This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
/Archive 1 |
Pinker as a linguist?
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)
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)
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)
- "I am, among other things, a descriptive linguist: a card-carrying member of the Linguistic Society of America who has written many articles and books on how people use their mother tongue, including words and constructions that are frowned on by the purists." -- Steven Pinker, in his book The Sense of Style.
- "The first thing to note is the letter’s acknowledgment that the denunciation itself and its call for the Linguistic Society of America to remove Pinker from its list of 'distinguished academic fellows and media experts' are not grounded in any claim about Pinker’s scholarly chops. The signatories have no concern about his 'academic contributions as a linguist, psychologist and cognitive scientist.'"[1]
- "Harvard linguist points out the 58 most commonly misused words and phrases ... In his latest book, "The Sense of Style," Harvard cognitive scientist and linguist Steven Pinker explores the most common words and phrases that people stumble over."[2]
- "Dr. Steven Pinker: Cognitive Psychologist, Linguist, and Author"[3]
- "Linguistics can often feel impenetrable to outsiders, the debates disconnected from reality; Pinker fashioned those arcane controversies into bestseller material"[4]
- "In the latest entry of 7 Questions to a Linguist, ALTA Language Services caught up with psycholinguistics wunderkind Dr. Steven Pinker."[5]
- "A Harvard Linguist's (and Bill Gates's Favorite Author) 13 Simple Tips for Becoming a Great Writer: Writing well is hard, but Steven Pinker managed to boil the essentials down to just 13 tweet-length tips."[6]
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)
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)
- 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)
- Hoary, See: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-edit-a-wikipedia-page-that-is-about-yourself-or-a-group-event-you-are-affiliated-with; Also consider that Pinker has publicists who work for his book publisher and his university (Harvard University) has a policy of editing and promoting their faculty-profiles. Pinker makes money (book sales, speaker fees) from people assuming he's an impartial scientist so he has a material interest in protecting this image. Redthank (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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, andI'm prepared to make more edits
is a claim every other SPA can make. - Also, learn how to indent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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. [7][8][9]. 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)
- I just want to note that it is not a "smear" when it is true. Redthank (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations for being the first person to use the word "smear" on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
I'm bothered by the omission of the fact that Pinker was quoted by Dershowitz in a court document. If there is going to be a description of Pinker's involvement in the Epstein case then at minimum this should be mentioned. See primary source here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6192383-Dershowitz-Letter.html. See secondary source here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-alan-dershowitz-steven-pinker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.2 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then you'll be relieved to find out that it isn't omitted and is, in fact, already in the article:
In 2007, Pinker gave his expert interpretation as a linguist of the wording of a federal law to Alan Dershowitz who was the defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. In 2019, Pinker stated that he was unaware of the nature of the charges against Epstein, and that he engaged in an unpaid favor for his Harvard colleague Alan Dershowitz, as he had regularly done. He stated that he regrets writing the letter.
(refs removed for quoting) Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)- Nowhere in that quote is it mentioned that Dershowitz used Pinker's opinion in his communications with prosecutors, which was recorded in a court document. That quote states that Pinker offered his opinion to Dershowitz, but it does not say that Dershowitz then used that information in the legal proceeding. That information is relevant but it is currently omitted from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4280:B200:E5F2:A04B:C109:414F (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for your response to the latest comment, Schazjmd.
- Nowhere in that quote is it mentioned that Dershowitz used Pinker's opinion in his communications with prosecutors, which was recorded in a court document. That quote states that Pinker offered his opinion to Dershowitz, but it does not say that Dershowitz then used that information in the legal proceeding. That information is relevant but it is currently omitted from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4280:B200:E5F2:A04B:C109:414F (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are four known photos of them together: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5pn87/free-speech-crusader-steven-pinker-blocking-anyone-mentioning-his-epstein-ties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.175.206 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"Controversies" section
IP 103.250.145.90 has removed the "Controversies" section wholesale, twice:
- first here, with the Edit summary: "Having a separate "Controversies" section goes against Wikipedia's policy of avoiding "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like", as "these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints" (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies"
and then again
- 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)".
Is this fair and reasonable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- I had assumed, from the second edit summary above, that someone had offered to discuss this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- That guidelines page sounds like it's suggesting that, rather than simply removing all the content of the now-missing "Controversies" section from the article, the material therefrom should instead be dispersed throughout the article such that the subject matter of each particular controversy should correspond to the respective relevant subject heading. I understand the logic behind the guideline about avoiding "Controversy" sections, but I have to say that, reading this article as it is now, with all the material from the "Controversies" section simply missing from the body of the article after having been excised, the article seems very incomplete. Pinker has been an extremely polarizing public intellectual throughout his career, has been at the center of multiple significant controversies, and is the subject of a very large body of critique from other scholars both in his academic field and outside it. Omitting these facts about him, for whatever reason, does a disservice to readers who come to this article to get an adequate picture of Pinker's life and work. In fact, in its current form, I'd go so far as to say that the article is much too biased in favor of Pinker, because the lack of information about controversies he's been involved in, and about criticism aimed at him, gives the highly inaccurate impression that he's so widely agreed with as to establish a virtual consensus among scholars and laypersons alike that Pinker is pretty much always right, when this couldn't be further from the truth. As just one example, the praise "The Better Angels of Our Nature" received was at least equaled, if not outstripped, by substantive challenges to its thesis, methodology, assumptions and biases, and its conclusions. I'm not an active Wikipedia editor so I won't be involved in fixing this article, but I did notice the lack of reference to criticism and controversy when reading through it (which is why I came to the talk page in the first place, as I'd viewed the article before and remembered a robust "Criticism" section, and now feel that the article is missing an awful lot of key information if the goal is to present a clear, accurate, sufficient, holistic picture of Pinker to the reader). Direct action (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- We already describe the criticism of Better Angels and cite even more sources for it than for the praise. Other criticism for his other work is scattered through the article already. Most of the critiques (and praise) of such works belongs at the articles on those publications, however, per WP:Summary style. Also, a lot of the criticism out there of Pinker, as a person, is not scholarly or in WP:Reliable sources at all, but is politically-motivated character assassination; we do not cover that or take it into consideration when considering WP:Due. Crossroads -talk- 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"Reliable sources"
IP 103.250.145.90 has removed some of the detail and sources in the "Letter to the LSA" section, twice:
- first here, with the Edit summary: "Self-published sources and blog posts go against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and is strictly prohibited (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)"
and then again
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- No, Martinevans123 - no connection to that other editor. And not anticipating any particular new news.Beevrrr (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
- 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)- Pinker is associated with the IDW according to Weiss' Opinion piece, but also see here: https://www.salon.com/2019/10/20/steven-pinker-sam-harris-and-the-epidemic-of-annoying-white-male-intellectuals/
- Pinker has also published on Quillette, which is the publishing platform for the IDW (see supporting references on the Wikipedia entry): https://quillette.com/2019/01/14/enlightenment-wars-some-reflections-on-enlightenment-now-one-year-later/
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
Details on LSA letter
McNulTEA, follow WP:ONUS and make your case here for your proposed edits. Also pinging Sxologist from the previous disucussion per WP:APPNOTE, if he could weigh in. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- There is a clear effort on the part of some editors to omit sources that are critical of Pinker, while keeping in sources that defend him. First, there is the issue of keeping in the names of Pinker's supporters but removing the names of his critics listed in the LSA letter. If it is true that this is an issue of using a self-published source, then why is Barbara Partee's name listed under Pinker's supporters? Her support was self-published in Medium. Yes, her self-published support is cited in another article, but how does that magically make it worth citing any more than the names in the original letter? Second, there is the issue of obscuring the number of signatories (the original listing on the page was 635 but was changed to "hundreds"). There is no clear reason for this edit other than to conceal the magnitude of the letter. Third, there is the issue of including the LSA's original statement, which could be seen as favoring Pinker, while omitting the LSA's subsequent letter, which could be seen as favoring the signatories. These efforts, which have mainly been the thrust of Crossroads and IP 103.85.9.202 are blatantly biased and do not do justice to documenting the entire affair surrounding the letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McNulTEA (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- McNulTEA, Barbara Partee is sourced to a Mother Jones article, not to Medium. If reliable sources base some of their information on self-published sources, that's their call. We don't directly cite self-published sources (minus the few exceptions). I've no opinion at this time on the rest of the content you want to add, but we can't cite the google docs file. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is why the talk page is pointless. You have no opinion, so my complaints die. Is that how this works? I will also point out the issue of omitting the author on the Mother Jones article, which makes it appear as though the opinion of that one author is representative of the entire entity that is Mother Jones. This gives off the appearance that Mother Jones, as an entity, supports Pinker. -McNulTEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by McNulTEA (talk • contribs)
- (edit conflict) Editors who make accusations of bias will want to be sure to look in the mirror. As I said in edit summaries, what you want to add constitutes WP:FALSEBALANCE and contradicts WP:Secondary. We do not engage in WP:POV WP:OR by selecting our favorite bits of primary sources. Partee's support being mentioned in a secondary source is precisely why it can be included. If secondary sources don't quantify the number of signatories of the letter or name any signers, than neither do we. And the reception of secondary sources of the letter was decidedly negative overall. With Mother Jones, why would we try to act like Mother Jones doesn't support what their writer said? They published it, it's theirs. Crossroads -talk- 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Patience; there's barely been time for other editors to weigh in. As for mentioning the writer's name, in my experience that's a stylistic choice; I've seen some editors write "X in New York Times wrote..." or "a New York Times article said..." or "according to the New York Times". I don't think there's any policy, guideline, or recommendation on when to include the journalist's name. Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Adding, since it wasn't clear in my earlier statement, my lack of opinion is because I'm open to hearing reasonable discussion on what should be included. If you'd like to (calmly) make a case for it, please do so. A lot of accusatory questions and hyperbole aren't convincing. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Never mind. Your edit war indicates that you're not willing to discuss in good faith. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are being disingenuous. I state my issue with the additional LSA letter being omitted, and all you can say is "I've no opinion at this time". Then when I re-insert that information into the page, which very clearly deserves to be there, you claim that I am not willing to discuss in good faith. Come on, let's discuss this. Don't just tell me you don't have an opinion. Is this Bob Mueller I'm talking to? -McNulTEA
- Never mind. Your edit war indicates that you're not willing to discuss in good faith. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Adding, since it wasn't clear in my earlier statement, my lack of opinion is because I'm open to hearing reasonable discussion on what should be included. If you'd like to (calmly) make a case for it, please do so. A lot of accusatory questions and hyperbole aren't convincing. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is why the talk page is pointless. You have no opinion, so my complaints die. Is that how this works? I will also point out the issue of omitting the author on the Mother Jones article, which makes it appear as though the opinion of that one author is representative of the entire entity that is Mother Jones. This gives off the appearance that Mother Jones, as an entity, supports Pinker. -McNulTEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by McNulTEA (talk • contribs)
- McNulTEA, Barbara Partee is sourced to a Mother Jones article, not to Medium. If reliable sources base some of their information on self-published sources, that's their call. We don't directly cite self-published sources (minus the few exceptions). I've no opinion at this time on the rest of the content you want to add, but we can't cite the google docs file. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a clear effort on the part of some editors to omit sources that are critical of Pinker, while keeping in sources that defend him. First, there is the issue of keeping in the names of Pinker's supporters but removing the names of his critics listed in the LSA letter. If it is true that this is an issue of using a self-published source, then why is Barbara Partee's name listed under Pinker's supporters? Her support was self-published in Medium. Yes, her self-published support is cited in another article, but how does that magically make it worth citing any more than the names in the original letter? Second, there is the issue of obscuring the number of signatories (the original listing on the page was 635 but was changed to "hundreds"). There is no clear reason for this edit other than to conceal the magnitude of the letter. Third, there is the issue of including the LSA's original statement, which could be seen as favoring Pinker, while omitting the LSA's subsequent letter, which could be seen as favoring the signatories. These efforts, which have mainly been the thrust of Crossroads and IP 103.85.9.202 are blatantly biased and do not do justice to documenting the entire affair surrounding the letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McNulTEA (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Trying again. What is the content that you think should be added to the article? What are the (non-google docs) sources for that content? Why do you think the content you want to add is important for WP:NPOV? Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am arguing that the exact number of signatures be stated, not vaguely summarized as “hundreds”. Here, I am not as much concerned with neutrality, although “hundreds” covers a range below the actual number of signatories and thus creates the possibility of underestimating the true number (and thus minimizing the magnitude of the letter). I am more concerned with clarity.
- I am also arguing that the initial letter from the LSA be quoted in full, or at least summarized in a fair manner. Currently, the summary of the initial letter form the LSA consists of a quote that emphasizes intellectual freedom—a quote taken from the first 1/3 of the letter. What is missing is the LSA’s statement on rejection of racism and misogyny, as well as their statement on the creation of a task force for “ensuring transparent, equitable, and inclusive nominations, awards, appointments, and elections”. See here: https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=001f7eb7302f6add98bff7e46&id=b43bc7004b&e=97c8620143 If the first 1/3 of the statement is the only portion of the letter that is mentioned, that seems to me a clear violation of neutrality because it just so happens to be the part of the letter that favors Pinker. In fact, it caused Pinker to claim that the LSA “repudiated” the google doc letter, which is, according to their subsequent letter (see below), not true. See here: https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1280950807819628546
- I am also arguing that the second letter from the LSA be mentioned and its contents summarized: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/news/2020/07/20/update-lsa%E2%80%99s-recent-statement-intellectual-freedom Omitting this information is a clear violation of neutrality when considering that a summary of the initial LSA letter is currently included. The initial letter favors Pinker in that the LSA implies that freedom of speech and intellectual freedom should take precedence over the signatories’ complaints, while the second letter emphasizes that the initial letter was misinterpreted, the LSA did not reject the google doc letter, and the LSA decided to disband the Media Experts page. By including only a summary of the first letter from the LSA but no the second, that counts toward an impartial accounting of the whole story. -McNulTEA
- Thank you for summarizing. Are there any secondary sources that support any of that? (Please keep in mind that the purpose of the encyclopedia article is not to fairly present the case of the dispute, but to summarize what independent sources have said about it in relation to Pinker, the topic of the article.) (Also, please sign your posts properly by ending your comment with four tildes (~~~~) so that the software automatically adds the date/timestamp to your signature.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Before I go digging for secondary sources, please provide reasons for why the LSA statements are not sufficient. Why are those not legitimate sources? It seems odd that, according to you, self-published material filtered through a news article is acceptable while statements directly from the academic organization at the center of all this is not. In addition, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of why, in your opinion, Wikipedia has no interest in fairly representing this story. If I understand you correctly, the function of Wikipedia is not to document history, but to document whatever is sampled by media outlets. Am I understanding you correctly? McNulTEA (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)McNulTEA
- As Schazjmd said, secondary sources are crucial. WP:NPOV is not based on our own opinion of what is neutral, but on the WP:Due weight of the sources. Those WP:Secondary sources decide what is noteworthy. As for the rest of the LSA's initial letter, of course they say they are against bigotry and for inclusion. So does Pinker. It's very likely that no secondary sources consider this completely banal statement noteworthy, but having it here could be considered as implying something about Pinker. As for that second letter, we could remove Pinker's tweet about "repudiation" since it also lacks a secondary source, but covering the second letter without a secondary source is a problem. Interpretation, either stated directly or implied via selective quoting or juxtaposition, needs to be left to secondary sources. I mean, what I see is an LSA trying to be diplomatic and satisfactory towards both the letter signers and Pinker's supporters, but still, I'm not seeing any good reason to add it without significance being shown. Crossroads -talk- 01:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- To add to what Crossroads said, this is a WP:BLP and the letters are primary sources. If there were secondary sources making the connection between the letter to Pinker and the second letter, the article could also make that connection, but without them, the second letter makes no mention of Pinker and, as a primary source, cannot be mentioned as it relies on the editor to draw the conclusion that it is related. There is a secondary source here that says the open letter has "536 named signatories", so we can support that in place of "hundreds", and I would be in favor of being more specific.I would also support a second sentence on the initial LSA sentence about their opposition to racism and misogyny. I wouldn't support going into details about their plans (task force) as it isn't relevant to this biography.As I said in my first paragraph, the second letter makes no mention of Pinker. This is where a secondary source would be needed.(Also, thanks for fixing your signature!) Schazjmd (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention it: I agree with Crossroads about removing Pinker's tweet. Schazjmd (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- To add to what Crossroads said, this is a WP:BLP and the letters are primary sources. If there were secondary sources making the connection between the letter to Pinker and the second letter, the article could also make that connection, but without them, the second letter makes no mention of Pinker and, as a primary source, cannot be mentioned as it relies on the editor to draw the conclusion that it is related. There is a secondary source here that says the open letter has "536 named signatories", so we can support that in place of "hundreds", and I would be in favor of being more specific.I would also support a second sentence on the initial LSA sentence about their opposition to racism and misogyny. I wouldn't support going into details about their plans (task force) as it isn't relevant to this biography.As I said in my first paragraph, the second letter makes no mention of Pinker. This is where a secondary source would be needed.(Also, thanks for fixing your signature!) Schazjmd (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for summarizing. Are there any secondary sources that support any of that? (Please keep in mind that the purpose of the encyclopedia article is not to fairly present the case of the dispute, but to summarize what independent sources have said about it in relation to Pinker, the topic of the article.) (Also, please sign your posts properly by ending your comment with four tildes (~~~~) so that the software automatically adds the date/timestamp to your signature.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am also arguing that the second letter from the LSA be mentioned and its contents summarized: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/news/2020/07/20/update-lsa%E2%80%99s-recent-statement-intellectual-freedom Omitting this information is a clear violation of neutrality when considering that a summary of the initial LSA letter is currently included. The initial letter favors Pinker in that the LSA implies that freedom of speech and intellectual freedom should take precedence over the signatories’ complaints, while the second letter emphasizes that the initial letter was misinterpreted, the LSA did not reject the google doc letter, and the LSA decided to disband the Media Experts page. By including only a summary of the first letter from the LSA but no the second, that counts toward an impartial accounting of the whole story. -McNulTEA
A few weeks ago, I did my best to combine text from previous versions that fairly and succinctly reflects both sides of the controversy concerning the Pinker/LSA letter. With protection for this page now removed, it is clear that Crossroads will not take "compromise" for an answer, and is intent on removing all content that strikes a balance, leaving only Pinker's negative comments intact. I wish I could rejoin this quarrel, but I do not have Crossroads's stamina evidently. I hope other editors will join the discussion to create an appropriate consensus behind a balanced section. Deeply discouraged. Beevrrr (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Beevrrr, do you have any input on the current discussion in this section? Otherwise, it looks like you're just making this an opportunity to cast aspersions on another editor. Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Beevrrr, as you are a user with only 26 edits, all but one of which are in relation to Steven Pinker, try to be sure to give WP:NPOV a thorough read. Our own feelings are not the arbiters of neutrality. Also, I was never locked out from this page. Only non-autoconfirmed users were. I edited the section because I just happened to get around to fixing it. Crossroads -talk- 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Crossroads, all of your edits on the page have served to delete content supportive of the LSA letter, leaving only content critical of it. That speaks for itself. My edits, by contrast, have tried to include succinct information from both sides. That too should speak for itself. But as I remarked above, you win. Someone else will have to work on this. Beevrrr (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Here, I wrote a whole paragraph on his recent actions following the letter and the professional backlash over his response and relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I have several reputable news sources in there but they deleted it, refused to answer my question about why, and then shut down the whole page to editing so I don't know, someone who knows how to do this go ahead and snag my paragraph. I just want the page to reflect the most up-to-date, verifiable information.
Despite these opinions on hearing objectionable points of view, Pinker has been accused of blocking thousands of Twitter accounts, many of whom work in the same fields. He claimed in an email to Motherboard that "my Twitter feed became infested with trolls and bots who kept posting photos with me and Jeffrey Epstein."[1] In response to accusations of hypocrisy, Pinker continued, "I’ve been told that people are now bitching and moaning about this, but no one has a First Amendment right to post something on Steven Pinker’s Twitter feed." Despite Pinker's repeated claims that he only met Epstein three times and took one photograph with him from an event in 2004[2], there are actually several others, including one ten years earlier in 2004[3], two years earlier on Epstein's private jet, nicknamed The Lolita Express, in 2002 [4].Additionally, Harvard released a statement revealing that Epstein had an office on the same campus as Pinker's and visited often[5]. As of August 28, 2020, Pinker has blocked thousands of Twitter followers, including his colleagues, starting with those who mention his and Epstein's names together but quickly broadening in scope to nearly every tweet with his name in it.[6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJCarignan (talk • contribs)
References
- ^ "Free Speech Crusader Steven Pinker Blocking Anyone Mentioning His Epstein Ties". www.vice.com. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
- ^ "In distancing himself from Epstein, Pinker offers insight into relationship between some givers and "smart set" -". Philanthropy Daily. 2019-07-24. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
- ^ Imgur. "Pinker and Epstein, 2004". Imgur. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
- ^ Engber, Daniel (2019-08-02). "What It Was Like to Be a Scientist in Jeffrey Epstein's Circle". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
- ^ Svrluga, Susan. "Jeffrey Epstein had his own office at Harvard University — after he was convicted as a sex offender". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
- ^ "Free Speech Crusader Steven Pinker Blocking Anyone Mentioning His Epstein Ties". www.vice.com. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
So apparently they need more proof that this is noteworthy because apparently the many comments here and the many attempted edits of the page (I assume at least some of them had as many citations as I did) isn't enough. Thousands of people talking about it on Twitter isn't enough. The fact that he is quoted in these articles discussing it himself is not enough. I don't know wikipedia so I'm sorry if I"m doing something wrong, but I am a cognitive linguist who has worked with Pinker before and I damn well know my citations are valid if nothing else so I don't know how else to tell people about his easily verifiable statements and actions on his own personal accounts and in statements to news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJCarignan (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is interesting. I'm actually more interested in the censorship than the events themselves. I rest my case: Wikipedia is lying about Steven Pinker. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it is the truth. Weidorje (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest deleting the article on the grounds that it has been hijacked. Weidorje (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Banning twitter followers
The following content has been added several times to the article:
In August 2020 Pinker began blocking other users on Twitter for mentioning his name alongside Epstein's in the same tweet. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/harvard-steven-pinker-epstein-block/|title=Harvard’s Steven Pinker is apparently blocking people who mention his connection to Epstein}}</ref>
Should it be included in the article? (@Crossroads and McNulTEA:) Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, how Pinker manages his twitter account is not encyclopedic; this is trivia. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's non-noteworthy Twitter drama, which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Crossroads -talk- 21:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. Not only is it trivia, including iit is an attempt to hook a blatant BLP violation onto the whole cancel culture whatever controversy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
[redacted for BLP reasons] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- 71.117.175.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), always sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Next, your edit was reverted for multiple reasons. To begin with, whether the information should even be mentioned, which two of us dispute: it's trivial, tabloid-ish type content. Next, you synthesized sources to make implications not stated by a reliable source; the Washington Post article does not mention Pinker. It included unreliable sources (imgur). You need consensus to add the content. If your purpose is to make a case against Pinker regarding Epstein, please take it to Reddit. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, which the IP got in right before semiprotection and which Schazjmd rightly reverted, and the IP's statement above: WP:BLP states, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources....Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
The content was obviously unencyclopedic WP:ATTACK material, meant to cast aspersions on Pinker regarding Jeffrey Epstein. It also engaged in WP:Synthesis.
This source, Vice, is of questionable reliability per WP:RSP. This, Imgur, is a self-published source and unusable per WP:BLPSPS. This source does not mention Pinker at all.
The Epstein matter is already covered in the article, and in a balanced fashion. This latest stuff about blocking people is ephemeral Twitter drama of no lasting significance. Just because a couple crappy outlets report on it right then, that does not mean it gets into Wikipedia automatically, per WP:NOTNEWS. The whole Epstein thing on social media is just Pinker's usual political enemies trying to smear him as they have always done. Since he is one of the most prominent advocates of the view that the world has been improving (despite being clear that right-wing populism, climate change, etc. are serious problems, and having center-left views), those who advocate for revolution hate him. Crossroads -talk- 00:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder if we should stop reporting on the President of the United States' statements, since they're also Twitter drama. You can't just decide something isn't important in the real world when it is powerful, successful, educated, famous people using Twitter to spread information and disinformation to begin with. Please also note that my paragraph below mostly mentions Pinker's own comments on the matter followed by evidence of his relationship with Epstein, which is what he keeps blocking people over so it IS relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJCarignan (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Preprint reference
Content referenced to a preprint article has been added to the article. Should content sourced to the preprint article be in the article? (@Crossroads and McNulTEA: Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, previous discussions (see here and here for recent conversations) indicate that preprints are generally considered WP:SPS; it's better to wait for actual publication. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's definitely an SPS and unusable. It's also interesting how the preprint complains that the "mainstream media" did not see things from their POV. If even they admit that, it corroborates that we are on the right track in not treating both sides with a false balance, since we follow the sources and the sources were negative about the complaints. Also, noting here that McNulTEA, who was pushing for this and the content in the previous section, was indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Crossroads -talk- 21:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears that this source was deliberately written with the goal of laundering a reference into Wikipedia, according to the author's twitter. -MugaSofer (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Mugasofer; that whole tweet thread is very revealing. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Could you tell us the exact wording from that twitter thread that led you to that conclusion? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Twitter user: "One expects linguists to write papers on linguistics and I don’t like it when they write papers about why someone is wrong and got away with it, under the guise of academia. It feels off"
- Paper authors reply: "We probably wouldn't be in this situation if any of the venues parroting Pinker's points had deigned to consider one of our op-eds. The public record needed to be corrected, and Medium posts weren't cutting it." "On this specific part of the issue: if @Wikipedia doesn't recognize self-publication but does recognize peer-reviewed papers, then a peer-reviewed paper can be cited in Wikipedia."
- In fairness, arguably this is OK; notability is a pretty weak filter, intended to prevent literally every random thing from being included, so if they ever clear that bar then maybe their opinion should be included as one perspective in the article - including the criticisms of Wikipedia. But I think it's worth being aware that this is motivated by Wikipedia drama. - MugaSofer (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- No. Let's see if it makes it through peer review and gets published.
- It is also available on the University of Edinburgh website: https://bialik.ppls.ed.ac.uk/pubs/who-speaks-public.pdf
- Key quotes:
- "Due to Wikipedia’s policies excluding original research and self-published content, only those articles which have been published in traditional media—effectively those relaying Pinker’s narrative, as described above—are legitimate sources for citation. As a result, a list of TOL detractors is included in the English language Wikipedia entry for Steven Pinker (Wikipedia 2020a) because they were listed in a Mother Jones synopsis (King 2020). But because no media source has published a list of TOL supporters, and because TOL itself (including even the names of its signatories) is self-published, no countervailing list can be included (Wikipedia 2020b). The same is true for the numerous dissenting pieces, including Borer 2020b, which have not been covered by traditional media and are thus excluded from citation."
- "This coverage has furthermore resulted in a one-sided synopsis of the incident on Wikipedia, as its public editability and detailed bureaucracy, while designed to ensure neutrality, ended up merely reflecting the biased media coverage."
- And the paper is correct. We don't decide who is right or wrong, but rather report what is in reliable sources. If the sources are one sided (See WP:MANDY) then so is Wikipedia. This is a Good Thing. So is our policy on preprints. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also from that twitter thread, We probably wouldn't be in this situation if any of the venues parroting Pinker's points had deigned to consider one of our op-eds. The public record needed to be corrected, and Medium posts weren't cutting it. followed by e.g., "As a result of the media’s one-sided coverage of this issue and due to Wikipedia’s policies excluding original research and self-published content, Pinker’s narrative has also been faithfully reproduced on Wikipedia." (p. 9). At least they're grasping the idea of Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
addition on LSA letter
I'd missed this being added last month, but I question whether the following is WP:DUE:
Pinker commented on the letter, "I feel sorry for the signatories. Moralistic dudgeon is a shallow and corrosive indulgence [and] policing the norms of your peer group a stunting of the intellect. Learning new ideas [and] rethinking conventional wisdom are deeper pleasures and ultimately better for the world. Our natural state is ignorance, fallibility [and] self-deception. Progress comes only from broaching [and] evaluating ideas, including those that feel unfamiliar and uncomfortable."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1279936591226642432|title=Steven Pinker On Twitter}}</ref>
The section has 1 paragraph explaining the letter/accusations, and a 2d paragraph summarizing the responses. That seems to me to be sufficient to cover the incident, I don't think that a lengthy twitter quote from Pinkner attacking the accusers adds any new information. It seems like using the article as a megaphone for Pinker's side of the story, but I didn't want to unilaterally delete it. Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not valuable to include this, at least without any RS coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really care about it, since it's a tweet with no secondary sources. But I do think this should be restored. The LSA's reaction is indeed pertinent, and nothing wrong was implied by what we had there. And Reason is listed in green at WP:RSP, stating:
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts.
It also says that statements of opinion should be attributed, but there were no statements of Reason's opinion in the text that was being sourced to it; it was reliable for that purpose. Crossroads -talk- 18:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)- I don't object to swapping the tweet for the LSA reaction. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the Pinker tweet quote doesn't belong here. As for the LSA statement that "The Linguistic Society of America is committed to intellectual freedom" etc.... I agree that Reason can be taken as a reliable source for the facts about what the statement says, but isn't it a matter of opinion that it's relevant to this article at all? The LSA statement doesn't mention Pinker or the open letter. At least I think we need a more reliable source than Reason for the claim that the LSA statement was widely taken to be a response to the open letter. (Pinker claimed that the LSA statement was a repudiation of the open letter, but the LSA explicitly disavowed that interpretation.) AJD (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ajd, if we're citing Reason (not the letter itself), the Reason article is specifically about Pinker & LSA in the context of the open letter accusing Pinker, and ends with
On July 8, the LSA's executive committee issued a letter to Pinker affirming that the group "is committed to intellectual freedom and professional responsibility. It is not the mission of the Society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression. Inclusion and civility are crucial to productive scholarly work. And inclusion means hearing (not necessarily accepting) all points of view, even those that may be objectionable to some."
You don't think that's sufficient? Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)- Reason's description of that statement as "a letter to Pinker" seems like at best a half-truth, though? That is, that letter was sent to all LSA members; it wasn't addressed to Pinker specifically. AJD (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about the "to Pinker" wording in Reason. It's to everyone, but it is obviously regarding the matter. The New York Times also understood the LSA's letter to be a response to the open letter, stating,
The linguists demanded that the society revoke Professor Pinker’s status as a “distinguished fellow” and strike his name from its list of media experts. The society’s executive committee declined to do so last week, stating: “It is not the mission of the society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression.”
Reason was well within reason (heh) to understand the LSA's letter as connected. We can use them as a source for the statement of fact that the LSA, in this context, wrote a letter stating such and such. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about the "to Pinker" wording in Reason. It's to everyone, but it is obviously regarding the matter. The New York Times also understood the LSA's letter to be a response to the open letter, stating,
- Reason's description of that statement as "a letter to Pinker" seems like at best a half-truth, though? That is, that letter was sent to all LSA members; it wasn't addressed to Pinker specifically. AJD (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ajd, if we're citing Reason (not the letter itself), the Reason article is specifically about Pinker & LSA in the context of the open letter accusing Pinker, and ends with
- I agree that the Pinker tweet quote doesn't belong here. As for the LSA statement that "The Linguistic Society of America is committed to intellectual freedom" etc.... I agree that Reason can be taken as a reliable source for the facts about what the statement says, but isn't it a matter of opinion that it's relevant to this article at all? The LSA statement doesn't mention Pinker or the open letter. At least I think we need a more reliable source than Reason for the claim that the LSA statement was widely taken to be a response to the open letter. (Pinker claimed that the LSA statement was a repudiation of the open letter, but the LSA explicitly disavowed that interpretation.) AJD (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't object to swapping the tweet for the LSA reaction. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really care about it, since it's a tweet with no secondary sources. But I do think this should be restored. The LSA's reaction is indeed pertinent, and nothing wrong was implied by what we had there. And Reason is listed in green at WP:RSP, stating:
Signatories of "The Letter"
The article states that the letter "was signed by hundreds of academics", and the linked material includes a tabulation with 635 names (as of 9th September). However it is unclear whether these were original signatories "in good standing" with the Linguistic Society of America, or whether they are subsequent endorsements from people outraged by Pinker's alleged behaviour.
Does anybody have a definitive list of the original signatories, and verification of their standing with the LSA (i.e. fellow vs student member etc.)? Has anybody attempted to break down the complete list by professional standing (i.e. students vs academics vs "hangers on")? MarkMLl (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- MarkMLl, I haven't seen any reliable sources make that sort of analysis, no. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- According to this article, the proportions of students, faculty, and non-academics among the signatories to the letter are roughly comparable to their proportions among members of the LSA at large. Seven of them are LSA fellows, and 19 are scholars of sufficient notability to have Wikipedia articles. AJD (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was just trying to answer MarkMLl's question. Also, I call into question the assumption that preprints are automatically considered not appropriate sources for Wikipedia (why does Template:Cite arXiv exist?), or that a simple quantitative report of statistical characteristics of publicly-available data is "not reliable" simply because it's carried out by someone whose opinion on the issue is already known. That sounds like a preemptive attempt to exclude the article as a source even if it undergoes peer review and is published in a reputable academic journal. AJD (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've got no skin in this game since I neither "self-identify as a linguist" nor am I a significant Wp editor. However I'd suggest that the preprint would be an adequate confirmation of who the original signatories were, subject to the original letter being made available. Ajd Out of curiousity, how big is the membership of the LSA and how big a proportion of their fellows is seven? MarkMLl (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The membership of the LSA appears to be about 3500 people (so the number of signatories of the letter is about 20% of the size of the organization, though not all signatories were dues-paying members). There are about 140 LSA fellows, so about 5% of them signed the letter. AJD (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I'd assumed the LSA was larger (engineering or scientific professional bodies typically boast 10s of thousands of members of all grades). So at that point knowing how many of those 650 signatories/endorsers are formally associated really becomes quite important... I suspect the organisers themselves realise this hence their belated attempt to restrict comment to people with a .edu email address. MarkMLl (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is well beyond the scope of a Wikipedia talk page, but I don't think it's "quite important" to know how many signatories are "formally associated" with the LSA. It may be important to know how many are actually linguists. (Based on the preprint paper, it seems that about 600 of them were identifiable as linguists enough to determine whether they're students, tenure-track faculty, etc.) But from the perspective of Wikipedia, it's only important if other sources think that it's important. AJD (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Ajd and MarkMLl that the paper should count as a reliable source for the breakdown of signatories. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the preprint is a reliable source, per what was stated above under #Preprint reference. Crossroads -talk- 02:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The preprint is the /only/ source, unless the original letter as received by the LSA is made available. The reason that I suggest it's important is that the number and standing of signatories on the original letter allows us to evaluate whether this is a genuine expression of no confidence in the executive of the LSA by some fraction of its members, or is a "cancel culture" attack on Pinker by people who by and large are in no position to criticise the LSA due to not being full members. However as I've said I've got no skin in this game, so that's my final comment. MarkMLl (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- For the purposes of this article, which is a biography of Pinker and not about the LSA, I don't believe additional analysis or details are WP:DUE unless independent sources are giving it weight. In the context of Pinker's life and career, it was an incident. Like AJD says, "it's only important if other sources think that it's important." Schazjmd (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- If there was a good source with an analysis of the signatories, then I'd support adding it in that case. Crossroads -talk- 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The preprint is the /only/ source, unless the original letter as received by the LSA is made available. The reason that I suggest it's important is that the number and standing of signatories on the original letter allows us to evaluate whether this is a genuine expression of no confidence in the executive of the LSA by some fraction of its members, or is a "cancel culture" attack on Pinker by people who by and large are in no position to criticise the LSA due to not being full members. However as I've said I've got no skin in this game, so that's my final comment. MarkMLl (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Update on the letter
Hi guys, I'm not particularly interested in political correctness, BLM, MeToo or anything like that, but I've become curious about the way Pinker's WP articles are edited. I would describe "The letter" section as persuasive, it sounds really as if Mr Pinker had written it himself. WP is telling the reader that the issue is sorted. In reality, though, I see disagreement continues and there have been/will be further responses. If I mentioned some of them in the section, would my edits be removed? Weidorje (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Article talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. Speculation and unsourced commentary about a WP:BLP subject would be very unwise. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'll be straightforward. Can I do an update on The Letter section? Weidorje (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have independent sources that cover further developments? Schazjmd (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, all sourced. I'd start with this, from the University of Edinburgh website: https://bialik.ppls.ed.ac.uk/pubs/who-speaks-public.pdf. There's also a later version stating it has been accepted and pending publication. As regards Pinker, I think it would be good to mention he calls it Cancel Culture (sources are already there). There are also further sources in Kastner et al., some notable names (potentially with existing WP articles). Also, if someone was looking for a validation of the list of signatories, here's one and a link to second one. Weidorje (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have independent sources that cover further developments? Schazjmd (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'll be straightforward. Can I do an update on The Letter section? Weidorje (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just as some clarification of my own point, I wouldn't personally expel Pinker from LSA, but I think it is a notable event. Notice that Pinker's main opponent Sampson was involved in a similar scandal long before him (implying non-white students are less intelligent) although it attracted less media attention. Weidorje (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything additional to add. This is not an article about the event; this is a biography of Pinker. The preprint itself says
As we will show, attempts to correct Pinker’s demonstrable mischaracterizations and falsehoods about TOL, its signatories, or the field of linguistics in general have been consistently rebuffed and sometimes met with open apathy (or even antipathy) on the part of journalists and editors.
So it isn't that there is new or continuing coverage of the letter incident, but rather that the opponents (for lack of a better term) had to write their own paper because they weren't able to get additional publicity elsewhere. Perhaps there will be coverage once the paper is published or the LSA will take some additional action in response, and then that can be considered for inclusion. I think the article currently does a decent job at summarizing the high points of the incident with an appropriate level of detail. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)- I could see the case for removing the Mother Jones bit; it's really just a blog post by their copy editor that breezily summarizes various people disputing the letter without giving an actual example of what they say is wrong with it. (It's also largely based on blogs and tweets, giving it somewhat of a linkdump feel, and it gives no indication of how the people it cites have been involved in cancel-culture-war kerfuffles before, indicating that as coverage goes, it's not really significant.) The quote from the LSA executive committee is rather lengthy and could do with paraphrasing, particularly since it's the kind of "we are committed to the values of intellectual discourse" emptiness in which all executive committees speak. How often is prose written by committee so deathless as to be worth quoting verbatim, really? Particularly when it's followed up by "clarifications" in the same style: "Finally, the recent message from the Executive Committee to the membership, despite alternative interpretations placed on it by some, was not intended to be a rejection of the open letter, but rather an affirmation of our collective values and principles." [10] XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything additional to add. This is not an article about the event; this is a biography of Pinker. The preprint itself says
- Just as some clarification of my own point, I wouldn't personally expel Pinker from LSA, but I think it is a notable event. Notice that Pinker's main opponent Sampson was involved in a similar scandal long before him (implying non-white students are less intelligent) although it attracted less media attention. Weidorje (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is strange, indeed. I suppose the answer would be precisely that if I did an update, it would be removed. The current presentation is quite clearly biased because WP now claims the case is closed although it isn't. User:XOR'easter argues the whole issue is not notable. Over 600 signatures and quite a lot of media coverage, it's definitely never happened before in linguistics. So, what you'd actually like to do is remove, reduce or change tone to more positive? Weidorje (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did not argue that "the whole issue is not notable". I suggested some revisions. With respect, I think that you may be bringing a confrontational style to this discussion which could impede other editors appreciating when you have legitimate points. (After all, every article here has room for improvement, and I think we can all agree that disputes on the Internet can generate a lot of heat which might spill over here and lead to suboptimal prose.) It may be helpful to write in your sandbox a draft of what you think the section should look like, so we could discuss specifics. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, to end speculation, I'll have to take that as an offer. I have to say nonetheless I don't feel comfortable, the atmosphere is distressing here. Can somebody give an honest explanation why it might be so? What's wrong? Weidorje (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as someone who has encountered an unpleasant atmosphere now and then (and even taken breaks from the project on account of it), I can offer a few thoughts. Long-time Wikipedia editors can get very sensitive about the possibility of someone trying to advance an agenda. Sometimes this is fair (I mean, plenty of fly-by-night companies have tried to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform), and sometimes it's an unfortunate overreaction. It is also the case that Wikipedia is bound by policies: we don't publish original thoughts or analysis, only collect and summarize what's already been said elsewhere. Moreover, we have standards for what can qualify as a usable source, standards that are particularly stringent when it comes to biographies of living people. I'm sure you can imagine what would go wrong if we didn't! As a result of all this, right-wingers are upset that we've blacklisted Breitbart and the Daily Mail, while leftists are upset that we rely on national news rather than citizen journalists on the ground. (And there are probably people in the political "center" who are extreme emotionally and get angry at us for their own reasons.) It is possible that a sober, professional evaluation of the LSA letter business would find that much of the media coverage was off-base. However, it's not our job to write that evaluation, and indeed, the nature of our project means that we're not set up to do so. I suspect there are many Wikipedians who find Pinker an overrated writer, or who think he is completely mistaken about issue X, Y, or Z; our hobby is building an encyclopedia, so it's a good bet that we have opinions about books! :-) We're all bound by policy and have to work carefully, though, keeping in mind that we're all rubbing elbows. It's easy to develop an us-versus-them mentality when disputes behind the scenes here get heated, but generally, we're all just trying to work with what's available and write the most useful articles that we can. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, to end speculation, I'll have to take that as an offer. I have to say nonetheless I don't feel comfortable, the atmosphere is distressing here. Can somebody give an honest explanation why it might be so? What's wrong? Weidorje (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did not argue that "the whole issue is not notable". I suggested some revisions. With respect, I think that you may be bringing a confrontational style to this discussion which could impede other editors appreciating when you have legitimate points. (After all, every article here has room for improvement, and I think we can all agree that disputes on the Internet can generate a lot of heat which might spill over here and lead to suboptimal prose.) It may be helpful to write in your sandbox a draft of what you think the section should look like, so we could discuss specifics. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is strange, indeed. I suppose the answer would be precisely that if I did an update, it would be removed. The current presentation is quite clearly biased because WP now claims the case is closed although it isn't. User:XOR'easter argues the whole issue is not notable. Over 600 signatures and quite a lot of media coverage, it's definitely never happened before in linguistics. So, what you'd actually like to do is remove, reduce or change tone to more positive? Weidorje (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the need for much in the way of changes. Perhaps it doesn't need its own heading though. The source pointed to above by Weidorje is the same unpublished preprint we have discussed before. WP:NPOV does not mean 'equal weight to both sides'; it is based on the weight of the reliable, published, independent sources. An unpublished preprint by the same people who complained initially, complaining that many or most people didn't agree with them, does not factor in to that. Mother Jones is a WP:RS and should be included. We quote the LSA response because attempts to summarize it in our words were controversial; easier to just quote them directly via the secondary source used there. Lastly, while there absolutely are legitimate scholarly criticisms of Pinker's ideas, there are also people who engage in ad hominem style attacks on him. This article has had issues with POV pushing via people trying to add attack page-style content. One such editor had to be blocked indefinitely. All this can be seen in the previous discussions here. I don't think any editors in this discussion are bad faith like that; my point is that no new sources have appeared since those past discussions and thus nothing has changed. Crossroads -talk- 22:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd concur that a top-level section heading seems overkill. Maybe it can be brought under "Public debate", which is looking a bit crufty and in need of organization. XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's a good reply but I'm not buying all of it. The current form is persuasive, and there are further sources. Weidorje (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- You know we can see your other comments on this talk page right? In a dead discussion above, in reply to an SPA, you wrote that "Wikipedia is lying about Steven Pinker", which is baseless WP:ASPERSIONS and a slap in the face to every editor who has worked on this article, and that "I suggest deleting the article on the grounds that it has been hijacked", which is so over-the-top I can't possibly take any of this seriously. Crossroads -talk- 04:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course you can see it, because I just added it there (apparently the discussion was not dead). Mr Pinker may argue that the section is hurting his feelings, but what about the other side? You're labelling them as frauds. If supporter names are mentioned, then also opposers etc. etc. The discussion on this talk page is not factual. I might go with XOR's suggestion to remove the section altogether. But what should we do with the rest of the article, then? Weidorje (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was under the false impression that they wanted to expel Pinker from SLA. Actually, what they meant was to remove him from their recommended experts list for the media, which it as a matter of fact did: "From 2013 - 2020, the LSA maintained a list of Media Experts on a broad range of topics relating to linguistics and the scientific study of language. Upon careful consideration of the ways in which “media experts” are listed, it has become clear to the LSA Executive Committee (EC) that the process for selecting linguists who are able to serve as media sources should be reevaluated. The EC has determined that it would be a prudent step to take down the list (as of July 17, 2020) until an official Task Force can be empaneled by the LSA Committee on Committees and Delegate Appointments to address the whole concept of a “Media Experts” page — its purpose, its name, its structure, and such — and to rethink it from the ground up." https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/media-experts Now, it is obvious that both parties are trying to pressurise the panel as we speak. One of them has got Wikipedia. Weidorje (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- You know we can see your other comments on this talk page right? In a dead discussion above, in reply to an SPA, you wrote that "Wikipedia is lying about Steven Pinker", which is baseless WP:ASPERSIONS and a slap in the face to every editor who has worked on this article, and that "I suggest deleting the article on the grounds that it has been hijacked", which is so over-the-top I can't possibly take any of this seriously. Crossroads -talk- 04:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's a good reply but I'm not buying all of it. The current form is persuasive, and there are further sources. Weidorje (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Correction on the LSA letter
Removing the headline "LSA letter" is not sufficient. It is either that the whole content is removed, and we look into removing or contracting the article as a whole until further notice. Before proposing such drastic measures, I offer my correction proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Weidorje/sandbox&oldid=1039202818 If you want to remove the last bit (reply from signatories), The Atlantic and Mother Jones should also be removed. Weidorje (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, it's WP:UNDUE via adding self-published and primary sources and inappropriate for a WP:BLP. See what you were told above. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs (as you perceive them), and it is not for adding special emphasis on guilt-by-association tactics vis-a-vis Epstein. I also am deeply suspicious of this attempt based on what you said above. Crossroads -talk- 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Crossroads, I knew I could negotiate with the Pinker camp. I've now carefully read WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RGW, and will proceed making the due changes. Weidorje (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Crossroads, as a reminder, you know well how the Camp brought me here. I'm interested in science, not politics. Weidorje (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- What Camp are you talking about? Crossroads -talk- 04:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here. Pinker has too many supporters in WP. I admit my edits aren't always perfect, but there's really no way to keep the discussion real. Part of the problem is that the skeptic movement promotes Pinker. If his theory was supported by evidence, I would agree. Now the movement is also being dragged into undesirable political scandals, and looks for support in WP. These are risky developments. Weidorje (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- What Camp are you talking about? Crossroads -talk- 04:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Crossroads, as a reminder, you know well how the Camp brought me here. I'm interested in science, not politics. Weidorje (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Crossroads, I knew I could negotiate with the Pinker camp. I've now carefully read WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RGW, and will proceed making the due changes. Weidorje (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Painful, very painful to read
Boys, I know it hurts when your loved one is criticized, but the wording on the LSA letter is an embarrassement. Is there any chance you could tone it down? It is blatantly POV. Weidorje (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The "anon IP" editor from Brighton, Massachusetts, has removed the words "was signed by hundreds of academics". Are you saying that's not correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not create a new thread to discuss the same issue that was discussed in the previous thread; this is the third such thread you opened. Moreover, if you have any concerns with the current wording, please mention them explicitly. Asserting "it is blatantly POV", without supplying any evidence or examples, is not conducive to a fruitful discussion. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ooh, "evidence" would indeed be fruitful. What kind of evidence would please you? Weidorje (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ooh, if you can't manage evidence, how about some examples? You understand what the word "examples" means? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, here's one example of POV:
- In 2020, an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America was written requesting the removal of Pinker from its list of LSA Fellows and its list of media experts.[96][97]. Academics, including geneticist Charleen Adams[98], evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne[99], linguist Barbara Partee[100], computer scientist Scott Aaronson[101], and others criticized the letter and expressed strong support for Pinker.[102][96] Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic, criticized the letter for engaging in guilt by association and for creating a "chilling effect" on the speech of non-tenured academics,[96] and Mother Jones called it "factually flawed" and "dishonest".[102] On July 9, 2020, the executive committee of the Linguistic Society of America issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to intellectual freedom and professional responsibility.[103][104]. The executive committee of the Linguistic Society of America issued a letter stating that the group "is committed to intellectual freedom and professional responsibility. It is not the mission of the Society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression. Inclusion and civility are crucial to productive scholarly work. And inclusion means hearing (not necessarily accepting) all points of view, even those that may be objectionable to some."[103]
- and here's the other:
- In 2020, an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America requesting the removal of Pinker from its list of LSA Fellows and its list of media experts was signed by hundreds of academics.[96][97] The letter accused Pinker of a "pattern of drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence, in particular in the immediate aftermath of violent acts and/or protests against the systems that created them", citing as examples six tweets and a phrase used in his 2011 book.[98] Pinker said that through this letter he was being threatened by "a regime of intimidation that constricts the theatre of ideas".[99][100][101] Several academics criticized the letter and expressed strong support for Pinker.[96][102] Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic, criticized the letter for engaging in guilt by association and for creating a "chilling effect" on the speech of non-tenured academics,[96] and Mother Jones called it "factually flawed" and "dishonest".[102] The executive committee of the Linguistic Society of America issued a letter stating that the group "is committed to intellectual freedom and professional responsibility. It is not the mission of the Society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression. Inclusion and civility are crucial to productive scholarly work. And inclusion means hearing (not necessarily accepting) all points of view, even those that may be objectionable to some."[103]
- Good? Weidorje (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you care to highlight the part(s) you consider to be "POV"? It all looks like a series of facts with good sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. When you're truly, deeply, madly in love, you will believe anything. Weidorje (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- No-one's in love. We're not "boys", either. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. When you're truly, deeply, madly in love, you will believe anything. Weidorje (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would you care to highlight the part(s) you consider to be "POV"? It all looks like a series of facts with good sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, here's one example of POV:
- Ooh, if you can't manage evidence, how about some examples? You understand what the word "examples" means? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ooh, "evidence" would indeed be fruitful. What kind of evidence would please you? Weidorje (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)