|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Noah Carl
|
This race related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
|
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. |
Noah Carl sacked[edit]
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/17456 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cambridge-academic-noah-carl-sacked-over-racist-study-btdwlf5l6
ST EDMUND’S – website statement Statement from the Master regarding the outcome of the investigations into complaints about the appointment of Research Fellow – 30 April 2019
Summary St Edmund’s College has today announced the outcome of the investigations it launched into the appointment of the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow, Dr Noah Carl. The College launched two separate formal investigations following complaints made by its student body, the Combination Room, at the end of November last year. Following Dr Carl’s arrival in College matters emerged about some of his activities and connections linking him to far right extremists and the Combination Room questioned how he had come to be appointed by the College. The College’s formal investigations have overall upheld the majority of the Combination Room complaints. At a special meeting of the College’s Governing Body today, the Governing Body voted to adopt the findings and recommendations contained in the reports. The College has terminated Dr Carl’s appointment to the Research Fellowship.
Statement St Edmund’s convened two investigations into the complaints. One was led by Sir Patrick Elias, a retired Court of Appeal Judge. This external review concerned the recruitment process, to address concerns expressed in the complaint about the way in which the appointment of the Research Fellow had been handled by the College. The other investigation was led by Life Fellow, Professor Michael Herrtage, who chaired a Special Investigation Panel to review the complaints about certain of Dr Carl’s research activities and connections. The Combination Room complained that these demonstrated poor scholarship, promoted extreme right-wing views and incited racial and religious hatred. The Combination Room said that the appointment of a Fellow holding such views violated the dignity of members of the College.
[...]
The complaints considered by Special Investigation Panel chaired by Professor Herrtage related to the activities and connections of Dr Carl that had subsequently come to the College’s attention after his appointment. The panel substantially upheld these complaints. The panel found that Dr Carl had put a body of work into the public domain that did not comply with established criteria for research ethics and integrity. In any event, it considered that the poor scholarship of this problematic body of Dr Carl’s work, among other things, meant that it fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech.
Furthermore, the panel found that, in the course of pursuing this problematic work, Dr Carl had collaborated with a number of individuals who were known to hold extremist views. There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the College into disrepute. In addition, the panel also noted that the way in which Dr Carl has conducted himself with regard to his publications and the ideas he has expressed have had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere within the College with feelings of hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief that the College could be associated with such views.
Tobias (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thoughtcrime perp[edit]
There are grammar mistakes in this article such as misused commas; other articles are also filled with ungrammatical language, making it seem as though RationalWiki is written by vampire novel readers. And it is irrational for you to accuse Carl of being racist due to his publishing papers in pseudoscience journals. I'll be blocked for this thoughtcrime. — Unsigned, by: 1.143.56.238 / talk
- Go ahead and fix the grammar if you want but it's quite implausible that Carl is not a racialist since he's been in OpenPsych multiple times and the London Conference twice. Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Juvenile, sophomoric article[edit]
Well, I had been under the mistaken impression that RationalWiki must be something like Wikipedia but focussing on science & reason, but having read this article it's clear it's just a joke. At least most Wikipedia articles have a go at being objective. Whereas this article reads like it was written by an angry 1st-year undergrad student, so sure of himself with his B and two Cs at A-level he doesn't even pretend to be impartial. The word 'sophomoric' sums it up (though technically that would at least be a 2nd-year student). If this sounds like abuse, it isn't - just stating facts here. D- 82.71.12.56 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh noes!! How ever will we function with our 42 citations DESTROYED by your arbitrary grading system!?!?! WOE IS US!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Noah Carl unsuccessfully tried to block this page from showing on Google.uk for defamation but failed[edit]
Carl filed a defamation report back in 2019, lying about himself and this page, I recently found it: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/19135309
The infringing URL is little more than an attack page, which exists primarily to disparage me. The page contains numerous false and defamatory claims about me, which are likely to cause serious harm to my reputation. The page therefore violates the Defamation Act 2013. For example, the page claims_ that I publish "racialism pseudoscience and Islamophobic papers"; that I am "Islamophobic and arguably far-right"; that I have "published racist pseudoscience"; and that I and another individual are "both right-wing Islamophobes". All these claims are false and defamatory. In addition, the page repeatedly smears me via guilt-by-association. For example, it claims_ that some of my papers have been "quoted with approval by far-right groups", that one of my papers "found its way onto many right-wing and far-right websites"; and that "The far-right Traditional Britain Group have made Facebook posts supporting [REDACTED] [REDACTED]". I am not a member of any far-right group.
Although he redacted his name from the report to try to conceal his identity, we know it was him with 100% certainty because the identical descriptions only appear on this article by a search e.g. "both right-wing Islamophobes" and "Islamophobic and arguably far-right", "found its way onto many right-wing and far-right websites" etc.
The report was unsuccessful and Carl's page has been on Google.uk (like .com) and not deindexed by their search-engine. I find the report extremely dishonest - "both right-wing Islamophobes" is somehow defamatory? Carl openly identifies as a conservative (= right wing), furthermore, he published a bunch of controversial widely perceived as Islamophobic papers in OpenPsych.
This guy is another 'freedom of speech' warrior fraud. It's no surprise he tried redacting his name to try to hide the fact he is trying to censor articles that criticise him. He's clearly not pro-freedom of speech.2A03:E600:100:0:0:0:0:46 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this one?[edit]
The Wikipedia article and the Rational Wiki article are hostile, defamatory and full of false or highly distorted allegations taken from newspaper smear articles. These articles are not reliable as they are written by journalists who set out to attack a particular political party and present innocent things in as bad a light as they possibly can. The insulting allegations made by the Daily Mirror a Labour party paper (for instance about sex with animals) never had any real basis. A hypothetical discussion was taken out of context and wildly twisted. Yet this has been replicated over and over again becoming more and more garbled as the allegation proliferates on the internet. The motive of these journalists is not to give an accurate, fair or objective account of what happened but to distort, sensationalize and demonize. Such material is intended to sell newspapers, but is not suitable for a reference work. The claim that I am a "rightwing" activist
https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15033450
I don't think this was Carl's since the dates don't work and it's talking about "sex with animals"? But it could be someone with a page with connections to him.2A0B:F4C2:1:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Recent vandalism[edit]
Anyone know what the recent silly vandalism is about? I am creating an article soon on one of Carl's race pseudoscience colleagues. Boar (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's one of our regular trolls. See Michael Coombs. GeeJayK (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- They have a strange obsession with baldness. Seems they also reuse similar names they have used in the past year on Wikipedia (repeated uses of "duck", "bald" etc). I hid some of the more offensive comments on article. I suspect their account named Jerry Koyne was also a spoof of Jerry Coyne, although I could be wrong. Boar (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)