| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
London Conference on Intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
User:IntoThinAir removed the non-notable people in the attendee list. Seems to be based on whether the person has a Wikipedia page or not. I agree with this approach, though some of these people will likely have to be re-added once they get a Wikipedia page (Michael Woodley, Noah Carl, Emil Kirkegaard (me)). There's also a number of other people who attended, but were not mentioned by name in the media coverage (e.g. Paul Irwing), so presumably should not be included? What do you think? -- Deleet ( talk) 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- What I think, of course, is that in keeping with my edit, the only people who should be listed are those who a) currently have Wikipedia pages and b) were mentioned in reliable sources as having attended one or more of the conferences. So I don't think we should include people who might have Wikipedia pages in the future.
IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)
talk 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with that. How about the 15 coauthors of the Intelligence piece. This presumably counts as RS that they were attendees, but many of these are not currently listed because they were not mentioned in the media articles. Should we add them or not? From my count, these are: Paul Irwing, Ed Dutton, AJ Figueredo, Gerhard Meisenberg, Edward Miller, Heiner Rindermann. Deleet ( talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:IntoThinAir consider adding to the attendee list. All authors of the editorial were attendees, so any notable person among them can be added. I think this would be Figueredo, Irwing, Lynn, Meisenberg, Miller, te Nijenhuis, and Rindermann. -- Deleet ( talk) 17:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
User Deleet who claims to be Emil Kirkegaard) should not be editing this article per conflict of interest. Kirkegaard has attended the London Conference on Intelligence and was heavily involved with it according to various sources.
- According to The Guardian: "Previous attendees included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based research group Southern Poverty Law Center labelled an “unapologetic eugenicist”, and the blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively about p-dophiles being allowed to have “s-x with a sleeping child”. [1]
- According to The Telegraph "Speakers who have attended include researcher Emil Kirkegaard, who previously wrote that a "compromise" for child p-rnography would be for p-edophiles to have "sex with a sleeping child without them knowing." [2]
- According to The Independent "Speakers at the conferences have included Dutch blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who once advocated the r-pe of sleeping children as a way p-edophiles could relieve their “urges”, supposedly without emotional damage to their victims." [3]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center "Emil Kirkegaard, who edits frequently under the username Deleet, is a research fellow at Richard Lynn’s Ulster Institute for Social research and the co-founder of the online pseudojournal OpenPsych." [4]
Kirkegaard has been adding dubious sources to the article from attendees associated with the far-right.
[5]
[6]
Vihaan Khatri (
talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- This editor has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist. Grayfell ( talk) 01:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
A mostly full list of speakers for the conference has been published, they are all racist or associated with the alt-right or far-right.
[7]
82.132.187.124 (
talk) 10:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- This comment was made by a sock puppet. Rationalwiki isn't a reliable source, per
WP:UGC. Any unblocked editor who knows of a reliable source is welcomed to present it.
Grayfell (
talk) 01:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rational Wiki itself isn't a reliable source, but their article does include links to reliable sources (BBC, Guardian and so on). Some of those sources could be useful here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed earlier versions of this article mentioned: "Emil Kirkegaard, a blogger who, according to The Guardian, "has written supportively about...", quoting a few sources:
- Rawlinson, Kevin; Adams, Richard (2018-01-11). "[UCL to investigate eugenics conference secretly held on campus". The Guardian.
- Yorke, Harry (10 January 2018). "UCL launches 'eugenics' probe after it emerges academic held controversial conference for three years on campus". The Telegraph.
This description was apparently removed after Emil Kirkegaard (who is now a banned editor) and meatpuppets edited this page and emailed legal complaints to remove it (this has been mentioned on a Wikipediocracy forum thread). Furthermore, one of these meatpuppets User:Captain_Occam (also a Wikipediocracy forum poster) was banned for sending emails about Kirkegaard and this legal issue. At the time, I can understand these sources were removed because there was a pending libel lawsuit in England. Kirkegaard filed a defamation lawsuit in the High Court of Justice against someone who had more or less repeated the claim (made in newspapers). However, Kirkegaard lost that case and was ordered to pay back the defendant's legal costs. There is a summary of the case if you search for it online and there is a public judgment and various costs orders you can find across the internet if you search Kirkegaard v Smith. The outcome was the defendant upheld their posts as honest opinion which is a defence under the Defamation Act 2013. I presume none of the newspapers which described him in similar terms are therefore libellous despite Kirkegaard's attempt to remove these descriptions from the article. 2A00:23C6:C022:C701:94E1:1CE9:D7AD:C8AE ( talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
London Conference on Intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
User:IntoThinAir removed the non-notable people in the attendee list. Seems to be based on whether the person has a Wikipedia page or not. I agree with this approach, though some of these people will likely have to be re-added once they get a Wikipedia page (Michael Woodley, Noah Carl, Emil Kirkegaard (me)). There's also a number of other people who attended, but were not mentioned by name in the media coverage (e.g. Paul Irwing), so presumably should not be included? What do you think? -- Deleet ( talk) 16:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- What I think, of course, is that in keeping with my edit, the only people who should be listed are those who a) currently have Wikipedia pages and b) were mentioned in reliable sources as having attended one or more of the conferences. So I don't think we should include people who might have Wikipedia pages in the future.
IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)
talk 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with that. How about the 15 coauthors of the Intelligence piece. This presumably counts as RS that they were attendees, but many of these are not currently listed because they were not mentioned in the media articles. Should we add them or not? From my count, these are: Paul Irwing, Ed Dutton, AJ Figueredo, Gerhard Meisenberg, Edward Miller, Heiner Rindermann. Deleet ( talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:IntoThinAir consider adding to the attendee list. All authors of the editorial were attendees, so any notable person among them can be added. I think this would be Figueredo, Irwing, Lynn, Meisenberg, Miller, te Nijenhuis, and Rindermann. -- Deleet ( talk) 17:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
User Deleet who claims to be Emil Kirkegaard) should not be editing this article per conflict of interest. Kirkegaard has attended the London Conference on Intelligence and was heavily involved with it according to various sources.
- According to The Guardian: "Previous attendees included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based research group Southern Poverty Law Center labelled an “unapologetic eugenicist”, and the blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively about p-dophiles being allowed to have “s-x with a sleeping child”. [1]
- According to The Telegraph "Speakers who have attended include researcher Emil Kirkegaard, who previously wrote that a "compromise" for child p-rnography would be for p-edophiles to have "sex with a sleeping child without them knowing." [2]
- According to The Independent "Speakers at the conferences have included Dutch blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who once advocated the r-pe of sleeping children as a way p-edophiles could relieve their “urges”, supposedly without emotional damage to their victims." [3]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center "Emil Kirkegaard, who edits frequently under the username Deleet, is a research fellow at Richard Lynn’s Ulster Institute for Social research and the co-founder of the online pseudojournal OpenPsych." [4]
Kirkegaard has been adding dubious sources to the article from attendees associated with the far-right.
[5]
[6]
Vihaan Khatri (
talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- This editor has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist. Grayfell ( talk) 01:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
A mostly full list of speakers for the conference has been published, they are all racist or associated with the alt-right or far-right.
[7]
82.132.187.124 (
talk) 10:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- This comment was made by a sock puppet. Rationalwiki isn't a reliable source, per
WP:UGC. Any unblocked editor who knows of a reliable source is welcomed to present it.
Grayfell (
talk) 01:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rational Wiki itself isn't a reliable source, but their article does include links to reliable sources (BBC, Guardian and so on). Some of those sources could be useful here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed earlier versions of this article mentioned: "Emil Kirkegaard, a blogger who, according to The Guardian, "has written supportively about...", quoting a few sources:
- Rawlinson, Kevin; Adams, Richard (2018-01-11). "[UCL to investigate eugenics conference secretly held on campus". The Guardian.
- Yorke, Harry (10 January 2018). "UCL launches 'eugenics' probe after it emerges academic held controversial conference for three years on campus". The Telegraph.
This description was apparently removed after Emil Kirkegaard (who is now a banned editor) and meatpuppets edited this page and emailed legal complaints to remove it (this has been mentioned on a Wikipediocracy forum thread). Furthermore, one of these meatpuppets User:Captain_Occam (also a Wikipediocracy forum poster) was banned for sending emails about Kirkegaard and this legal issue. At the time, I can understand these sources were removed because there was a pending libel lawsuit in England. Kirkegaard filed a defamation lawsuit in the High Court of Justice against someone who had more or less repeated the claim (made in newspapers). However, Kirkegaard lost that case and was ordered to pay back the defendant's legal costs. There is a summary of the case if you search for it online and there is a public judgment and various costs orders you can find across the internet if you search Kirkegaard v Smith. The outcome was the defendant upheld their posts as honest opinion which is a defence under the Defamation Act 2013. I presume none of the newspapers which described him in similar terms are therefore libellous despite Kirkegaard's attempt to remove these descriptions from the article. 2A00:23C6:C022:C701:94E1:1CE9:D7AD:C8AE ( talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)