RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3380Goal: $3500

Talk:Anatoly Karlin

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

UNZ Review[edit]

Anatoly Karlin Archive

He's published over a thousand blog posts on UNZ Review. Lots more of his crazy views can be added to article. SkepticDave (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the hagiography, there's a convenient summary of my work here if you need further ideas. Here's one suggestion: A few months ago I wrote what is possibly the most comprehensive exposition of IQ research in Russian for the website Sputnik and Pogrom. The Marxist blogger Louis Proyect quotably describes me as "too nationalistic for Putin" ("wrote for “Sputnik & Pogrom”, an ultra-nationalist website that was even too much for Putin based on the evidence of it being shut down on July 6th [actually it was blocked, not shut down]. In 2015 the website called for “crushing Ukraine” and establishing a “Russian ethnic state.”") --Akarlin (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
According to your bio, you've lived most your life as an immigrant in UK, and you also lived in the US, but returned to Russia in 2016. Yet according to your UNZ Review posts, you're anti-immigration/want very tight immigration controls... Hypocrite much? Like Richard Spencer, are you pro-immigration/freedom of movement for "white people" across European countries/national borders, just not "non-whites"? This would mean you're not even an ultra/ethnic nationalist, but an Americanized pan-European ("white") nationalist kook like Spencer, who supports the EU and is anti-Brexit. I found it amusing reading your blog post about London, that you complain about the city having "too much vibrant diversity"- when as an immigrant for many years -you were a part of this (you're not ethnically/native English). Brexit was a response to the fact most English (and to a lesser extent Welsh) are fed up with high-levels of EU immigration, especially from eastern-European countries. So how exactly does your "Russian ethnic state" claptrap make sense, when you lived most your life as an immigrant in foreign lands?SkepticDave (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I went to the UK when I was six - hardly my own choice at that age, at a time when Russia was getting raped by slavishly pro-Western neoliberal scumbags - went to school there, to university in the US, then went back to Russia once financially independent. So I am actually nothing but consistent. That said, if there absolutely has to be substantial immigration, it would make sense to have it come from predominantly high-IQ, non-Islamic countries (that is, Europeans and East Asians). --Akarlin (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
If you look at immigration surveys: people who are anti-immigration (strong border controls & large reductions in numbers of immigrants), do so primarily because of two reasons: overcrowding (especially countries with high-population densities) and fear of economic competition, i.e. immigrants taking jobs. These are legitimate concerns, mainly the first. What is not, is 'race and IQ' nonsense - confined to the alt-right/"HBD" lunatic-fringe of politics. Virtually no-one opposes immigration because of IQ/race and this is why the alt-right you're so fond of, has no political power or representation: its an internet movement for Nazi keyboard warriors that are laughed at by 99.99% of the ordinary public. There are no alt-right political parties, and never will be. And if you, or Spencer, stood in an election, putting out a leaflet with your race and IQ nonsense, you wouldn't get 5 votes. While there has been a rise in 'populist' parties by country across Europe that want a sharp decrease in immigration levels, none of these promote the idiotic "HBD" thing. Their failure though to take power is because they focus too much on Islam or culture; Le Pen lost the 2017 presidential election because her anti-immigration rhetoric was still xenophobic and anti-Islam. I'm puzzled that you have a degree in politics, and yet are for something so ridiculous; you apparently have no idea about electioneering or electoral strategy. SkepticDave (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
My degree is in Political Economy, not Politics, to be strict. I am not interested in electioneering. I am primarily interested in understanding how the world works, and sharing my ideas with people. If that leads to more realistic and ultimately humane policies, that's great. --Akarlin (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Here: RationalWiki Hagiography. --Akarlin (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've applied most of the proposed changes I could, but the part about being Mecha Hitler sounds far too tongue-in-cheek so I left it out. For voting for the Jews despite having views on the contrary, keep in mind the friend argument. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
He isn't voting for a Jew, but Vladimir ZhirinovskyWikipedia who has partial Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, but doesn't practice Judaism and has made anti-Semitic statements. Zhirinovsky is most infamous for telling his aides to rape a pregnant journalist. Mind-boggling why anyone would vote for him, but he's expected to come second in the presidential election 2018, hoovering up protest votes by those fed up with Putin.SkepticDave (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Karlin's Response[edit]

tl;dr, Anatoly complained, read his rebuttal here.

Probable self-editing by Anatoly Karlin[edit]

I removed content that was inserted by User:Provegan, as it seems likely to be an act of self-editing by Anatoly Karlin. It seems like he made up the account "ProVegan" to add a quote to the article that he is particularly proud of. An indication of this is the fact that the quote was written only 48 hours before the edits to this article. There's no evidence the quote is interesting or illuminating. Inthecavee (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

fixed for u. EK (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing a few sentences[edit]

I want to move a few sentences: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anatoly_Karlin&diff=2119581&oldid=2112973. I don't think any of the sentence removals should be too controversial. I don't know what the editing guidelines are on RationalWiki (I edit on Wikipedia). Ethanbas (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the rules for editing are rather loose here when compared to wikipedia. I posted a welcome message on your talk page just now; it has a lot of good links that should help you get acquainted to RationalWiki. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In this specific case, @Ethanbas, your revision was fairly large and included the removal of two references and two links to other pages, for reasons I am not sure of; and this might be seen as partially whitewashing a controversial figure on a page that has been frequently vandalized and subject to edit warring over the last months. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I can explain each removal. 1. In the lede, "He is a blogger for The Unz Review where he promotes eugenics and human-biodiversity pseudoscience to far-right nationalists and skinheads in Russia", "and skinheads in Russia" should be removed, because I don't really see how his English writings on Unz are targeted towards skinheads in Russia (few people in Russia can read English, much less know of the Unz website). 2. He did study at UC Berkeley (given his UC Berkeley websites such as https://cal.berkeley.edu/akarlin), and almost certainly political economy as stated on that website (an official UC Berkeley website) and others, so "claims to" have studied should be removed. 3. From what I can tell, Karlin does not have a "fixation" with penis sizes; I am not sure I could find more than one reference by Anatoly where he talks about penis sizes, so using the term "fixation" and devoting almost a full paragraph about his "fixation" with penis sizes isn't good and should be trimmed to a very brief mention or no mention at all. 4. "In the same post, Karlin bizarrely writes: "arguing on the basis of statistics that apartheid wasn’t all that bad for Black South Africans probably isn’t racism."" I have a personal preference to remove this part, but I guess it could be kept if others wanted it to be. 5. The see also section contains irrelevant entries in my opinion so I would remove it entirely. Ethanbas (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. I think you've justified all but point 4 at least to my satisfaction, but would argue against deleting point 4 because it provides more context into how Karlin promotes racialism outside Russia and historically,as well as tying into the human biodiversity section which comes below. If anyone else has thoughts (maybe @EK?) it would be great to hear them. We tend to assume people mean well in the first instance, it is more that this page was recently sabotaged a few times, so I was being a fair bit more cautious than usual.
Also, unlike Wikipedia, at RW we tend to use snarky humour and jokes, so the penis references, while perhaps not extremely relevant, are not as out of place as they would be at Wikipedia. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@CogitoNotStirred Ethanbas isn't editing in good faith: it's obvious Karlin told them to come here and make these changes since he was banned. The main changes Ethanbas made were the same whitewashing as Karlin; Ethanbas is also mostly a SPA (single purpose account) and has made very few edits on other articles. DrMackal (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know how to respond to "it's obvious Karlin told them to come here and make these changes since he was banned. The main changes Ethanbas made were the same whitewashing as Karlin". This reminds me of the worst parts of Wikipedia editing I experienced, in basically my first 48 hours on RationalWiki. Ethanbas (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Penis sizes[edit]

Karlin is a proponent of the "big black dick" hoax. He claims black africans have big penis sizes, when in reality science studies have disproven this claim and Karlin relies on the pseudoscientific studies of Richard Lynn. Since he has an fantasy of big black dicks, I think "fixation" is an accurate description.DrMackal (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actual studies on race and penis-size have shown: "there is no convincing scientific background to support the ascription of bigger penile dimensions to people of the black race". See "Oversized Penile Length In The Black People; Myth Or Reality". (2007). JC, Orakwe., GU, Ebuh. Tropical Journal of Medical Research. 11(1): 16-18. for example in a study 115 Nigerian males, the average stretched penis length is 5.26 inches long, near identical to the worldwide average. See Orakwe, J. C; Ogbuagu, B. O; Ebuh, G. U (2006). "Can physique and gluteal size predict penile length in adult Nigerian men?". West African Journal of Medicine. 25(3): 223–5.

The source Karlin relies on for his fantasy of big black dicks is totally dubious. For a debunking:

Lynn's claims about differences in penis length between races build on earlier claims by Rushton and Bogaert (1987). The Rushton and Boagert paper is striking for its use of non-scholarly sources (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991). These include a book of semi-pornographic "tall tales" by an anonymous nineteenth century French surgeon that makes wildly inconsistent claims about genital sizes in people of different races. Lynn also refers to this book without mentioning any problems with this as a source of information. Another odd data source cited by Rushton and Bogaert is an article authored by a certain "P. Nobile" published in Forum: International Journal of Human Relations. This publication is better known to the public as "The Penthouse Forum", a popular men's magazine. The data sources that Lynn uses in his recent paper are hardly much better. One of them is a book by Donald Templer (another self-professed race realist) called Is Size Important? Templer is not a urologist but a psychologist so why he would claim to be an authority on this subject is unclear. Lynn's other source is the world penis size website. These are both self-published sources that have not been independently verified. A blogger named Ethnic Muse has carefully examined this site's references and found that a number of articles listed on the site either do not exist under the name given or do not discuss penis size at all. There are also numerous discrepancies between the values provided by the website and the actual values given by the references. Therefore, the information on this website cannot be trusted and no conclusions should be drawn from it.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size DrMackal (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Though we like to start from the position of good faith, it's quite possible that this is a proxy edit as you say, and the penis-size business does tie into the whole human biodiversity bit, as well as overlapping with other alt-right figures like Milo Yiannopoulos. We are probably therefore best to leave the edits reverted for now. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
LOL Ethanbas (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Given how you earlier wrote "I think you've justified all but point 4 at least to my satisfaction", I am going to implement this edit now (with the exception of 4). I think you'd understand why I'm not a "proxy edit" if you took a look at my Wikipedia page, lol (seriously man...). Ethanbas (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

He's a Trumptard[edit]

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/704901447457087489 "Doing my small bit to help make America great again - walking with this hat through Berkeley to trigger shitlibs." 165.232.69.30 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard v Smith[edit]

I thought it was relevant to mention on his page given the fact he was mentioned a dozen times in the preliminary judgment https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3393.html

I also found Karlin spreading lies about the outcome of the lawsuit recently on reddit and other social media.109.123.74.78 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wtf is this?[edit]

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/471615476481536000 "you are talking about a 14 yrs old child you freaking weirdo" 109.123.74.78 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)