This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Please read before writing: see above section. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Letter to the LSA
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Who are you addressing?Beevrrr (talk) 21:13, 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)
"Reliable sources"
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
IP 103.250.145.90 has removed some of the detail and sources in the "Letter to the LSA" section, twice:
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)
"Watch out for those wikinets..."I don't see you as "an adversary". We have different views. I've not even accused you of being a single porpoise. We are simply discussants. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinker as a member of the Intellectual Dark Web
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
"Controversies" section
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
IP 103.250.145.90 has removed the "Controversies" section wholesale, twice:
here, with the Edit summary: "It can be discussed in talk page, but until then the guidelines for neutrality should be maintained. The LSA letter as well as Pinker's interpretation of law in Epstein case are very recent phenomena. The other two point only found a brief mention in one op-ed and it's not a "prolonged and heated disagreement" that should be required for controversy)".
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)
How many pics is the right number of pics?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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>
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)
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)
addition on LSA letter
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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)
Signatories of "The Letter"
Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
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)
Ajd, that's a preprint (see section above), and was written by signatories to the letter (not reliable, not independent). Schazjmd(talk) 16:40, 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)
Ajd, if it gets published in a reputable academic journal, I would be surprised if anyone objected to using it as a source (attributed, of course, as it is not independent). Until then, it's basically just a self-published paper. Schazjmd(talk) 17:20, 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)
Pinker as a linguist?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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]
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
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)
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, and I'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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.2 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Preprint reference
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
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.
"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)
