Talk:Noah Carl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

There's many more sources for this BLP page. For the recent petition, this is well-covered by old media and new media:

Also non-English country media:

Other sources for petition event:

Sources unrelated to petition event:

Other relevant links:

Deleet (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kirkegaard, it really is better if you stay out of this. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (WP:COI), hence I only material to the talk pages. Deleet (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing 1[edit]

This keeps getting reverted. It is information from the New Statesman source, as I stated in the edit comment, OpenPsych is not used as a source for this --87.179.41.76 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Please read the above. If you already have, I apologize. Also kindly note that, at least for me, when I undo something the software lets me edit the changes before I submit then so I can undo only some of the edits, and don't have to blanket revert. --87.177.118.95 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this detail matters, but so be it. If we're going to explain the precise number, we should also probably indicate the time-frame. The New Statesmen article was from over a year before he was fired. This seems like helpful context to understand the timeline of his career. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing 2[edit]

@Grayfell: Regarding this removal of yours, the source is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves --87.179.41.76 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Who is this using complicated templates to lecturing me on policy? Unreliable sources should not be used in BLPs, and the significance of this extremely unreliable source needs to be summarized by a reliable source. The entire point of mentioning this at all, per the reliable source, is because of its obscurity and WP:FRINGE status. We do not present fringe sources as though they were legitimate, because they are not. Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to lecture, I like to err on the side of telling people what they already know instead of telling them less than needed, as I can't possibly know what they already know and what they don't. If a source can be used depends on what it is used for. In this case, we are quoting the source (partly using quotation marks, partly using indirect speech) and not saying that we quote is correct. This is in line with the policy I referred you to (WP:SELFSOURCE) --87.177.118.95 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are linking me to basic policies and using relatively obscure Wikipedia templates, it appears you are an experienced editor. I encourage you to sign into your account to avoid confusion and potential disruption that comes from using a floating IP. If you do not have an account, please consider creating one. If you already have an account but cannot or will not use it for some reason, be aware of issues with sock puppetry, as this is usually not permitted.
Wikipedia must use reliable sources to determine which details belong and which do not. We can, when necessary, use unreliable primary sources to fill-in those details, or in some limited BLP cases. Your proposed changes are far outside of that scope. OpenPsych is unreliable, and should never be used without a very good reason. So far, I have not seen any such reason being presented. Picking and choosing flattering tid-bits from an unreliable source is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

@131.111.5.131: has reverted my deletions.

  • The money-raising being related to some far-right people is only sourced to an undergraduate student newspaper Cherwell. While not necessarily a completely unacceptable source, contentious claims about living people should be attributed to better sources per WP:BLP. If the issue has enough WP:WEIGHT to be included, other sources would have followed the story. Your second source, a ThinkProgress article does not even mention Noah Carl. Wikipedia does not publicize your own synthesis.
  • The political views section was based on poor sources, like a Usejournal blog and "OpenPsych.org". The CARR source does not even mention Noah Carl - this is WP:SYNTH again. The New Statesman source is good, but it's already cited several times related to the dismissal controversy. Thus, I don't think an own "political views" is warranted with these sources.
  • Why did you separately revert my removal of the stub template? This article is not a WP:STUB. --Pudeo (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Varsity is a better source than Cherwell and discusses the same thing - I've added it based on that. Having looked at the previous version I have to agree that it could have been more neutrally phrased. FOARP (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Pudeo (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Quillette[edit]

This edit restored two citations to Quillette without any real argument for why we should ignore standing consensus that it's unreliable per WP:RS/P and the discussions cited there. Beyond the fact that it has published falsehoods and has a reputation for not only doing no fact checking whatsoever when publishing editorials that fit its culture-war bias, it has also been credibly accused of further editing and "enhancing" such things with additional falsehoods and manipulations, without consulting their authors. And on top of all that, they avowedly and intentionally push WP:FRINGE perspectives, especially in the particular field of scientific racism that is at issue here. They're unusable anywhere, outside of a few limited WP:ABOUTSELF cases, but they are particularly unusable for highly-controversial claims about a subject on which they hold a fringe position. If an "open letter" they claim to have published is actually accurate, verifiable, and noteworthy, we can only cover it via a WP:SECONDARY source that is actually reliable for such a controversial topic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source used here is still no good, since it's an opinion piece and can't be used for statements of fact, only its author's attributed opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced section[edit]

Removing the following content from the article because it lacks a source and I can't find any publications 1) supporting these statements or 2) connecting them with Carl:

In April 2021 the legal challenge ended with the University paying Noah Carl a large sum in damages. The decision was made on the advice of the solicitors who took the view that Noah Carl had good standing of winning the case of unfair dismissal and therefore opening a court case would be extremely damaging to the University. The details of the outcome or the sums involved have not been made public.
In 22 May 2021 the Russel Groups Universities pledged to 'always defend free speech' saying that 'disagreement is a fundamental part of debate".

Feel free to add these back with citations to reliable sources. Jlevi (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Generalrelative (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unsound[edit]

The lede concludes thus:

Some newspaper columnists criticised the decision to dismiss Carl as an attack on academic freedom.[4][5] Others defended the decision, arguing that Carl's work relied on "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes about groups".[6][7][8]

Others defended the decision (to dismiss Carl) is not supported by the sources. The quotation on unsound statistical methods comes from anti-Carl petition organizer Clement Mouhot arguing for dismissal before the university conducted its investigation. While I'm sure he was pleased with the outcome, there isn't any comment in the current sources from newspaper columnists or anybody else endorsing the university's decision after the fact. Only some criticisms, as mentioned, on grounds of academic freedom.

I'd remove the second sentence outright, but posting here first as this is a heavily patrolled article. Maybe some of the watchers of this talk page know of other sources that "fix" the problem. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the wording is misleading, since Varsity, Cherwell, and Cambridge Tab are not newspapers like the Times and Telegraph but student publications with vastly smaller readership and unknown editorial standards. Nangaf (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True that student newspapers are generally considered less reliable, but on the other hand the pieces in the Times and Daily Telegraph are WP:RSEDITORIAL (whereas only one of the three student paper sources is). I'd be fine removing both sentences from the lead for now. The matter appears to be discussed adequately in the article body. Generalrelative (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. And I agree, the discussion further down seems perfectly adequate. 108.16.81.69 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Generalrelative (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPsych[edit]

It might be of note that in 2018 Carl authored an editorial defending OpenPsych journals, which have a very poor reputation. Nangaf (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and according to this source he's OpenPsych's "second most prolific contributor". That said, that one source is the only significant secondary coverage of this connection I could find (and it's, again, a student paper, though a very good one). So at this point I'm agnostic as to whether this warrants a mention in article space. But it is indeed worth discussing. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar quote in the Guardian. I do think it is relevant to his reputation as a scientist that he published in outlets with no peer review process to speak of. Nangaf (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, yeah with two secondary sources I think there's a strong case for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've just noticed that there is already mention of Carl publishing in Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science which I believe is one of the OpenPsych journals. So it's more or less covered already, but there may be a case for some additional sourcing -- I'll leave it up to you. Nangaf (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the New Statesman source doesn't mention Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science, and instead treats OpenPsych as a single entity. I have rephrased accordingly, but am not attached to this wording. Added sources would be nice, but however this ends up, a wikilink to OpenPsych seems very useful. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Young[edit]

Would it be original research to suggest that Carl has a longstanding association with the abrasive right-wing journalist and eugenics apologist Toby Young? They both attended LCI in 2017; Young wrote a series of pieces in The Spectator in defence of Carl during his brief time at Cambridge; and since 2021, Carl has contributed on a weekly basis to Young's website, The Daily Skeptic. Nangaf (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah_Carl&oldid=1214133538"