Koenraad Elst

For discussions on privacy implications, including BLP issues
User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Koenraad Elst

Unread post by HRIP7 » Thu May 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Koenraad Elst (T-H-L): The Wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
It has been for quite a few years that I have chosen not to react to my own Wikipedia lemma and the many inaccuracies in it. Currently I think I have no other option. My temporary work contract at the Belgian Senate came to an end, and while looking for a new job, I find that all employers who care to explain why they refuse to hire me, refer to the Wikipedia lemma at the head of the results of the google search they now automatically apply to all applicants. It seems you have a lot of influence, in fact more than anyone else, for you inform or misinform the decision-making part of mankind. And power brings responsibility.

Being by definition the greatest expert in the world on this lemma’s subject, I know for fact that a lot of it is mendacious. It is either your own lie or the lie of a source that you have cited or reproduced in good faith, but either way, it is not truthful. It does not follow your self-imposed requirement of “objectivity”. It describes an imaginary strawman, not me.
Tom Morris raised this at the BLP noticeboard, and Collect says he has done some work on the article.
Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Wikipedia biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Wikipedia normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I am familiar with the man, and haven't formed an opinion (except that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Koenraad Elst

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu May 30, 2013 8:47 pm

An earlier revision of Elst's article, prior to the cleanup, contained prominent comments such as:

"many of these writings are featured in right-wing publications"
"More precisely, Elst argues often that "not Muslims but Islam is the problem". [28] [29] His views on Islam are markedly in line with the neoconservative think-tank "Middle East Forum", to which he has contributed.[30]"
"Elst actively contributes to nationalist New Right Flemish publications, and has shown sympathy to the Nouvelle Droite movement since the early 1990s."
"Jan De Zutter criticized Elst for being too close with the Vlaams Belang"
"According to Sanjay Subrahmanyam, he has connections to the far-right Vlaams Blok.[43] though Dr. Subrahmanyam did not provide any supporting evidence."

Much of this was inserted years ago, principally by editors TwoHorned, Bondego, Hornplease, and Nihar_S, who occasionally clashed with TwoHorned over various details. Some of the edits made by TwoHorned are, to say the least, questionable. Notorious India editwarriors Hkelkar and Bakasuprman also messed with it, and the latter squabbled with Hornplease in 2007. So it appears that Elst was yet another victim of political squabbling between Indians.

TwoHorned is obsessed with neoconservatives, Leo Strauss, and especially René Guénon. Thanks to TwoHorned, that is one of Wikipedia's longest biographies. Bondego, unquestionably an Indian editor, left Wikipedia in 2007. Hornplease edited Muslim subjects relating to Indian and Pakistani history heavily, and also left in 2007.

The article was quite bland in April 2006, before the cranks showed up.

Post Reply