The article creator is a schizophrenic Antifa who collects boglins in his mum's basement.17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Oliver Antifa / talk / contribs}

why does rationalwiki protect this Antifa psycho?The Emil Kirkegaard (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh duh. Because antifa psychos are rad. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol, how Kirkegaard sees his politics...

"I'd like to point out that I am a heterodox/alt centrist, not far right in politics. I've posted test results before" https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1026068789581045760

Exactly the same as Paul Joseph Watson and other alt-righters, who now try to describe themselves as "neo-liberals [classical liberals]" and politically "centrists". This fools absolutely no one and this is only done for PR purposes. If you read Kirkegaard's tweets you can see he is blatantly far-right, using alt-right terminology ("cuck", "kek", "sjw" etc) and heavily into identity politics (white nationalism) mentioning race in nearly every tweet. Just click his twitter now, and most his recent tweets/retweets include the words "white people", "race", "racist" etc. That's pretty much all he talks about with some anti-feminism thrown in. Real classical liberals in contrast aren't obsessed with race.MrSheen (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed white supremacist

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1030043193360961537

"The level of wokeness we need" Kirkegaard uploads a racist alt-right graphic to twitter listing all the words he thinks are good versus bad. Notice the word "niggers" is included in what he considers bad alongside antinatalism and CIA. MrSheen (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

should just upload the graphic to his page. Also Kirkegaard is linked to Adam Perkins (they both often retweet each others racist garbage) whose page I created.Octo (talk)

Christ now we have Kirkegaard's partner in crime here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What does this meme even mean?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

On the left is what the alt-right considers bad, on the right, good. So for example on the left is antinatalism, while on the right, artificial wombs. The alt-right are pretty much obsessed with pro-natalism and want to breed more white people and so now are supporting artificial wombs. If you look on the left side, you also find the word "niggers", so Kirkegaard pretty much admits he hates black people since he uploaded this racist alt-right graphic.Octo (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually it says "CIA niggers" but that doesn't change anything.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 13:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

he's now using alt-right's NPC meme

If there was any doubt he is alt-right:

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1052339403983638531 https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1052395848884244480 https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1052320425064243200 Spaces (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard perm banned on Wikipedia

Emil Kirkegaard [23] has just been perm banned on Wikipedia! Someone might want to add this to his article. His account was created in 2007 but from around 2014-2018 he spent years making very noticeable racist edits that were obviously problematic especially in regards to conflict of interest (he was editing people related to Mankind Quarterly), the Wikimedia Foundation obviously had enough. Good news. Muslim guy (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not add it yourself? You clearly grok the markup. --MtD^Bogan 23:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Kirkegaard whitewashing Wikipedia articles

One thing I noticed was Kirkegaard whitewashing the London Conference on Intelligence article at Wikipedia and a few others by trying to remove news source that accurately describe him as far-right/racist etc. He then seems to have been whitewashing a whole load of articles related to his associates from OpenPsych pseudojournals. There was drama a few weeks back with impersonations and fake accounts showing up requesting to delete OpenPsych material on RationalWiki. It looks like his failed plan was to delete these RationalWiki articles that expose him and his colleagues, and replace Google searches with those whitewashed Wikipedia articles. All this failed and backfired since he's now banned from Wikipedia; his article will always remain here, alongside the other OpenPsych racialist cranks. Also, now he's banned I'm going to get all his edits reverted from Wikipedia or at least edit all the OpenPsych articles he's been whitewashing.Arcticos (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Most of his edits on Wikipedia have already been reverted and I do not recommend going anywhere near his account, Arb Com are keeping a watchful eye. Two experienced users have reverted most of his agenda-pushed racialist edits, Grayfell and IntoThinAir. On his Wikipedia user-page before he was banned Kirkegaard wrote he was recruiting people off-site to help him edit Wikipedia [24]. What he meant by this was getting his friends to create articles for race realists, this is a conflict of interest and meat-puppet issue which is against Wikipedia rules. For example, he was involved in creating the Wikipedia article for Michael A. Woodley of Menie, [25], it was created by an obvious meat-puppet Bpesta22. This page and others he was involved with are written from a biased POV, and do not mention any criticisms of their controversial research. Kirkegaard was obsessed with editing individuals on Wikipedia who had contributed to the racist Mankind Quarterly and Intelligence journals, but he had published in those himself, so it is conflict of interest.

• Check the Michael A. Woodley of Menie article at this website, that includes criticisms. Kirkegaard wanted to filter out any of these criticisms of eugenics or racism and pretend his racist buddies are doing science. He wanted to do to this to compete with the Rationalwiki articles on Google traffic, but thankfully he has failed. I also checked his Wikipedia history going back over ten years. He used to be more normal and edit different topics, in the last six years or so his obsession is only race and intelligence. He probably has asperger syndrome as this race obsession is a obsessive topic of his. He tweets about intelligence and race all day on Twitter. I actually suspect he will get banned on Twitter in the next few years. Muslim guy (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank for information, I'll probably add a section about all this tomorrow to his article.Arcticos (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Not enough prose

Too many quotes, not enough prose, imo. The lead section explains a lot, but much of the rest of the article is basically a set of glorified footnotes. — Dysk (contribs) 21:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit revert

Hi, I undid an edit made by a user named octopus. @PaultheOctopus

Its totally redundant to point out Kirkegaard is partly Jewish because he has 2.8% Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry on a DNA test. If we use the latter claim, pretty much anyone can claim to be partly anything because of historical mixture between ethnic groups. There's also the fact Kirkegaard uses this claim to try to deflect allegations of anti-Semitism. Several other white nationalists have done the same e.g. Ryan Faulk claims he is 6.25% "African American" (itself a problematic category in these DNA tests) to deflect allegations of racism.Tobias (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent Twitter discussion about Kirkegaard's blog post about paedophilia

“”Considering he's also pro drugging and raping kids, kinda feel like the onus is on you to prove he shouldn't be demonized.

—@Beersforopeners

“”I presume coffee is referring to a well known and disturbing blog post in which Emil considers whether one ‘solution’ to paedophilia would be to allow paedophiles to drug & rape children. Emil suggests they wouldn’t really be harmed if they don’t remember.

—@C_Kavanagh

“”Including a thoughtful discussion of how very small children could be harmed anyway due to their bodily openings not being large enough to accommodate a regular adult penis. Emil recommends non penetration. Sorry... but Jesus Christ.

—C_Kavanagh

“”It is demented. What is going on with the spelling though?

—ArthurCDent

“”It's utterly vile.

—amyalkon

“”God knows... English as second language? Internet/blog standards? It almost makes it worse because it robs it off the veneer of being a ‘high minded’ philosophical thought experiment. Nope this is just some dude blogging in a pseudo-intellectual style about adults raping kids.

—C_Kavanagh

“”I’ve not seen or heard him advocate that since—and it’s not clear how serious that post was. My suspicion is that he’s on the spectrum and is unaware how people will greet his words.

—Epoe187

Tobias (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why were recent edits about Kirkegaard's incest and rape posts removed?

Just to point out the other IPS are not me. I added the original Kirkegaard incest blog post where he said he wants to legalize incest, a few days ago. It is relevant. Can a mod restore the said content. Thanks. 174.128.181.152 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

that content is still disputed, absolutely nothing has been done to address that. if someone who has been on this site more than 5 minutes wants to talk about it then go ahead.EK (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Those users and IPs were being too judgemental, we should not judge people here! So Kirkegaard wants to legalize drugs and incest. He is entitled to that view. There is nothing wrong with quoting his own words. John66 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

epic irrational libertarian moment. the original headline quote was more biting than the new one u picked btw EK (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Kirkegaard v Smith

this article and almost everything else on this site about kirkegaard were originally written by oliver smith, using many sockpuppets. smith was subsequently banned from this site as User:Aeschylus/User:Tobias/User:Krom/etc. however kirkegaard has continued a lawsuit against smith privately in the uk. a preliminary high court ruling was recently released in Kirkegaard v Smith (2019) EWHC 3393 (QB) in which smiths writings about kirkegaard claiming he is a paedophilia apologist were found to be defamatory (see paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment). and therefore i am making the appropriate changes to articles where smith has added his defamatory opinions to this wiki. based on smiths pattern of disruption if anyone else edits his work, i will be protecting the pages which are edited to preemptively prevent this. pls note that this only applies to some of the claims, kirkegaard is still an alt-right eugenicist and stuff. EK (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EK Is it an option to temporarily move this article to a draft state? Then it can be rewritten by someone who isn't a sock or any of the trolls mentioned above. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

it doesn't make any difference where the page is, as long as its visible on the wiki it's the same difference. Anyway Smith has written a lot of articles here all of which have equally dubious factual backing. This specific page is only relevant because of the judgment that proves part of it was wrong. EK (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note to @EK: On the Abd ul-Rahman Lomax page, I restored a citation (not the quote you deleted) because it was also used in another quote. You might want to confirm that this is OK. The second quote does not pertain to pedophilia. Bongolian (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated note but recent. This reliable source was recently published by Donna Minkowitz, it describes Kirkegaard as a "white supremacist" [27], I will add the source to the article. John66 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

EK do you want a total topic ban on the subject of child porn or pedophilia on this article, what if only his own words are quoted? Emil has been recently discussing this topic on Twitter. In one of his comments Emil wrote "there is another potential reason why it is a good idea to legalize child porn. Some studies show that the availability of porn has reduced rape rates. Since child porn is a subset of porn, one could expect the same thing to happen with it" [28]. We should not oppose quoting people's own words. Of course any opinions of the said content should be left out. John66 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think quotes should be cited. Just opinions about the quotes removed. So far all quotes have been removed from the article on that topic. John66 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone out of context to achieve a particular goal is little different to writing it in your own words. I have done what I feel is best in the situation and would strongly caution against adding to the article as you propose but it is ultimately your responsibility if you add to the article and you may write what you wish. EK (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't add anything on this topic without consensus. I noticed David Gerard commented about the lawsuit on Twitter. I would like to know what the Foundation thinks about it. Perhaps someone can raise it at the correct venue? John66 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

if the rationalmedia foundation or any of its trustees make editorial decisions on the subject then the site will lose its section 230 immunity and that would be an extremely unwise thing to do in the middle of a high court defamation lawsuit that has already in a preliminary judgment ruled some content here as defamatory. EK (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

In regard to the preliminary judgment, it was ruled in Smith's favour because he was presenting an opinion based on newspaper sources he had read. He stated his opinion not fact. The lawsuit is not about RationalWiki. It was about Mr Smiths 4 internet posts about Kirkegaard (not on this website). The preliminary judgment has not ruled that any content on RationalWiki is defamatory, just those posts. The lawsuit only refers to 4 internet posts Smith made. I am in agreement with you, I think it probably best to totally nuke any mention of pedophilia because it has caused controversy on here but it is incorrect to state that content has been ruled on RationalWiki as defamatory. There is no defamation here. John66 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)