{{u|McNulTEA}}, follow [[WP:ONUS]] and make your case here for your proposed edits. Also pinging {{u|Sxologist}} from the previous disucussion per [[WP:APPNOTE]], if he could weigh in. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
{{u|McNulTEA}}, follow [[WP:ONUS]] and make your case here for your proposed edits. Also pinging {{u|Sxologist}} from the previous disucussion per [[WP:APPNOTE]], if he could weigh in. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
:Just to add, any content must be based on reliable independent sources. A file on googledocs is [[WP:SPS|self-published]] and should not be used as a reference. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
It is my understanding that Pinker is not a linguist, as he does not consider himself to be one. He's said multiple times that his background is in psychology, and considers himself to be a psychologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawkin Verbier (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard and fast definition of who gets to be a linguist and who doesn't. He's a fellow of the LSA and writes about language. Claire (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Pinker himself here: "I never decided to be a linguist (and technically, never became one)." (https://linguistlist.org/studentportal/linguists/pinker.cfm) I agree that there is no external arbiter of who gets to be a linguist, but presumably if he doesn't consider himself one, neither should we? MalignantMouse (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epstein
While scrolling around the history of the recent edit skirmish regarding Pinker's involvement with Epstein, I bumped into the rollback button, and decided to let it stand. Here is a place to discuss whether that content is relevant and of due weight, or inflammatory and unsuitable for a BLP article. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinker would love to forget and have everyone else also forget that he was close to Epstein. I'm sorry but it is extremely biased and inappropriate for us to indulge Pinker's wish. Like most high-profile university Professors in the public spotlight, I'm sure he or his assistants frequently check up on his wikipedia page. It is wrong to leave out any mention of Epstein in Pinker's wikipedia page when the wikipedia pages of both Alan Derschowitz and Lawerence Krauss (who had the same relationship with Epstein as Pinker did) include it.Redthank (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redthank, it's news to me that "high-profile university Professors in the public spotlight", or their assistants, frequently check up on the Wikipedia articles about themselves. What evidence do you have for this? -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Quora page in its entirety: tl;dr. It has a miscellany of essaylets; which should I read? Of course Pinker has a material interest in maintaining his reputation, and of course having an article here that's to his taste would be part of this; but does he, or do his peers, actually do this? I'm willing to believe it, but I'd need evidence. (Without evidence, and quite aside from the usual presumption of innocence, I'd tend to doubt it; because somebody of the stature of Pinker can easily survive a mere passing association with a disgraced figure.) This policy of Harvard's -- is there evidence that Harvard staff edit the en:Wikipedia articles about the profs? -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty rich for an SPA on a mission to right great wrongs to suggest that Pinker's speculated wish is somehow relevant. There is an enormous difference between Pinker's activities and those concerning Alan Dershowitz and to a lesser extent Lawrence Krauss. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between Pinker’s relationship with Epstein and Dershowitz or Krauss's relationships with Epstein. The sources I provide in my original edit prove this. You haven’t contested them so why did you remove it? The only reason someone would remove that edit is to help Pinker obfuscate and memory-hole his activities. It is relevant and it is well-cited and it should be restored to his page. Pinker has actually lied about his activities re Epstein and was exposed by well-sourced journalism. Also: I’m sorry but I’m not a single purpose account. Does it bother you that I actually replied to your groundless claim that my edit was biased and out of topic? You are wrong so you resort to ad hominem attack? Okay. That says it all.Redthank (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I’m not a single purpose account." Redthank, your contributions suggest a single obsession. But perhaps one shouldn't speculate about purpose. Oh, hang on: "The only reason someone would remove that edit is to help Pinker obfuscate and memory-hole his activities." -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to make more edits. You also don't know that I've long contributed to well-regarded wiki projects. Also what is your obsession with me? Every sentence I wrote was backed by a sound citation. Do you have an issue with those citations? If not, the edit must be restored. I'm sorry that your idol Steven Pinker took money from a pedophile billionaire, protected him in court, and then lied about it. That must be difficult for you to cope with but life is about coping with difficult things. I'm sure you'll get over it. In any case, you can't label me a "single purpose account" and therefore disregard my edit. It was and is valid. This isn't about me, its about Pinker. What relevance is there that he is an "Equity feminist" or an "atheist"? Well whatever relevance there is has the same relevance that his deep relationship to his late benefactor Mr. Epstein does. Redthank (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legal proceedings are based on witness statements, facts, expertises, and so on. So Pinker supplied a linguistic expertise the result of which could be used in favor of Epstein.
Are you saying that experts should, before writing an expertise, find out by independent investigations whether the accused is guilty, then fake the expertise to adapt it to the result of those investigations? Or, if he does not want to do that, but if the honest expertise could be used to support an outcome at odds with one's own investigations, suppress it?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving an expertise, independent of whether it can be used to support a right position or a wrong position. To argue otherwise is a sign of a lynch mob mentality: "this man is guilty, so let's hang him and all the witnesses who say they did not see him do it, and all the expert witnesses who did not find any evidence against him, and his lawyer. And all the Wikipedia editors who disagree with my understanding of Wikipedia policy."
This is tongue in cheek: I am pretty sure you don't want to hang anybody. But that is how you come across: as a man on a mission who has absolutely no understanding of, or interest in, other people's actual motives. Instead, you cast aspersions. Someone reverts you or disagrees with you, he's a villain. This is not the way a cooperative project like Wikipedia can work.
And a single-purpose account is somebody who has contributed to one subject only. This is an exact description of you. You also don't know that I've long contributed to well-regarded wiki projects is true for every other SPA, and I'm prepared to make more edits is a claim every other SPA can make.
I've restored the raw fact that Pinker had a role in the Epstein defense, which is well-cited and does not present BLP issues. That's not to endorse the more-problematic text removed by Just plain Bill above. Feoffer (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:UNDUE here. No doubt there is an article where Epstein's defense is described and adding Pinker there could be considered. However, it's a complete nothing here, not unless reliable sources have described a significant effect on Pinker (the subject of this biography). It's likely there is a bunch of social media discussion over Epstein and attempts are being made to use Wikipedia to name-and-shame anyone connected with him. More clue is required when editing this article because what Pinker did was to provide his linguist's opinion on the meaning of a particular sentence. He does that sort of thing frequently and the only thing different about this case is the attempt to link Pinker to a sexual abuser. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Name and Shame" doesn't apply, we merely state the raw fact of his involvement. In regards to "He does that sort of thing frequently", if you would like to add more well-cited explanatory text about his involvement in other legal cases, that would be welcome; but we can't scrub well-cited documentation of his involvement merely to shield the subject from criticism. UNDUE is not in play -- if anything -- there are extensive stories talking about the fallout of Pinker's relationship with Epstein. [1][2][3]. We don't even get into the fallout, we just mention the facts of the legal assistance, so we're NOWHERE NEAR bumping up into UNDUE.
Just did extensive search of Pinker being involved in criminal defense, didn't see any other instances aside from Esptein 2007. If there are other criminal defense cases, especially high-profile cases, we should include them. Feoffer (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that it is not a "smear" when it is true. Redthank (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for being the first person to use the word "smear" on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epstein & Dershowitz
I'm noting that no one has added anything in regards to Epstein & Dershowitz. 89.242.178.245 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read before writing: see above section. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many pics is the right number of pics?
This article contains 5 pictures of this subject. I suggest Pinker in 2011, the third picture, with the red tie, isn't informative beyond the subject's primary profile photograph, in the blue tie. One might argue that having a picture along with each section is fun, and engaging, and that's kinda true. But We have 5 pictures of this subject. And here I argue that one of those photographs isn't more informative than the primary profile photograph. Furthermore, it doesn't appear in the context of the section, which is the popularization of science. Is he popularizing science because he's a ridiculously good looking intellectual? I think this particular profile can be removed. Arguably, it can replace the primary photo at the top. What do you think is the best idea? Mcfnord (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversies" section
IP 103.250.145.90 has removed the "Controversies" section wholesale, twice:
here, with the Edit summary: "It can be discussed in talk page, but until then the guidelines for neutrality should be maintained. The LSA letter as well as Pinker's interpretation of law in Epstein case are very recent phenomena. The other two point only found a brief mention in one op-ed and it's not a "prolonged and heated disagreement" that should be required for controversy)".
here, with the Edit summary: ""Facts" have to be supported by reliable sources. Statements that do not conform to wikipedia's policy of reliable sources will be promptly removed, specially if libelious in nature to a living person".
Is this fair and reasonable? Is it being suggested, for example, that the personal website of Hagit Borer, here is inadmissible as a source of the views of Hagit Borer? Or indeed that what she says there is in any way "libelious"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. To answer your question, yes - the wikipedia guidelines are very clear and unambiguous in this matter. Here is the relevant part: "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Thanks.103.250.145.90 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're telling us that Hagit Borer can't be trusted to be an expert on herself? That's quite ridiculous. And where's this "libelious" material, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that on Wikipedia, Hagit Borer can indeed not be trusted to be an expert on herself on Wikipedia. Only text from an official media source is "verifiable". Because Pinker and his supporters have access to media that his opponents do not, starting to cite who supported and who opposed him or the letter inevitably creates a completely unbalanced picture. For this reason, the obvious (to me) path is to not cite such remarks at all, from either side. It is clear even without this that there is a controversy. That is what my edit tried to accomplish. Happy to consider other versions that achieve the same goal, if you or others have a proposal.Beevrrr (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "me" telling you. It's wikipedia's policies telling you. I have not made those policies. You can cite Hagit Borer's opinion on Hagit Borer's page, but not her opinion on someone else's page. By the way, my own edits were reversed citing the same reason, when I referenced the people in support of Pinker by linking to their blog post. On reflection, this policy makes sense. If we start including blog opinions and facebook posts on everyone's page, then the wikipedia would become a shitshow in no time. Also the letter itself is an opinion of the signatories. There is hardly any need to further add more opinions of the signatories. Rather to balance the perspective of the letter, it makes sense to add the views of those who defended Pinker against such accusations. 103.250.145.90 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I ever claimed that you had made wikipedia's polices. But where's the one that says "You can cite someone's opinion on their own page, but not their opinion on someone else's page"? If Hagit Borer has commented on something to do with Steven Pinker, I see no problem with using her pwn website to quote it. Whether what she has said is actually notable is another question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you open the edit page, it says right at the top in the section called "Notice About Sources": "Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject"103.250.145.90 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Borer's website was being used to support a statement about Borer, not Pinker, i.e. simply supporting the letter and criticising Pinker. But you're also claiming that what Borer says is "libelious in nature to a living person"? I think the only thing we can agree on there is that Pinker is a living person. And when did I ever suggest to "start including blog opinions and facebook posts on everyone's page"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a statement "about Borer", the place for it is Borer's wiki page and not Pinker's page. That is what the policy says as well. "Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject". Also I didn't say that you suggested that, but I was saying what would be the implication if blogs and social media posts of someone giving an opinion on someone else becomes ubiquitous. There would be no end to opinions that way about anyone. But in any case, dwelling on that hypothetical need not concern us here, since the wiki policies are very clear on that.103.250.145.90 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a section about the "Letter to the LSA" at the Hagit Borer article. Nor would one expect that. The entire subject is centred on Pinker. If notable linguists have commented on Pinker, in regard to this subject, I see no problem with using their own published material as sources for those comments. Similarly with David Adger, Gillian Ramchand, Charles Reiss and Todd Snider, all of whose names you have removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, User:103.250.145.90 is correct about Wikipedia policy, which excludes links to all the linguists' blog pages and Medium statements that you want to mention. The issue that would be more useful to focus therefore on is balance. I tried to fix that, but was repeatedly reverted by User:103.250.145.90, who deleted the new material I added (based on your earlier text, I believe). For some reason, Wikipedia sided with User:103.250.145.90 and admonished me to stop unreverting, so I have. But it's a losing battle to try to get self-published blog statements accepted here. Basic fairness, however, should not be a losing battle. At the moment the lengthy Pinker statement and list of Pinker-supportive magazine articles with no counterlist totally unbalances the section. That should change, but clearly I will not be able to succeed in helping with that. tl;dr - try a different approach now to get this section to properly reflect the ongoing controversy, and not just Pinker's POV. Beevrrr (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to disagree over that one. I think that (at least) the notable other linguists should be mentioned. If there are better quality sources to support their comments, those should of course be used. If you'd like to open a new thread about "balance", please do. And it takes two to edit war, not just you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 - Very strange stance. In fact, I am on your side about what should be possible. We are not disagreeing. Don't know why you see me as an adversary in this discussion. The problem is the rules are clear and it is not allowed by the rules. Hope that clarifies.Beevrrr (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Watch out for those wikinets..."I don't see you as "an adversary". We have different views. I've not even accused you of being a single porpoise. We are simply discussants. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Letter to the LSA
LSA Letter section was the subject of a burgeoning edit war. It has also grown much too long, as is common for sections devoted to ongoing controversies. I have deleted all references to blog posts and pro and con articles, which are really irrelevant (yeah, so some people like the letter and some people don't), as well as the lengthy quote from Pinker formerly included. At the same time, I have tried to produce text balanced between the two sides, while making it clear that there is indeed a controversy. Can we leave it there, until there's new news?Beevrrr (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beevrrr. I wonder are you in any way connected to User:103.250.145.90, who I have asked to discuss two items in separate discussion threads above? Exactly what sort of "new news" are you anticipating? And how would that in any way change what has already happened? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Martinevans123 - no connection to that other editor. And not anticipating any particular new news.Beevrrr (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would you care to discuss either of the two items in the threads above? What's the agree limit on the length of the "Letter to the LSA" section exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So much for avoiding a "burgeoning edit war". Any more reverts and I'll be requesting page protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you addressing?Beevrrr (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know about indenting? But so far I think there's only the two of us in this thread? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinker as a member of the Intellectual Dark Web
Pinker's name often comes up on lists of figures who represent the Intellectual Dark Web. See Bari Weiss' 2018 piece for the New York Times. Pinker's name is also listed on the Intellectual Dark Web Wikipedia page. The association should be mentioned on Pinker's page.
Relatedly, but more generally, I think Pinker's Wikipedia page lags behind his newfound identity of being a free speech activist. His Wikipedia page presents him primarily as a cognitive scientist. He is not so much a cognitive scientist any more, as he rarely leads empirical investigations that get published in scientific journals. Check his Google Scholar page, and you will find that there are fewer than 10 last-author (i.e. lead investigator) empirical papers published by Pinker within the last 10 years--less than 1 per year, and that is remarkably low for a scientist working at a top tier university. McNulTEA (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)McNulTEA[reply]
The free speech stuff sounds a lot like WP:RECENTISM and WP:Undue weight, and also WP:OR since you've cited no sources. No, he's by far still best known for being a "cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author [and] his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind." As for the IDW, the only source you've mentioned is Weiss' original piece, which only states: Go a click in one direction and the group is enhanced by intellectuals with tony affiliations like Steven Pinker at Harvard....It’s hard to draw boundaries around an amorphous network, especially when each person in it has a different idea of who is beyond the pale. That's not very clear and could easily be interpreted to mean that he is in one direction in the network from the IDW, not definitively in it. I don't think this is good enough to add to this BLP, considering the implications of association involved. Crossroads-talk- 22:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it should be said that he is closely affiliated with the IDW.
Also, I am curious what the "implications" are that do not merit mentioning any of this. McNulTEA (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)McNulTEA[reply]
The IDW is a label that often carries unsavory connotations. And Pinker disagrees with many of the IDW members on many things. This label is not to be applied lightly. And your latest sources are not enough. The Salon piece is a highly negative opinion piece in an outlet that isn't great in terms of reliability. See WP:RSP and WP:RSOPINION. It is not reliable for stating as fact that Pinker is in the IDW, and it is not a WP:Due opinion to include. As for Quillette, stating that 'Quillette is IDW, and Pinker has published in Quillette, therefore Pinker is IDW' is clear WP:Synthesis. Many people have published in Quillette, and most are not part of the IDW. Crossroads-talk- 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, in your eyes would suffice to include someone in the IDW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McNulTEA (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example, James Flynn has written for Quillette, and is certainly not considered an "IDW" figure. He challenged Charles Murray on numerous occasions. I had classes with him – he is a very left wing guy. Is he part of the "IDW" because he was critical of attacks on scientific research in Quillette? What about Alice Dreger? Copied from the IDW article: "For her part, historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn't even know these people?"". Applying this label is getting silly. Sxologist (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, any content must be based on reliable independent sources. A file on googledocs is self-published and should not be used as a reference. Schazjmd(talk) 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
