Talk:Emily Willoughby/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 5 July 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Missionality?

While racialism is missional, this article seems to be focused almost entirely on Wikipedia drama at the moment. Does this person have any larger influence on the movement? Plutocow (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

They are a board member of International Society for Intelligence Research. There is a lengthy Twitter thread by a biologist criticising one of their papers. There are many more sources for page but I haven't got around to adding them yet. Willoughby is one of the few remaining proponents of race and intelligence on Wikipedia still active (others such as Emil Kirkegaard have been banned). I noticed there was an earlier RationalWiki page on Emily Willougby's ex-boyfriend Jonathan Kane but it ended up deleted. There is a webpage archive and I copied some minor info from it. There was no actual discussion about why it was deleted but from what I can tell it was deleted after Kane contacted an ex-mod (now banned) he knew named JudgeDredd (aka "D") and another user named "Ze" on a discord chat. Kane and the ex-mod are friends so he/she deleted it without any vote. Willoughby and Kane published an article together on Pandas Thumb. There are more sources for their co-authored anti-creationism book. Boar (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne has so far published two blog posts on Willoughby:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/17/the-ignorant-and-misguided-demonization-of-a-behavior-geneticist/

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/21/the-imminent-cancellation-of-emily-willoughby-a-fight-to-remove-her-from-wikipedia/ Boar (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne might be good at debunking creationism (which isn't hard) but he has lost it in the last few years, he is now obsessed with being "anti-woke". I think he does that for clickbait. He likes to be a contrarian. He lets alt-righters leave comments on his blog but censors any opposing views. PZ Myers said Jerry Coyne is not a reliable source of information, I would agree on that. Johns (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep I agree. My mention of Coyne's blog on article was to rebut his misleading claims about a "woke mob" targeting Willoughby on Wikipedia. Boar (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. The Smiths (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Some excellent detective work

So Willoughby is Linda A. Ashtear, and Jonathan Kane (her ex-boyfriend), Shuichi Tezuka.

Note that Kane published a paper in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Brisson (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

She is deleting her old tweets linking her to racists and eugenicists -

Yes, they are both highly deceptive. Also note Willoughby's last tweet was on 13 August if you view her account. On 24 August she had 2,968 Tweets. As of today (4 September) she has 2,960 Tweets (she deleted 8 in the past week). It appears she has been deleting pro-eugenics/racialist stuff she wrote as well as her links to Emil Kirkegaard. Boar (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There is some stuff you can add about her connections to Hbdchick and Noah Carl. Brisson (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

May I ask what's the point of the porn comments

Vore association problematic

(worst person has made a point moment) I really don't think we need side comments of whatever kink Willoughby is in to. It's like saying "john smith is a genocide apologist. also he is into feet and gay pizza imagery." --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You should delete the entire article. It seems the same person who was involved deleting her Wikipedia article created this RationalWiki page. The RW article showed a few days after her Wikipedia page was deleted in August 2022. I don't see what relevence Emily has to this wiki.134.209.182.82 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No. You need a more comprehensive explanation than that. Especially more than a mere link to a blog post with zero evidence and has commenters lamenting about the "woke"™. Even if you aren't the Styx fanboy from the conversation above. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it adds something of value to the article if and only if the kink in question is highlighted in the presence of fascist hypocrisy to what they deem as "degeneracy". Humor in the ironic and all that. But besides that it only ends up really kink shaming people who have no association with the fascist politics. I would be lying though if I didn't say I find the idea of a Nazi really into dinosaur vore deeply funny. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed but I don't think there's enough solid evidence she's denouncing "degeneracy" and even if she was, it's like a internalized hatred sort I guess, kind of like the problematic aspects of Haggard's Law. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Which tbh with respects to Haggard's law I am not too found of it as it is typically used as an excuse to put the onus of homophobia on gay people themselves (something I respect you are hinting at by pointing out it's problematic nature). If there is no real value in highlighting any explicit hypocrisy here in regards to Willoughby then it is best to be removed. The important thing that users of this site should know is that she is a neo-Nazi who pushes intelligence-woo. That's the most missionally relevant aspects of her character. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I think the most virulently homophobic people are heterosexual people. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop smearing my girlfriend

Nazi dinosaur art

The Nazi dinosaur art was drawn by Willoughby, not that it matters because we are going back here about 15 years but it was all her. Antrodemus (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So, the actual Jonathan Kane contacted me

He said that much of this article is wrong. Of course, I assume Kane himself is a biased source, but he has the right to defend himself and his co-author, I belive. User @Tetrapteryx, what do you have to say? I believe the best way to do this is like we talked via e-mail. Please, mention all the mistakes on the article that you find relevant. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kane also said Kierkegaard has conducted "valuable intelligence research" so take what he says with a hefty dose of salt. Carthage (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kane is very likely the be the owner of the CancelWatch substack that attacks left-wing academics. Definitely not a trustworthy source of information. Johns (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely disappointed that The Panda's Thumb enabled Kane's racialist bullshit. He claims there are genuine differences in intelligence between different ethnic and "racial" groupings while ignoring socioeconomic factors such as the effects of poverty on education and income, and then accuses critics of hereditarianism as being "science deniers." Carthage (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unlike that other guy who literally came to this wiki with some concerns about his article, this seems to be an attempt to ease her very obvious white nationalist leanings. A somebody. (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kane is basically a die-hard Richard Lynn/J. Philippe Rushton fanboi. He's done some good work debunking creationists but he is too far gone into the racialist crap. It is a bad mistake to "enable" him here because he will write 1000s of words on this talk-page. Jonathan Kane was close friends with Dysklyver who was banned for doxing but back then Dysklyver had influence on here and protected Kane. Both Kane and Dysklyver are active on discord and Wikipediocracy. Off-site Kane is trying to damage RationalWiki. We should just document their racialist views, I don't think we should encourage them to post here. Johns (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The big problem with this article has already been mentioned: it's 90% 10 year old Wikidrama. This is personally one case where I'm not sure she's not notable enough to care much. She definitely takes the pro-genetic-determinism, pro-IQ-makes-a-difference stance even in public academia in that particular debate (as a Google Scholar search suggests), but the Scholar papers don't seem to cross over into "scientific racism" crank. From my perspective I don't think we need to cover every Wikipedia troll account, just like you can't cover every crank Youtuber or Twitter user. BobJohnson (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, she is fairly known and the wikipedia drama is fairly recent, so I feel like the article is fine as it currently is. A somebody. (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Everyone who isn't a young-earth creationist has dunked on young-earth creationists. That isn't very impressive in my opinion. A somebody. (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that she is notable for her anti-creationist book (which has a lot of reviews), doing work for the International Society for Intelligence Research [1] and for her involvement in the 2022 drama with the paleoart community that went viral on social media. The latter has appeared on podcasts [2]. There is not enough on the article about her anti-creationist publications so that is probably something that should be added. I understand most people are anti-creationist but she co-authored a book on it which was widely reviewed by academics so it makes her notable. Johns (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest with you, I don't give a damn that she is anti-creationist, because again that means pretty much nothing to anyone with a brain, and i'm not going to give Julius Streicher credit for being an atheist. A somebody. (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be praising people for doing the bare minimum. Carthage (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we should care about this individual. There is some old wiki-drama and and she seems to have (or have had) some dubious opinions. But she doesn't seem to be in any way influential. We don't really need an article about everyone who is wrong on the internet.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, who gives a toss about other people's wiki drama? Spud (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And removing the part about the article about her on Wikipedia getting deleted doesn't make it any less about wiki drama. Spud (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I too have been in communication with Jonathan Kane about this page as well as his own page (Jonathan Kane). He has concern about direct engagement on RationalWiki will result in "further attacks in retaliation", but he agreed that I could quote his email with regard to information specifically about himself. His preference is that both this page and his page be deleted for lack of notability. Though notability can be a factor for deletion here (e.g. the YouTube purge of internet nobodies that we had), it is much less a factor than on Wikipedia. One concern he has is that a very large part of the Willoughby page may have been written by Oliver Smith under the account User:Boar. The evidence that Kane gave me is this CancelWatch page: here. If the evidence seems reasonable that Boar is a Smith sockpuppet, then Boar should be banned and this page at a minimum should be gone over in more detail. There are some specific criticisms of this page that Kane gave me that I will review and correct as needed if the page is ultimately kept. With regard to a specific claim about Kane on this page, he wrote to me:

“”The article says, "Willougby's claim her ex-boyfriend (Jonathan Kane) is Jewish is a half-truth at best. Kane says he was 'raised as a Christian from birth' but has partial (1/4) Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. It appears Willoughby misleads about her boyfriend's faith and ancestry to deny accusations of neo-Nazism." The only source that's provided for any of this is a forum post in which I said that I was raised as a Christian. In the same post, I mention that I deconverted from Christianity when I was 19 (in 2002), and I now identify as a secular Jew. My ancestry actually is 50% Ashkenazi (100% of my mother's side).

Another issue that we discussed was the peculiar history of the Jonathan Kane page (and to a lesser extent to the Willoughby page), which I synopsize here:

The Kane page created by a Smith sockpuppet (User:Begone) on March 28, 2020.
Content was suppressed by User:Ze (sock of User:Dysklyver) on March 29, 2020 (17,170 bytes at that point, mostly by Begone). The explanation given by Ze was "Doxing: Clear and obvious revenge attack on Wikipedia editor related to Smith affair." The content is still suppressed.
An after-the-fact decision (without a vote) was made to keep the content of the Jonathan Kane page suppressed on April 2, 2022.[3] The discussion refers to deleting the page rather than suppressing the content, but the page does not appear in the deletion log.
The Kane page was redirected by Boar to the Willougby page (August 27, 2022).
Dysklyver was banned for offsite doxing in August 11, 2022, which had followed other abuses of privilege.
Boar created the Willoughby page on September 3, 2022.
Edits by an account that might be a Smith sockpuppet (User:Velociraptor) on the Willoughby page begin. (November 17, 2022)
The Kane page was changed back from a redirect to its own page by User:Johns (with about 7000 bytes of content) on July 12, 2023.

Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Kane is heavily involved with the CancelWatch website and he will do anything to try and get his ex-partner's page deleted. His M.O. is to get the RationalWiki articles deleted then he believes he has won. He won't give up on this and will spend hours and hours emailing people and talking to people about it on discord. We had a similar problem with Abd Lomax a few years ago. Kane is an active member of the website Wikipediocracy and is also active on several discord servers with Emil Kirkegaard, Edward Dutton and his friend Dysklyver/Ze. He doesn't work in real life so he will dedicate his life to this. I have been emailed screenshots of their conversations in the past. It's basically a little group of alt-righters who promote misinformation about RationalWiki.

He may pretend to be friendly in private email but behind the scenes he is trying to damage the reputation of RationalWiki. I wouldn't trust the CancelWatch website because it cites Encyclopedia Dramatica, Kiwi-Farms, Stormfront and Abd Lomax's coldfusioncommunity as 'reliable' sources of information. Dysklyver/Ze were both the same person. Smith was promoting this idea back in 2020 and he got banned for it but he was actually correct about that. I also tried to wake people up to this fact as did another user but Dysklyver made sure we were not heard. The explanation given by Ze was entirely fictitious about doxing. The Jonathan Kane article does not contain any dox.

I believe both RationalWiki articles for Willougby and Kane should be kept but the Wiki drama should be kept to a minimum, like I have done on Kanes's article. It's irrelevant to who owns the Boar account, they made some good edits but it looks like a throwaway account. It's no loss if it is blocked. Johns (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've followed this discussion - The Cancel Watch and Kirkegaard substack accuse virtually anyone who criticises HBDers on this website as Oliver Smith without a shred of evidence. My account was already mentioned as being Smith on those blogs despite I am not. In fact, other blog posts by Kirkegaard claim both Johns and Bongolian are Smith as well. LMAO. It's all nonsense.

He has been editing the page for the last 5 years or so under various pseudonyms: Jinx, Bongolian (supposedly his brother), Tobias, Johns, Cog, Its JJ, Keyes is a legend, Ernor. Last edit was a few weeks ago.

Everyone is Oliver Smith or his brother?! No actual evidence is ever presented for these claims but they end up repeated. Griffina (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, we shouldn't be calling them HBDers but instead by their proper names: Racists and Neo-nazis. A somebody. (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"He has concern about direct engagement on RationalWiki will result in "further attacks in retaliation"" -- My understanding is it that guy/Cancel Watch who are the malicious ones doing the attacks: https://www.pinkerite.com/2022/08/did-city-journal-and-cancel-watch-hatch.html Griffina (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that I am related to Smith was originally promoted by Abd Lomax (a man who has admitted to suffering from dementia), he originally claimed Bongolian was a relative as well. It seems Kirkegaard has soaked it up hook line and sinker. It is stupid conspiracy theory. I am in my 50s, I am no relation to any other user on here. Smith has emailed me in the past but so have many other people. Abd Lomax sent me hundreds of emails. Just because I have received an email from someone does not mean I am related to them. My email is longer active. I was fed up of people emailing me. My interest in joining this website was to debunk low-carb quackery, if you check most of my edits they are on that. I have created many articles here. Until finding out Lomax was an associate of Kirkegaard I had no idea about the latter. Then I looked into these people and found they also promote a lot of quackery themselves.

A simple solution here is not not enable Kane, Kirkegaard or any of these other far-right idiots. Block their emails and do not let them post here, do not "enable" them or let them get to you. I couldn't care less what people write about my RationalWiki account off-site. It was fun reading what Lomax wrote 3 years ago but now it is just boring. I have a lot of articles to create on this website, so I won't be further responding here. Johns (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I'm mostly a newb. I joined to create the Richard Hanania page. I have no previous accounts on here although I made a few IP edits like 6 years back (I won't link to them because there's now weird people on blogs following me and making stupid claims about my identity). It's very odd what this wiki has turned into with all the sockpuppetry accusations. Griffina (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose blocking Kane at this point since there are no violations of site rules. A person who is the subject of one of our pages deserves the right to set the record straight if there are errors or inaccuracies. The other inaccuracies that Kane sent me do not rise to the level of being defamatory, not by a long shot. Since he did not specifically agree to my quoting him on the other inaccuracies that he claimed, I will not post them here. He can either put up or shut up about them on the relevant talk page(s). Bongolian (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree, however, it seems anyone with a page on Cancel Watch is denied a right to set the record straight. Kane is allowed to post hundreds or thousands of words here yet Cancel Watch does not allow anyone to publish a rebuttal nor do they correct the many lies and inaccuracies in their entries. Griffina (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the notability issue for both Willoughby and Kane, I would argue that they are both quite notable for RationalWiki. Not because they wrote a book of modest popularity against creationism but because the are former young Earth creationists who wrote a book against creationism. They are comparable in that regard to Britt Marie Hermes, a naturopathic doctor who very publicly turned against naturopathy. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That might well be valid. But that's not what the main thrust of the page is about. If it were that, and if she were largely known of that, then I would have no problem with it.

All the rest of the tiny drama is pretty much "so what?".Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Emily Willoughby was a poster on OpenPsych but later asked for her profile to be deleted, more of her deception uncovered

https://web.archive.org/web/20230617145004/https://openpsych.net/forums/18/thread/125/?page=2#1812

A comment where she was defending hereditarianism and Davide Piffer's race and IQ pseudoscience:

I have very mixed feelings on this issue, and can see plenty of valid points on both sides. I will say here that not long after I became aware of Piffer's paper on the use of factor analysis to detect polygenic selection for IQ, I emailed it to Steven Pinker (as well as the follow-up paper that explored the methodology further). This was when both papers were still published only in IBC. He gave me quite a bit of interesting response and also sent it to James Lee, but one thing he said early on in our discussion is that they "have not been published in high-quality journals so [he's] a bit worried about their soundness."
Pinker is brilliant, but I don't think he's as intimately familiar with the methodology in this sub- subfield as some researchers are. Refusing to publish in legacy or mainstream journals also means that the research is unlikely to be translated to "layman" terms by science media, science writers and so on. The public's perception of this field is a big part of the problem, not just fellow researchers unwilling to read it and take it seriously. Have any of you ever considered collaborating to write a neutral overview of the new research in this area intended for a general lay-audience? Self-publishing books is fairly easy nowadays, and if you're willing to pay for advertising it has the potential to reach a wide audience without a mainstream publisher.
I admire your idealism, and I think the research that you, Piffer and others are doing is really important. I'd like to try and support it however I can (I would not have sent my genome and IQ scores to just anyone!), and if all I can do for now is send your research along to important people I know, then I will continue to do so.

She later asked Emil Kirkegaard to delete her profile and if you now search account #44 ("Emily") you will see it is deleted:

https://openpsych.net/person/profile/44/

More info here: https://medium.com/@Keira_Havens/box-of-rocks-7-ouroboros-3cc530d7782e 159.89.89.139 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Emily (pseudonym)". Seeing as the forum is run by Kirkegaard, if it prompts someone to come up with their own pseudonym if they choose to use one, I could see someone mentally shifting "Emil" to "Emily" if they wanted a lazy option, as Emil was already on their mind. If pseudonyms are just random, well, there you go. Chillpilled (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Another scandal involving Emily Willoughby - her academic colleague Alexandros Giannelis at the University of Minnesota bought neo-Nazi merch

There was recently a leak of buyers of neo-Nazi merch reported in Vice. from the far-right Midgård website which specializes in neo-Nazi music and other racist merch.

Alexandros Giannelis an academic at the University of Minnesota was discovered to have bought neo-Nazi merchandise from Midgård:

Giannelis notably was defending Willoughby in August 2022 when she was accused of eugenics and racism including posting a photo of them together:

"The fact that both Alexandros Giannelis and Emily Willoughby co-author together on papers about the genetics of IQ, while both have an interest in Nazi aesthetics, makes me somewhat suspicious of their interest in genetics of IQ."

https://archive.is/q31ok

Both Willoughby and Giannelis have now locked their Twitter (X) accounts after receiving criticism. 103.50.33.218 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Blue-check reply to the VICE tweet: "Did someone tell Zelensky?" Meanwhile the actual database: around five pages worth of entries from Russia, and three singular entries from Ukraine...

Regarding Willoughby, it could call into question that one of her co-authors may have had pre-formed motivations, which is important. Chillpilled (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Current page is locked? However, I think a section should be added considering Giannelis is a regular co-author of papers with Willoughby:

"Parent contributions to the development of political attitudes in adoptive and biological families" EA Willoughby, A Giannelis, S Ludeke, R Klemmensen, AS Nørgaard, ...Psychological Science 32 (12), 2023-2034

The association between saving disposition and financial distress: A genetically informed approach" A Giannelis, EA Willoughby, R Corley, C Hopfer, JK Hewitt, WG Iacono, ... Journal of Economic Psychology 96, 102610

"Not by g alone: The benefits of a college education among individuals with low levels of general cognitive ability" M McGue, EL Anderson, E Willoughby, A Giannelis, WG Iacono, JJ Lee Intelligence 92, 101642

103.50.33.220 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Did Emil Kirkegaard create Emily Willoughby's article?

With various recent fake accounts blocked as Kirkegaard and more evidence of his deceptions, quote:

It originally belonged to someone who later agreed to let Kirkegaard share it, while setting up a private proxy server so that they could both edit from the account without the IP address changing. Kirkegaard also has shared other people's Wikipedia accounts by the same method. When he tried to get me to share the account, he offered to send me the "proxy info" so I could also edit from the same IP address, and that was part of the email I mentioned here that I forwarded to Wikipedia's ArbCom in March.

Are we sure the article creator was not another of Kirkegaard's? A case can certainly be made and I will list this evidence here in the next 12 hours. 104.156.232.17 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's no longer relevant based on the edit history.[4] You're not going to get the page deleted now based on that assertion. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Page is very similar to when it was created. I was already questioning the subject's notability, although taking all her activity together I could see how she is. If the page creator wasn't Smith (their first edit summary on this page sure sounds like him), it seems plausible it was someone imitating him. Skimming the talk page archives, I found a reference to the page supposedly referring to her having a "vore fetish" before, which sounds extremely like some of the other parody pages although I don't know if Boar added it. This page should at least be reviewed for accuracy if it hasn't been yet, and if there's a big problem all of Boar's additions should maybe be contestable. Chillpilled (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I already went through the whole page for text-citation comparisons, removing any paragraphs without citations. This was after User:Tetrapteryx had contacted me about problems with the page. He and I are satisfied that it's reasonably accurate. Anyone else is of course welcome to recheck the page. Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

His sticking point seems to be that it still says she collaborated with Kirkegaard (on Wikipedia specifically). What's the proof for it? It seems to be Twitter hearsay on first look? Chillpilled (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bongolian: Saying that I'm satisfied with this article is putting it too strongly. What I said is that I no longer consider it defamatory, which isn't the same as saying that I think it's accurate now.

@Chillpilled: The article also states, "Kane and Willoughby have defended Emil Kirkegaard and they all edited race and IQ related articles with overlapping edits as a sort of 'tag-team' with the same point of view." If the polygenic score article is the only Wikipedia article she and Kirkegaard both edited at close to the same time, and she and Kirkegaard never restored one another's reverts on that article (which is what "tag-teaming" means), that seems to be a false statement. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's new year and I don't want to waste time on this now in much detail. I will come back in a few days and present a lot more analysis but some brief initial observations:

All of Kirkegaard's page creations were of non-hereditarians (Paige Harden, Turkheimer) or scientists 'agnostic' on the cause of IQ differences between groups (Plomin, Haier, although Haier nowadays leans slightly towards hereditarianism) rather than hereditarians. The reason for this is simple: it would not make sense for him to attack his hereditarian allies, who hold his own POV. Furthermore, the creation of those articles to tarnish the reputations of non-hereditarians was to damage the credibility of this wiki for obvious reasons.
Willoughby apparently is now agnostic on the cause of IQ differences between groups or has changed her views. Her pro-hereditarianism posts are a decade old; note that her comment quoted above on OpenPsych was from 2014. Hence she is now a Kirkegaard target (like Plomin). Furthermore, Willoughby apparently post-2020 had a falling out with Kirkegaard, unfriending him on social media and has been criticising his trolling on Wikipedia for the past few years. So again, this would make her a target.
The creator of Emily Willoughby's article (User:Boar) voted to delete Laird Shaw's article. There is a significant link to Kirkegaard here since Shaw is a self-described friend of Kirkegaard who elsewhere "thanks" him on his website. Note Shaw also created a RationalWiki account (User:Laird) to defend Kirkegaard and voted for his article to be deleted.
Kirkegaard is not fond (screenshot) of vitamin (especially vitamin D) supplements while User:Boar also criticised these in their early edits.

Only brief observations as I said but the Shaw link is quite significant.107.191.56.68 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that Kane has come forward here about what Kirkegaard had been up to, a split does seem to have happened. I also am leaning towards Boar being an EmilOWK sockpuppet myself. Anyway, I found some tools that can help investigate any Wikipedia link between Willoughby and Kirkegaard (or anyone else for that matter). Find them here. I went ahead and used these, the most useful of which seems to be these and these results. Although Willoughby and Kirkegaard edited the same topic-space, the only time they closely brushed shoulders was when they both edited the same page within 11 minutes of each other. ~~Given the shared topic interest, this singular incident could easily have been coincidental, to my mind (keep in mind, one or the other may have simply watchlisted the page).~~ That was the "polygenic score" page, which Kirkegaard created and Willoughby quickly began editing, later contributing to it substantially. Other co-edits took place at least 110 days between each other, and often years between each other. Chillpilled (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Something overlooked: User:CBH made two edits to Willoughby's article and were apparently inserting misinformation about [5] User:Tetrapteryx. That's always been Kirkegaard's MO. In fact, I believe CBH was trying to restore incorrect information Boar originally inserted. 107.191.56.68 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a (very) plausible explanation for Willoughby showing up on the new polygenic score page so soon after Kirkegaard created it, which doesn't involve nefarious secret "meat-puppeting": he quickly tweeted about it and invited people to edit it. Chillpilled (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm stuck with a bit of a pickle, because she clearly did collaborate with Emil on Wikipedia, but to say this might leave the reader with the impression she was secretly coordinating with him, which seems to be undemonstrated. Chillpilled (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Willoughby used to follow Kirkegaard's account and the OpenPsych account (owned by Kirkegaard) on Twitter but unfollowed them both when they parted ways in 2020. Yes, it's well documented Kane/Willoughby were at one point close to Kirkegaard and supported his "research". In 2014, Willoughby was an OpenPsych forum poster and praised Kirkegaard's and Davide Piffer's papers on race and IQ (see quote above). However, they have not been on friendly terms for the past few years after they discovered and criticised his trolling activities. This animosity between them explains Kirkegaard editing Willoughby article at least as User:CBH and there are reasons to believe he or someone associated with him (since he is known to share accounts based on what emails Tetrapteryx has leaked) as having created the article as User:Boar. Ps. I cannot believe no one has yet mentioned this but the creator of these parody/troll accounts is using word clues to their names as they mentioned on Wikipedia:

At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".

So what is "CBH"?

Well it's simply: HBD (D is one letter shift from C).

Kirkegaard of course is well known for using this term (HBD) and identifying with so-called human biodiversity. Their name was a clue the whole time. I am sure Jean Lusaz and Boar are also meant to refer to something similar by slightly changing to alphabet and rearranging the words.207.148.86.10 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I knew of this, it's worth noting but it's probably a time-waster to focus on their little cryptography game too much. We're not cracking the Da Vinci code or something. Maybe you can find some kind of tool that finds cryptographic associations between certain letters/words/names, otherwise please don't spend too much time trying to analyze people's usernames, lol. I'm sure they amused themselves with it. Chillpilled (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Should there be an AfD for this? Carthage (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. There was one before, but it unanimously failed (but — mostly not on merits, but because it was proposed by another long-term troll). I also think this page may be easier to get into decent shape (including by noting her shift in viewpoint if true) than some others like the brain size article which would probably require some intimate research on somebody's part. So I dunno. It's also not truly well proven that Boar was one of the troll accounts. Also we may like to look at the Jonathan Kane page a bit again as well — though it seems that wasn't written by Boar? Chillpilled (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Chillpilled (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: User:BUFO was blocked as a Rome Viharo sock and it was suggested by a mod they were linked to User:Boar because they both canvassed to delete the Laird Shaw article. Shaw is a close friend of Emil Kirkegaard. They both had each other added on Facebook, although Kirkegaard has recently deleted or made his account private after an investigative journalist on December 20 found his location and published an article in a German newspaper. He is a hiding in a private villa (owned by his friend Mathilda Huss) to evade a judgment debt and various lawsuits. This information was added to his article by User:Pinkerite a week ago. Shaw as noted also joined this wiki to defend Kirkegaard and voted to delete his article - so it would make sense Kirkegaard would return the favour. They have both used multiple accounts on this wiki to try to delete each other's articles. As for where does Viharo fit in: he is someone who has long communicated with both Kirkegaard and Shaw. He published an article on his former website defending both. However, his website was removed for a ToS violation (it was basically chock-full of doxxing and hit-pieces) so all the articles are down. Although they are probably on an archive somewhere. Note that User:Boar was dedicated to deleting not only Shaw's but Viharo's article. In fact they created the AfD for Viharo's page. This evidence is rather compelling the account owner if not a Kirkegaard sockpuppet is at least a meatpuppet. 122.10.138.235 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised above that users are talking about a possible afd for this article. It doesn't matter who wrote this article, even if was proven that Kirkegaard, or a banned user wrote the article, the facts remain that the article is accurate per all the sourcing and it is a good article, not a joke article. If an article is accurate and checks out then it doesn't matter who wrote it. There is no policy that says we have to delete an article depending on who wrote it if it is accurate. Much of this article was updated since the original author created it. There is indeed a connection between Rome Viharo, Laird Shaw and Emil Kirkegaard as they have all quoted each other on their websites but this isn't conclusive proof. Abd Lomax also cites all these people on his website. Cranks cite other cranks that hate RationalWiki.

Laird Shaw is on Kirkegaard's personal Facebook where he has left comments so there is a close connection there but I don't see the connection to this article. My advice is to stop all this armchair detective work and put time into creating other articles. This article shouldn't be deleted, let's not waste time speculating on who wrote it because this will never be proved. Johns (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Genetic fallacy and all that. Carthage (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't further make an edit beyond this one. I maintain though the evidence is compelling if you compare User:Boar's edits to those made by User:EmilOWK and User:Heyguy (an almost certain Rome Viharo sockpuppet blocked for doxxing mentioned on one of the URLs Chillpilled linked to). For example, compare this edit by Boar:

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by censorship. The AfD was created because I discovered extensive impersonations and other suspicious accounts on the edit history, see here. After many years I'm surprised no one looked into this. Rome Viharo has been impersonated on fake accounts as recent as earlier this year and these fake/impersonation/spoof accounts date back to 2014.

To Heyguy's edits which mention "impersonations" pertaining to the same two individuals (i.e. Rome Viharo and Emil Kirkegaard). These unsubstantiated claims of impersonations should be taken with a pinch of salt since Kirkegaard is notorious for misinformation, impersonating or imitating others (while accusing others of his own activities); further we have proof he lies about his accounts. The evidence User:CBH was him is conclusive but he previously lied on his talk page and tried to disregard accusations he was Kirkegaard as "conspiracy theories".122.10.138.203 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about edits by likely extremists and their allies. If you've blocked Oliver Smith permanently - he gave me the heads-up about Kirkegaard's hide-out article in the German press, so he was indirectly responsible for my Kirkegaard article edit - it's not too much to keep a look-out for potential Kirkegaard-related mischief. You can do that and still write new articles. Pinkerite (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RE: Johns, there was concern the article isn't quite accurate. There is a case Willoughby wasn't coordinating with Kirkegaard on Wikipedia in specific, and there was a suggestion above that her views changed. Chillpilled (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

While Willoughby may have changed her views of IQ as a metric per the above assertion, we have yet to see the evidence on that. She's still listed as a board member at International Society for Intelligence Research since 2020.[6][7] I think that one might reasonably conclude that board members of ISIR believe that race is a legitimate concept worthy of research. Bongolian (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've come across this comment, not sure where that lands (six years old anyway, but at least it's not a 14 years old Wikipedia edit). I have the impression Kane & Willoughby may be more (maybe a lot more) confident in certain premises than they ought to be, especially reading one of those Wikipediocracy threads. Somebody told him he really should consider plausible confounding factors more, reasonable enough criticism to me. But then who am I, certainly not someone in this field. Chillpilled (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Linda A. Ashtear"

Concrete proof this is her? The only public source I could find claiming Ashtear is her was, well, Pinkerite. And in turn, Pinkerite's article cited... this article. There's also a citation to Wikipediocracy here, but the forum is private or something. Anyone who can verify there's proof there, or produce anything convincing at least? Chillpilled (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess you found evidence of Ixerin already, but here are is Ixerin presenting Acheroraptor artwork,[8] and Willoughby presenting the same artwork as their own.[9] Bongolian (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The accusation she's Ashtear seems to be based on reasonable inference, but it's hardly proven. I'd have to see what Wikipediocracy says to see if they know any more than I do. Chillpilled (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't I read here that @Tetrapteryx is Willoughby's ex-boyfriend Jonathan Kane? Who allegedly goes by the name Shuichi Tezuka, who co-authored with Linda A. Ashtear? Pinkerite (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be circular again — I think him being Shuichi Tezuka is based on the premise that she's Ashtear. I mean, at this point we can say she's probably Ashtear based on shared traits (biology major, North Carolina, upset at Wikipedia's workings, Tezuka cites their book). But y'know, unexpected coincidences happen, it could be say a colleague of hers or something like that for all one knows. Chillpilled (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it says here that "@Tetrapteryx (confirmed by himself, GeeJayK, and @Bongolian to be Jonathan Kane)..." so I guess the next step is to determine if all these people really did confirm @Tetrapteryx is Jonathan Kane, and then if it checks out, ask Jonathan Kane directly if he is Shuichi Tezuka and if Willoughby is Ashtear. Pinkerite (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added talk page links to the part about people confirming he's Kane to the ATIM entry. I doubt he'll answer the question since he apparently didn't before. Chillpilled (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, now that I look for it again, I'm not sure where I even read that Ashtear was a biology major from North Carolina. I thought it was in the Critic's article, but I don't see it now. If we don't have those two pieces I don't think we can even say that Ashtear is probably Willoughby. Chillpilled (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Create a new Afd to discuss and vote on deletion given these various problems and the fact there are multiple people who now are investigating and coming to conclude the article creator is another Kirkegaard sock. The fact Willoughby's article criticises Kirkegaard isn't evidence against he created, on the contrary, this was cover for Kirkegaard to have made it and we know he attacked Robert Plomin and other scientists on here while pretending to be a leftist.122.10.138.227 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As I'm verifying the article (I multi-task while editing so that's what the pace is about), AfD would need to be based on her not being notable which could be argued perhaps, but I lean toward her being about notable enough (published in Quillette, published researcher in missional topics, doing illustration for major publications, co-wrote a noteworthy book on anti-creationism, significant participation on Wikipedia, and board member for ISIR). Chillpilled (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

From looking at deleted parts of this article, I can infer that the proof on the Wikipediocracy thread for them being Tezuka and Ashtear was simply that Kane didn't deny being Tezuka. I guess that's something, but it is not especially strong. Chillpilled (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the articles published by Shuichi Tezuka (likely Kane) who wrote another article with Linda, published an article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. In the article, Jonathan Kane's writings are mentioned which reads as self-promotion:

Jonathan Kane has discussed the similar shortage of positive proposals among young-Earth creationists in their arguments about the origin of birds, which have usually attacked existing research without making any attempt at proposing an alternative explanation for the fossil data. Kane’s criticism of this aspect of young-Earth creationism applies equally well to the equivalent aspect of cognitive creationism: “This is a destructive attitude because at its most basic level, science is about coming up with a model to explain what you observe, and testing whether your model’s predictions match reality.

Furthermore Tezuka's article references Kane's and Willoughby's coauthored book on creationism. I do not believe this is a coincidence. Additionally, Tezuka's separate article about Wikipedia in Quillette, describes the exact same pages he and Willoughby have had edit conflicts on, furthermore he even highlights and mentions her Wikipedia account:

Wikipedia user Ferahgo the Assassin—a postdoctoral researcher in behavior genetics

There is a bunch of other clues but since they apparently deny it is them or avoid answering, you cannot be 100% sure. There is a very slight possibility Tezuka is a third individual closely linked to both (I don't personally though believe this). Note as well that Tezuka recently wrote an article promoting Justapedia. Jonathan Kane has also praised Justapedia on Wikipediocracy forum, so that's another link.

In my opinion, the reason Kane does not publicly admit to being Tezuka and Willoughby, Linda, is because under those names they have sympathised with eugenics:

In a discussion about the changes to the “Dysgenics” article, Wikipedia user Ferahgo the Assassin—a postdoctoral researcher in behavior genetics—pointed out that the “no evidence for dysgenic effects” statement contradicts every recent major textbook and literature review about this topic, including The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience (Cambridge University Press, 2021), An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis (MIT Press, 2020), and the paper from Nature Human Behavior quoted above. While a few of the site’s members acknowledged the validity of Ferahgo’s objection, the person rewriting the “Dysgenics” article ignored it. Since that time there have been a few attempts by other people to make this aspect of the Wikipedia article consistent with the field’s source literature, but the person who rewrote the article has undone these attempts, again describing these sources as “profringe.”

Kane/Willoughby actually believe in the pseudoscience of 'dsygenics' and were upset Wikipedia's article was modified to add skeptical literature. 122.10.138.227 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ferahgo's topic-ban was actually reported about (apparently multiple times) in Wikipedia's The Signpost, as I've just stumbled across. I agree the pseudonyms are probably-to-possibly them (personal opinion) but conclusive in-article wording needs conclusive evidence. Chillpilled (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Before Emil Kirkegaard and Emily Willoughby unfriended each other on social media, Kirkegaard used to promote Linda Ashtear's articles on his social media accounts. I agree with you though about lack of conclusive or definite evidence. They won't publicly admit to being those pseudonyms because they espoused controversial views on them such as belief in "dysgenic effects". 122.10.138.227 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if they did believe in those effects, it doesn't tell me that they support any particular response to them. It would at least be feeding into one of the premises for the eugenics movement though. Didn't she allude to something about another academic being "optimistic" about genetic engineering on Twitter? This would be eugenics, though it certainly takes a different tone than the old version... still raises harsh ethical questions either way. Chillpilled (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Definite proof CBH is Emil Kirkegaard