Talk:Steven Pinker/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pseudocontroversies

The paragraph, which someone keeps adding, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's speculation, pseudocontroversy, and not noteworthy.

"Pinker has been criticised for being associated with, as well as using the data of scientific racists (on subjects unrelated to race), such as the blogger Steven Sailer, with journalist Angela Saini stating that "for many people, Pinker's willingness to entertain the work of individuals who are on the far right and white supremacists has gone beyond the pale". Pinker has stated that he condemns racism. In June 2025, Pinker was criticised after he appeared on the podcast of the far-right scientific racism-associated Aporia Magazine." Wiki edit sp (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To quote The Big Lebowski: "Well, that's just like, your opinion man", and given that you have shown no actual desire to usefully contribute to the encyclopedia I don't see why anyone should care. You can't just shout the same four words over and over again and expect people to acquiesce to your demands. That's not how Wikipedia works. See also WP:IDHT. If you keep behaving like this you will be blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are hostile and the one involved in an editing war. Why treat anyone they way you just did me? It's as ugly and inappropriate as smears you are trying to make public on Pinker's page. Wiki edit sp (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The above editor Hemiauchenia reverted your edit only once. Two other editors also reverted them, as anyone can see from the edit history. Read WP:EDITWAR. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 20:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My contributions are being swiftly targeted with rude emails and threats of blocking—simply for stating a verifiable point—which clearly shows you are the ones waging an edit war.

As I’ve already explained, that paragraph has no place on Wikipedia. It is baseless speculation intended to damage Pinker’s reputation and does not reflect his career. A coordinated effort to harm his standing is not a valid editorial practice and it is a disservice to the public and the platform.

The paragraph I have removed includes things that aren't noteworthy, especially considering Pinker has over 40 years of scholarship and is a public figure. You choosing to focus on trivialities irrelevant to his career is the problem here.

Not one of you has engaged me respectfully or engaged my statements. Instead, you've flung insults and threats of having me blocked.

Wiki edit sp (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Greetings,

I took the time to read the article, the edit history and previous discussions, before engaging.

I have some past familiarity with the topic.

In context, these sourced facts are relevant to the notable scholar's life and the field in which he works.

None of the content is controversial.

Thanks for helping to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh🎱 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to, Augmented Seventh. But I see zero evidence that the paragraph I removed contains anything that is noteworthy in relation to Steve Pinker's massive volume of scholarship. On the contrary, the points are smears and distortions and belong, if anywhere, on a blog, not a Wikipedia page about his life's work. Wiki edit sp (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Steven Pinker's biography should absolutely cover his public reception. The fact that Pinker is controversial enough that 180 academics signed a letter against him means that it is absolutely due to elaborate on why Pinker has a controversial reputation. The purpose of Wikipedia biographies is not to provide a hagiographic viewpoint, if you want that go and write you own blog posts where you can be as adoring of Pinker as you like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't even spell his name.

Again, your hostile words to me border on bullying. You should be ashamed of yourself. This isn't appropriate anywhere, much less a public venue. Wiki edit sp (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You have shown no reason for anyone to respect your opinion with your aggressive demands. You can't just shout your opinion over and over again at people and expect them to cave. Nobody owes you anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing that I have said is "shouting."

It's good this conversation is public because it shows you gaslighting someone who has been calm throughout, whom you attacked for merely contributing to the venue. You have sent me response after response with threats to block me for merely disagreeing with you; with accusations that I'm shouting, when the opposite is true.

Contrary to what you've written here, you do owe me civil and respectful engagement. You are doing a disservice to the public space by continuing this hostility to me and a public figure.

You wanting to harm someone's career simply doesn't count as noteworthy. Wiki edit sp (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that consensus is clearly against you in this discussion based on multiple editors reverting your removals and nobody supporting, I owe you no further engagement. You have lost this dispute. To quote Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point" (which is a Wikipedia rules page) Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus. You and a handful of people are dominating this public figure's page. That isn't consensus. That's a smear campaign by a few people who want to do harm to someone whose life work centers on humanism, irregular verbs, and reducing violence and other Enlightenment values that come from rational and civil processes. Wiki edit sp (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed an attempt by Wiki edit sp to influence the discussion with a sockpuppet account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I found the content you're referring to, "humanism, irregular verbs, and reducing violence and other Enlightenment values" within pink's article.

I think it's possible you might be a little biased, as this article covers his life quite thoroughly.

Thanks in advance, Augmented Seventh🎱 23:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Nationality

@DolyaIskrina I've noticed that you have twice objected to people noting that he's Canadian. However, I think you are quoting WP:ETHNICITY incorrectly.

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable. (For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day one, see WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Use modern names.) Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability.

It goes onto indicate say:

Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted.

This suggests stating a nationality is, in fact, the default. It certainly appears to me to be the common practice on Wikipedia. Moreover, in each example that was given, a nationality was stated (except in the two examples for controversial or unclear cases).

(The references to "country of birth" clearly applies to a person who is no longer in their country of birth (and not notable mainly for past events).)

MmeMaigret (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to talk. I'm not going to push this, but by that definition it should say "American" because it was at MIT where he became notable and I think he now lives and teaches at Harvard and has US citizenship. Or it should say "American and Canadian." That's the MOS. But I don't care that much. Frankly these nationality disputes get too heated to be worth it. If you need him to be a Canadian linguist have at it. Cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)