1842:
under-serve those who are more interested in those details (be they perhaps in the minority). In most regards, this could easily be the most time-consuming section to construct, owing to the fact that secondary sourcing in this area is going to be a little harder to find and properly contextualize (not exactly hard compared to many other researchers, but harder, relative to the popular books and their voluminous treatment), but as discussed previously, primary sourcing can be of help in plugging the holes here, so long as synthesis is avoided. Anyway, as it will involve a bit of attention to detail, it makes sense to get it out of the way first. I'm considering merging this section with any treatment of his professional/academic influences and collaborators and general criticism of his stances and research (though I don't think the last will be reflected in the title of said section) as I find these details too interconnected to cleanly tease apart. In this way the content currently in the criticism section can be split between the two professional sections.
1315:(both as regards academic/peer-review research and his more broad-audience works), which I don't anticipate secondary sourcing being a problem for, many of the more direct claims currently made about his work in this section as it stands, while verifiable, may end up including references to his own research and books. Needless to say, given we are talking about cross-over between BLP and GA, everything needs to be airtight as concerns avoiding synthesis of any kind and I'll be sure that any primary sourcing involved is used only to support direct, unambiguous claims made within those sources, but even aside from that, I get the impression there's an upper limit to how much primary sourcing will be tolerated in this context, synthesis or no synthesis. I know we're always keen to avoid using static numbers outside context of content you can already look at, but you gentlemen (assuming gentlemen from your names, apologies if I'm mistaken in that) have a ballpark figure as to what you would view as excessive?
1704:
foundation for his approach to language. So more focus on his intellectual biography and influences. I also think that given that Pinker almost has two separate careers one as a researcher and one as a popularizer of science those two aspects should be explicitly treated. I also think his major books each of which has its own article deserves their own subsections where the articles about them are summarized - particularly How the Mind Works (here Fodors retort "The Mind doesnt work that way" cannot be omitted), Language
Instinct and the Blank Slate have been so widely influential that they require more detailed treatment - probably also Words and Rules, Stuff of Thought and Better Angels. Each section ought to integrate the reviews and reception and critical arguments relating to it. That way you will also be able to get rid of the "criticism" section which currently conflates criticism against Pinker and criticism of his works. Looking forward to discussing how best to improve the article.
2672:
Pinkers most significant pubic arguments such as his argument with Leon
Wieseltier about the relation between science and humanities research, and his participation in debates regarding evolutionary psychology and adaptationism. The article also still needs editing for cohesion within sections and improvements of prose. For FA it would be necessary for the editors to actually the read books that summarize or contest Pinker's arguments, and describe Pinker's role in the debates regarding language innateness. The research section should also take into account his many published articles, especially the ones that are most widely cited. Nevertheless, I congratulate the editors with the article. Thanks for waiting so long.
1822:
Thank you for talking the review on in the first place, Maunus and I'm sorry I'm only just now expressing that; off-wiki life has thrown some rather serious and uncompromising circumstances at me in an unexpected fashion the last couple of days and I've only had time to sporadically check-in and post a couple of trivial edits (which I wasted in other discussions I was engaged in rather than here, where I should have been focusing my limited time). Nonetheless, I've been following the discussion, compiling some articles and sketching out how best to address the issues with the layout that have been broached above. As to some of those points:
328:
1311:
to the "Research and theory" section correct? Most other sections seem to be adequately (if not exactly heavily) sourced utilizing a fairly high caliber of secondary source, at least to my eye. I know the subject of the article may or may not be one of previous exposure for either of you, but I'd still greatly appreciate your interpretation of their usage, for consistency with BLP if nothing else. The only source which stands out to my as particularly low-quality is the
Harvard faculty page, and I'm inclined to give it a pass as it is used extremely narrowly to establish his occupation at the university.
1319:
technicality I overlooked; I'm an experienced editor, with broad knowledge of most-all areas of process and policy, but GA nomination is one of the last roles I've yet to try on, so really, even comments that might seem obvious could be useful. :) Even if you don't have time to comment broadly on the inquiries above, stay tuned as I'm going to start adding content and sources by tonight or tomorrow, so even the occasional brief tweak/edit summary would be appreciated. Thanks much for bringing your concerns to me to begin with and I hope I am not presuming on you too much in this request.
1406:, and another for verifying citations. It would be very easy to do this by providing a reading mode button that would remove all references from the screen and allow the reader to immerse themselves in text only, in true old skool linear mode, without any hypertext or distractions. But, nobody listens to me. What's interesting, however, is that outside of Knowledge, we are starting to see a return to this on the web. Unfortunately, many people are "offloading" information to the cloud, and forgoing the reading experience. This means you have people who simply
1486:
to the complication of a bibliography having cross-over with the refslist. In this case I am thankfully saved by the fact that we are talking about a well-known author whose works have received significant critical review and scholarly counter-argument; I can avoid citing his articles and books somewhat by citing instead what was said in response to them (simultaneously injecting his own stances within the context of those responses). It's an obvious strategy, in retrospect, now that I've hit on it, but I dare say it wouldn't work for many other intellectuals.
1838:) and the lack of major critical reaction to others; I'm wondering if it might not make more sense to have the section read in a rough chronological fashion, noting the details and reactions to the release of each, but also focusing on thematic elements between them. I hope I'm making sense there. In any event, that's something that can be decided one way or another as we proceed; certainly I'll retain the division as it has been implemented in the most recent version unless/until I've sandboxed something that I'm sure looks better.
467:
257:::: 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.
2086:
whom Pinker regards as the founder of the academic field of language acquisition." I'll keep looking for something more substantial in case these two sources can't suffice between them. But for whatever reason, he just doesn't seem to reference Brown as much as other figures he worked with in his early academic career, such as
Kosslyn. There are a number of other figures he cites as influences in the above interview (and others I have access to), which could be used to flesh out that section though.
2223:
are a far cry from "too much" at this point imo - I think this is what should be the bulk of the article - descriptions and evaluations of his work. I think what we should aim for is that a reader after having read the article understands and has an broad overview of Pinker's work, his general views and scientific stances and his importance. I think that more of the same kind of expansions as carried out yesterday, giving deeper descriptions of his main works, would bring us closer to this goal.
974:
958:
942:
926:
1246:
2233:(and associated philosophy), which he may have commented on in a singular context that we should be careful not to avoid here, lest they be ascribed undue weight by the reader as a major component of his work and views. Likewise, I'm concerned, especially for those of us who have followed his work for a long while, that we might find it too easy to synthesize, from those mountains of material, trans-disciplinary currents in his thinking which he has himself not spoken to.
3390:
1768:. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points." We should not go beyond this, however tempting it is to be more thorough or academic. I don't have major worries about specific disputed claims (else I'd have quick-failed the article) but we do need refs for each claim about his work, currently in the 'Research and theory' section; I agree these are readily sourceable.
655:
631:
534:
1846:
hopefully that will become obvious as we proceed). The career section can then be combined with the research section to provide a rough chronology of hi professional life and major research milestones, with occasional reference to how his popular books integrate into this chain of events. This might actually end up suggesting a fully integrated professional section, despite the course of action we are committed to just now, but I'm not anticipating as much.
1190:
1165:
510:
273:
3964:
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.
2528:
2520:
2512:
2502:
2354:
2346:
2337:
2288:
1783:
the main aspect of the topic in my view. I also disagree very much that we shouldn't try to go beyond this. The purpose of a review is to improve the article, not to aim for some random bar and then stop. For me the review process is about this - to collaboratively improve the article as much as possible and then when that process is over pass it as a GA if it meets the criteria. If the process gets us close to FA status then so much the better.
1053:
387:
360:
1716:
findings. A brief 'summary style' section on each book starting with a 'main' link also seems desirable, though again these sections are not obliged to be FA-ishly 'comprehensive'. My main concern is simply that being a BLP the reffing needs to be more complete, specially on disputed claims; I feel we should start from the feeling that the current article is quite close to being 'good', and limit ourselves to the GA criteria.
3556:
1043:
1013:
71:
810:
768:
1137:
3357:"His seventh book, The Sense of Style (2014), is intended as a general style guide" The idea of "intended" might pass muster in a student's essay, but it is questionable here. Is the book successful in achieving that 'intent'? Who wrote the book? Did they also write the Knowledge entry? The idea of authorial intent has been the subject of literary and philosophical debate for many years.
2073:"One of my graduate advisers, Roger Brown, the founder of the field of language acquisition, was a gifted stylist and as a student I savored his prose and poured over his penciled marginalia on my own papers. Though I can crank out turgid mush with the best of them, Roger's example inspired me to strive in my own academic prose for clarity, forcefulness and the occasional touch of flair."
820:
3363:"Pinker has been named as one of the world's most influential intellectuals by various magazines." There are many types of magazines. Was Hello! magazine one of them? Teen Beat? Foreign Affairs? Time Magazine? The idea that 'various' magazines have celebrated Pinker's intellect is great, but it is important to frame this statement and demonstrate that the 'magazines' are qualified.
2776:? He concludes that there are races and are genetic influences on intelligence. There is no indication that he favors that result, it is just his assessment of the current state of the literature. Given the exist of race there may be medical benefits to studying it until we get to a full fledged personalized medicine. He is intellectually fearless, favoring open inquiry
665:
3917:
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:Knowledge articles about the profs? --
397:
2114:
view is universally shared) and that he fairly quickly gave up visual imagination to work in the field of language acquisition, which then became the field in which he established his name as a researcher. Also his entire theory of language and meaning -including his aversion to the notion of relativism of thought and language - is based on Brown.
1607:
2045:, which Pinker has a number of times referenced and as noteworthy moment in his academic development, has a number of citations and references to Brown and obviously the very premise shows some connection), but as to a sourceable description of that relationship coming from Pinker, I'm drawing a blank, though I'll keep looking.
2057:, but I've never read it (the ref) and cannot confirm. If you guys are happy to take it on faith that the contributor who added it to that article got it right, it's good enough for me. There is also this very glowing reference, from the very first page of the preface to the recent anthology of Pinker's formal academic papers
3898:; 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.
2176:
solid source to defend against the notion of OR. Also it's worth noting that in the above interview Pinker cites the general response to his initial forays into language as a big motivator -- academics were more excited and responsive to his work in that field and that exchange fueled his own interest (or so he
2185:
discrete and empirical. That's also something he touches upon, however briefly, in that interview (and another, longer one I watched just this last week) -- the rejection of strict behaviouralism. I'm wary of going into too much detail on all of these nuanced distinctions though, and running afoul of
4005:
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
3506:
On behalf of Steven Pinker, I have 3 requested changes, 1. Change picture from current photo to 102111_Pinker_344.jpg 2. Change photo title to "Steven Pinker by Rose
Lincoln/Harvard University" 3. Change photo caption to "This photograph is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license
2455:
Very good additions, reading it I stumbled on the paragraph about "the language instinct", which starts by stating that the book has been criticized by
Geoffrey Sampson in the book "the language instinct debate", but then goes on to describe other commentary. Perhaps given that Sampsons book seems to
1825:
I agree that treating the two major divisions of his career (academia/research vs. popularized works) independently is well advised. I'm a little less certain about the advisability of developing a section for each broad-audience book, owing to the cross-over between the three that arguably the most
1811:
I am not the kind of reviewer who makes demands - I prefer adjusting expectations in a mutual and participative process with the nominator and other interested parties. I am on the other hand the kind of reviewer who meddles/participates in the editing process, adding content etc. - some editors like
1366:
Wow, that was faster than I could have possibly hoped. :) In the case of a number of such citations, the source may be an article or book already listed in his bibliography. I suppose the redundancy cannot be avoided, but it seems inelegant. I guess I may just have to try to rework some statements
1305:
Thank you both for taking an interest in the GA nom; I should have expressed my gratitude and availed myself of your interest sooner, but my time, on-wiki and off, has been splintered two dozen different directions on any given day this last week. I hope you don't mind my trying to snag a little of
3856:
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
3841:
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.
2222:
I agree we dont need to state that the book was based on Browns view of meaning, unless there is a source that explicitly claims that. We should be wary of clashing with WP:SYNTH. I think the recent changes have been great improvements. I am not at all weary of giving too much detail on his work -we
2113:
Pinker also wrote a very long obituary for Brown that also describes their relation a little bit. I will see if I have some way of accessing the Kagan reference. I do find it quite significant that he regards Brown one of his advisers as the founder of language acquisition studies (Im not sure that
2085:
Clearly he sees Brown's influence as more than trivial but that particular quote doesn't establish much as regards how he influenced Pinker's areas of interest, just his style as a writer. It would suffice to say at least though "One of Pinker's graduate advisers was noted psychologist Roger Brown,
1851:
Anyway thanks again for taking on the review. I'm sorry that my personal life has stalled momentum a little, but I'm going to try to get things back on track as quickly as possible. Had I known what this week had in store for me, I'd surely have delayed the nomination, but the situation is what it
1821:
Insofar as I'm concerned as the nominator, you should make (and I will be appreciative of) any edit you would feel inclined outside the GA process; that is to say, any edit you think benefits the article, be it new content, alteration of existing content or tweaks to the general structure and flow.
1782:
Are you are right, broadness not comprehensiveness. I did realize the criteria differed, just didnt remember the word for the lower level of comprehensiveness. Nonetheless " It covers the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail." The description and evaluation of his work is
1528:
True, and trust me, there will be plenty of primary sourcing for directly attributable positions, but I reckon it can't hurt to pepper in the secondaries liberally, if only for pro forma reasons regarding knee-jerk reactions of some editors to primary sourcing. As to dialogue, there are more than a
1314:
Return focus to the most problematic "Research and theory" section, I'm curious as to how much, in the context of GA review especially, primary sourcing can be tolerated here. While I intend to augment this section a bit with new content that will be focused towards review and critique of his works
2232:
Oh yes, I agree, no doubt -- and unlike many intellectuals, we have all of the sources we'll need in that regard. I'm just thinking there's cause to be cautious about what we include -- he's such a prodigious public speaker, there are many concepts and schools of thought in the cognitive sciences
2175:
researchers) put him in necessary opposition to relativism. I mean, don't get me wrong, if we turn up a quote from Pinker saying this was the influence of Brown in particular, I won't be astonished, but it's definitely the claim from amongst those we've discussed in this area that most demands a
1841:
Before I even get to the popular works section, though, I want to augment the research section considerably. While I agree with the general approach of reflecting the dichotomy of his professional career, I don't want to let his own research to get overwhelmed by his popular works and in so-doing
1485:
Ha, well, I'm well-enough familiar with that part of things, but I usually stay away from BLP's -- which makes my use of this one as a testing ground for GA perhaps less than ideal, but what I can say, I like the subject and I like the work that's been done on the article so far -- so I'm less used
1310:
time, but as you both came to me with the same misgiving, I figured I'd get some further input from you on the matter. I have a couple of inquiries along the lines previously discussed on my talk page. First, is my assumption that the faults you both see in the sourcing of content are mostly tied
2040:
I should add that, in general, I've not really seen that much in interviews, print or video, where he talks all that much about Brown, at least that I'm recalling right now. Don't get me wrong, the influence is observable in Pinker's early published work (as I was just saying to Chiswick on his
1895:
The biography section is weirdly structured, it is not in chronological order and it mixes in a lot of stuff like awards and recognitions before the reader knows about what he is being recognized for. I would encourage separating out awards and recognition to a section of its own, placed after the
1738:
Broadness is a GA criterion, and in my view describing and evaluation his findings is necessary at the GA level, because they are what makes him a notable biographic subject. The FA criteria are of course more demanding than for a GA review, but this is the core of a biographical article. I am not
1513:
It sounds very nice. For the subject's own views, his own works are reliable sources, so nothing further is needed (to prove Darwin said 'endless forms most beautiful', you needn't cite anybody else). A reception section is the usual thing for other people's opinions; an actual dialogue would be a
3916:
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
3597:
Thanks so much for your help here! I apologize for any violations of WP conduct that I unintentionally engaged in. Please do let me know if there is another person or account that Steven Pinker can email directly for future requests as I would be happy to be cut out of the equation in the future.
2184:
even, it was still an area of active interest and speculation for him, though, as you say, it was probably his work on language that paved the way for his becoming a household name. But the two are a part of a larger complex that typified his work at the time; the notion of a mental phenomena as
1318:
Even outside these questions, any advice you can give would be helpful. This is my first GA nomination, taken as I said, because I could find no other single, currently active editor who is most responsible for the page to suggest the move to; I would hate to have the effort fail because of some
2671:
Considering the serious improvement over the course of this review I am now happy to promote the article to GA. The following comments I leave for the purpose of further improvements towards FA, which is still at some ditance. The Publiv debate section should be more cohesive and include more of
1988:
I had some problems with the biography section that I found to be poorly organized. I tried to start fixing that. I moved his public debate participation which arent really personal life and not really research to their own section. Here we should try to find out what is and isnt notable. I also
1715:
I was wondering whether to review this, and can take a supporting role. Since a GA must cover the 'major aspects' of a subject, I'd concur that research and popular science deserve their sections, with the proviso that the article does not have to attempt to describe or evaluate all his research
1927:
It seems to me that the paragraph on Pinkers review of Gladwell gives undue weight to a vey marginal aspect of his work and career - compared to the many other public debates he has participated in and which are mentioned much briefer and many not at all. There are two types of solution to this
1989:
removed the list of his favorite songs from BBC - I dont think they are likely to be notable. If he were a musician then perhaps. The research section still lacks fleshing out - specially his transition form his work on visual cognition to his work on language and the influence of Roger Brown.
1703:
First impressions: I think the research section is much too short, and omits major information and influences. For example Roger Brown is not even mentioned, Brown was his mentor in graduate school and while Kosslyn provided the impetus for Pinkers research on visualization, Brown provided the
2604:
I apologize for being slow in responding to the recent improvements, I am traveling with intermittent internet access and lots of work this week. I will get back to the review in detail over the next week. I am sure that you will be able to continue to improve the article along the lines I've
1845:
As mentioned, the biography section is way out of whack. I think maybe here the ideal solution is to combine the "early life" elements with the "personal life" section and place them either as the very first or very last section (at present I am well divided on which would be the better, but
3963:
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
2342:
it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
1351:
and see how you can apply it to the uncited paragraphs or sentences. In practice, the standard for inline citations is slightly higher for biographies of living people. It may be as simple as using citations that are already in the article and adding footnotes to the relevant areas.
246::::"I’m not a single purpose account." Redthank, ] 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." -- ] (]) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
239::::"I’m not a single purpose account." Redthank, ] 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." -- ] (]) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
1410:
for chunks of facts, rather than spending the time to see how these facts fit together. And that's why we need another interface, one that ties the topic together with other topics so that you can get a dynamic, interdisciplinary systemic view without...oh don't get me started.
1367:
about his research and perspectives using sources which review his work. This would kill multiple birds with one stone in avoiding dependence on primary sourcing while bolstering the secondary sourcing, contextualization for his work, and the article's general consistency with
2143:. I've cited this, and added Pinker's own list of influential figures from the start of LI, in which Brown appears. He praises Brown quite a bit in the obituary; it might be helpful to quote something from it, perhaps, but at least we now have some connection between the men.
3578:
I didn't realise this image had been already uploaded by the requester and previously used. I also didn't realise that the subject of an article could just email in his requests for edits. Maybe Mr Pinker would like to email you directly next time and cut out the middle men!
2782:
In contrast, the power to uncover genetic and evolutionary roots of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely to materialize and more incendiary in its consequences. And it is a prospect that we are, intellectually and emotionally, very poorly equipped to
1972:
That is fine, I post here before making any edits to get input - I dont want to start doing something that the nominator or other editors involved are not in agreement with. In cases where there is agreement about how best to proceed I am likely to adopt the hands on
164:
2430:
I also think that each of the sections could be rewritten to have a higher degree of internal cohesion. Some of them stand as series of short unrelated statements. This last idea may be beyond the scope of a GA review which doesnt require good writing.
63:
2561:
Both topics are discussed explicitly by Pinker in the book, the one as a reference for behavioural 'instinct', the other as a possible (and major) counter-argument which he deals with. However I have removed the images and inserted the Hausbuch one.
3262:
This article doesn't mention Pinker's comments about the alt-right this past year, nor does it mention his promotion of the careers of 'race science' advocates like Steve Sailer. It looks like a Pinker fan has been bowdlerizing this article.
3533:. Also, we don't normally show attribution for photos in captions, unless the photographer is notable. Sorry. In any case, you should upload the image first either here or at Commons and provide a link to it, so we can see what it's like.
3857:
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.
3513:
Because this request was sent to me through email, I do not have a URL to post supporting the requested changes. However, I am happy to send a transcript of the email to a private party or engage in other forms of necessary verification.
2400:
I hear this and sympathize, but one is quickly picked up for WP:OR if one induces rules from a set of examples (I suppose on the grounds that however many examples are given to demonstrate the rule, counter-examples might be found).
2547:
I think two of the recently inserted images are not very relevant and that the caption of the second WW2 image is not suitable because it approaches editorializing by implicitly contradicting Pinkers argument. I think an image like
1739:
nearly as worried about sourcing - Pinkers views and others claims about him are all easy to source, he is afterall one of the most mediatized American scientists of our age. Which disputed claims specifically are you thinking of?
2002:
Well, Brown is absent from the discussion in this case, but Pinker does address the circumstances of the transition that you mention from visual cognition to language during his graduate and post-doctoral work in some detail in
4006:
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.
3620:
submitted documents like the image in question may be submitted that way — but as OTRS editors typically do not add material to articles themselves, the request to add the image should still be made here on the talk page.
3274:
1792:
Oh good. I'm all for improving things as much as possible, and setting articles on their way with a structure which will bode well etc etc, but not to make demands beyond the criteria, which are far from random.
3484:" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{
3875:, it's news to me that "high-profile university Professors in the public spotlight", or their assistants, frequently check up on the Knowledge articles about themselves. What evidence do you have for this? --
2800:
3990:
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." --
3810:
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.
3636:
Oh, I see, you received a parallel request via OTRS. Fine. But thanks for not adding the license details to the caption. I think the OP's request might have been clearer with an actual link to the file.
2422:
I also think the nature of his participation in public debate could be better described. It would require some sources that characterize his intellectual stances but that should be possible to find.
3510:
Steven Pinker has disclosed to me that he would like his Knowledge picture changed. I attempted to make this edit earlier this year on Steven's behalf, but it looks like the change was reversed.
2805:
Pinker supports race science, going so far as to include an essay by professional racist Steve Sailer on why Iraqis are too in-bred for democracy in "The Best Science and Nature Writing" in 2004.
1402:
inelegant. That's the Knowledge we know and love! :) You seem to have a good grip on this place. In the past, I've proposed that we should have multiple layout/interfaces, for example, one for
1945:. I've cut it down, moved other controv. paras into that section or to book sections, and added a bit on the gender & science para. There's certainly more that can be added on other debates.
1464:
Yeah, the official Wiki way to cut down a tree with an axe is to hack it a lot at random angles - none of this making a neat < shaped notch and then slicing it down with one heroic blow like
15:
3121:
2981:
3670:
OTRS editors have been known to make requests on behalf of COI editors who have sent in submissions, but those requests too, are almost always made on the article's talk page using the
2380:
It's not easy as Pinker covers many hundreds of pages with diverse and intricate arguments... have added Igor Aleksander's cogent thoughts. Have reworked (and attributed) summary from
4043:
481:
3780:
I'm going to add a section on the infamous alt-right comments controversy - I can't believe it isn't here already, it was a big big deal. Are you planning to take that down too?
1287:
3935:
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
3139:
3135:
2999:
2995:
3380:
1468:, oh no. If a citation applies 23 times, that's 23 inline refs to the same citation -- at least you don't have to repeat the whole thing, you can name it <ref name=hack: -->
3270:
2397:
The section on Better Angels, could do a better job of summarizing the critiques of the book instead of picking to include two random critiques of the many published ones.
2460:
Pinker's book and its reception this would be a good one to look at a little more, and perhaps at least summarize the arguments by Sampson and others as they appear in it.
4038:
3294:
2778:
Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.
2714:
841:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1425:
Heh, Knowledge system's theory; colour me intrigued. You'll have to explain your approach to me in detail some time, unless you already have it codified somewhere.
4148:
2869:
1529:
handful of videos of debates and panels in which he has participated, but the thought of tracking down all the citation details for those is not a pleasant one...
1235:
208:
147:
4133:
3702:
2171:
Well, is it based on Brown, though? It seems to me that the entire trajectory of his career, emerging views and academic influences (in terms of both concepts
3895:
3548:
3346:
3224:
3201:
section really necessary? I know it covers the broad scope of the criticisms, but it makes it impossible to know which sources correspond to which critique.
1127:
4153:
1954:
Since nom has limited availability, and we're all hands-on rather than snipe-from-the-sidelines editors, I shall attempt to help fix issues in a spirit of
1645:
476:
370:
1341:
896:
739:
4138:
4118:
284:
4143:
4028:
3712:
Agree, it's way too long. Suggest we keep it to the opening para plus some more important facts and move the content to main article area ~~headwayNL
3523:
2749:
602:
4128:
4048:
3599:
3515:
2407:
I think there are enough different commentary positive and negative, in the main article on the book that it can be summarized without becoming OR.
4173:
4123:
3375:
1471:
wherever another quick swipe is deemed necessary. Then when every part of the tree-stump is well riddled with cross-cutting cites, you're done.
3787:
3743:
2825:
2817:
2759:
1612:
4113:
3336:
3318:
981:
933:
790:
778:
3278:
2448:
4163:
4103:
3097:
2947:
2847:"Individuals differ in personality and intelligence." Even in a perfect economic system, not everyone will have the same amount of wealth.
1635:
1117:
159:
93:
4093:
4078:
3646:
3607:
3588:
3542:
2743:
1749:
886:
729:
31:
28:
1874:
1617:
1573:
1551:
1523:
1508:
1480:
72:
3774:
2767:
2654:
2640:
4168:
4108:
4063:
2694:
2676:
2631:
2609:
2582:
2571:
2556:
2478:
2464:
2152:
1977:
1967:
1918:
1816:
1802:
1787:
1777:
1743:
1725:
1146:
1023:
965:
786:
592:
3631:
3446:
of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change
3187:
3117:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1447:
1420:
1393:
1361:
4083:
414:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
3973:
3952:
3907:
3047:
2794:
4053:
2937:
2927:
2376:
I think the section on "the language instinct and related books" could do a better job of summarizing the arguments in the books.
2255:
2227:
2215:
2118:
2108:
2053:. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press), which purports to support the claim that Brown's work was a major inspiration for
2029:
1196:
1170:
415:
4158:
4098:
4068:
4000:
3926:
3884:
3489:
2718:
1099:
1075:
3087:
3077:
1993:
1958:; I don't think we'll get this article sorted otherwise. I may therefore respond by editing the article rather than here. ;-}
1932:
1900:
1708:
4088:
4073:
2754:
There are many examples of Pinker saying that the denial ofmtue existence of racial groups in scientifically untenable, like
949:
868:
843:
782:
711:
687:
3896:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-edit-a-wikipedia-page-that-is-about-yourself-or-a-group-event-you-are-affiliated-with
3830:
2873:
4033:
3826:
3366:
There are other examples in the article of statements and claims that miss the mark, but that is all I have time for now.
2710:
2293:
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
447:
419:
155:
89:
3252:
4058:
3799:
3751:
3470:
1557:
574:
550:
298:
2865:
2334:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
423:
3304:
1852:
is and I'll try my best to make all appropriate additions to meet within your timeframe of review over the next week.
3737:
3698:
3107:
3052:
2392:
Merged it into the section on language books; its argument is discussed at length in the Research and theory section.
1066:
1018:
3612:
The OTRS email address is the only route to use for authenticating submitted material from a BLP article's subject.
3308:
3069:
2919:
4023:
3572:
2861:
Mr. Pinker may claim his conclusions are defensible but the article should not imply an invalid argument is valid.
2785:
It is hard to tell he was pro anything in the article other than open inquiry, and he was cautious even about that.
2702:
2533:
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
833:
773:
678:
636:
3727:
3706:
3213:
2902:
2830:
2739:
2552:
which Pinker uses in the book would be better. I think the beaver is also to tangentially related to be included.
2318:
1640:
410:
365:
290:
3138:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2998:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1564:
with a good number of secondary refs I just didn't worry about it, but I agree that BLP requires extra caution.
3987:
3851:
3731:
541:
515:
182:
2755:
3805:
3795:
3218:
2729:
2549:
3182:
3042:
2811:
You want more evidence of Pinker's support of hereditarian garbage? I have a whole web site devoted to it.
2517:
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
1684:
1263:
1109:
878:
721:
584:
457:
1697:
2808:
There should be something about this in the article on Pinker. Otherwise you're just running PR for him.
111:
3866:
3157:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
3098:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051230145614/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/media/2004_04_26_time.htm
3017:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2948:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090930143349/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/
1688:
3822:
3332:
3290:
3068:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2918:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2046:
1561:
171:
2285:
the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
3847:
1348:
2434:
Yes, you may be right there (all 3 comments); have reorganized for coherence and added new material.
3770:
3642:
3584:
3538:
2273:
1928:
problem - I think adding more content on his participation in the public debate is the best choice.
118:
1074:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
686:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
549:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3436:
3430:
3397:
3173:
3033:
2690:
2650:
2627:
2567:
2474:
2444:
2314:
2148:
1963:
1914:
1798:
1773:
1721:
1569:
1519:
1476:
1469:
Hack, J. ''Tree-felling for total beginners''. Hacker and Choppit, Hicksville, 1901.</ref: -->
100:
3142:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
3101:
3002:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2951:
2839:
In his interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast in 2007, he provides the following examples of
3285:
Well, I have no idea what comments he may or may not have made. Do you have sources for this?
3248:
3158:
3065:
3018:
2190:
1663:
1659:
305:
2938:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140330020838/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu:80/books/wr/index.html
2928:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110608234526/http://www.nchum.org:80/who-we-are/the-professoriate
3723:
3686:
3673:
3328:
3315:
3286:
3228:
3208:
3192:
3145:
3005:
2381:
335:
66:
2878:
272:
3843:
3814:
3783:
3715:
3694:
3371:
3303:
His comments on the alt-right were misrepresented, and you can search for sources on this.
3266:
3257:
3165:
3088:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051229054325/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html
3078:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051229054325/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html
3025:
2972:
1201:
1175:
311:
8:
3818:
3791:
3766:
3762:
3638:
3624:
3615:
3603:
3580:
3565:
3534:
3519:
2790:
2252:
2212:
2105:
2026:
1871:
1548:
1505:
1465:
1444:
1416:
1390:
1357:
1338:
3742:
Why, exactly was my contribution on the Torres-Pinker conflict removed Martinevans123 ?
3488:}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a
2499:
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
3969:
3948:
3903:
3862:
3424:
3238:
3124:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2984:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2686:
2646:
2623:
2563:
2470:
2440:
2310:
2144:
1959:
1910:
1794:
1769:
1717:
1565:
1515:
1472:
1294:
1058:
178:
3351:
Pinker is obviously a formidable intellectual. But that doesn't give him a free ride.
3164:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3024:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2852:
What the article calls a "defensible conclusion" is what others call a Formal Fallacy.
3747:
3495:
3244:
2821:
2763:
2732:
where he calls it "wonderful". He also uses the book in college courses he teaches. —
2509:
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
1955:
1591:
825:
670:
294:
2941:
2931:
2578:
Maybe a photo of Chomsky would be more relevant in the section about language books.
2180:
to say). In any event, he never gave up visual phenomena entirely: by the point of
1896:
section on work. Then it will be easier to make the biography section chronological.
3758:
3310:
3202:
3091:
3081:
2707:
This seems suspect. No source is cited. the C-SPAN source does not mention Sowell.
2673:
2637:
2606:
2579:
2553:
2461:
2224:
2115:
1990:
1974:
1929:
1897:
1813:
1784:
1740:
1705:
1694:
1678:
402:
16:
3108:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060118201913/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/
2305:
I think the Lead need to be expanded to accurately reflect the changes to content.
3996:
3940:
3936:
3922:
3880:
3836:
3401:
3384:
3367:
2915:
2685:
Thank you very much for the careful review and the suggestions for further work.
2186:
1942:
107:
466:
3719:
3234:
2786:
2734:
2234:
2194:
2087:
2008:
1853:
1556:
I have once or twice been faced with absurd concern about primary sources, and
1530:
1487:
1426:
1412:
1372:
1353:
1320:
1298:
1002:
757:
620:
499:
349:
3418:
3130:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2990:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2004:
1272:
4017:
3965:
3944:
3932:
3899:
3872:
3858:
3530:
3061:
2911:
2856:
It is not a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
1245:
47:
3485:
3412:
3405:
1666:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
3111:
3131:
2991:
1909:
I've moved the awards to a new section; the sequence is now not too bad.
1674:
1368:
1276:
1071:
1278:
973:
957:
941:
925:
3992:
3918:
3891:
3876:
3327:. I remember now. Yeah, that was essentially Pinker getting trolled.
838:
837:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
683:
1371:. Ok, I think I'll proceed along those lines, thank you, Viriditas.
2411:
Ok, added brief summaries positive and negative, with lists of refs.
654:
630:
3529:
How do we know he has requested this? And if he has, then he has a
1274:
1189:
1164:
1052:
546:
533:
509:
422:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
386:
359:
3555:
2309:
Extended Lead to cover language acquisition and Better Angels.
2758:
for example. This deserves a mention in the article somewhere.
1279:
3102:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/media/2004_04_26_time.htm
2952:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/
2899:
A person who does not believe in the existence of aatheists.
2724:
Pinker frequently has good things to say about Sowell's book
2536:
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
3757:
As per my edit summary, the reasons (that I could see) were
2957:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
2835:
Under the heading "Research and theory" the article states:
2814:
2622:
Thanks; I think the article is pretty much up to speed now.
1042:
1012:
809:
767:
3072:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
2922:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
2389:
The section on "words and rules" is also extremely short.
4044:
Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
1288:
Regarding the GA nomination and concerns about sourcing.
1136:
2278:
Here is my evaluation of the article's current state.
2049:, contains a ref (Kagan, J 1999. Roger William Brown.
54:
3381:
Request to change Steven Pinker's Photo on Knowledge
1812:
this and others don't. I hope we can find a balance.
1239:
1070:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1048:
815:
682:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
660:
545:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
392:
3354:I was struck by some unverified, anecdotal claims.
3134:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2994:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2135:In his obituary of Brown, Pinker said Brown's book
4039:GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
1693:I'll be reviewing this article over the next week.
2942:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/wr/index.html
2932:http://www.nchum.org/who-we-are/the-professoriate
4015:
3092:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html
3082:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html
1199:, a project which is currently considered to be
297:. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
4149:Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
2801:Pinker is a long time proponent of race science
2438:Busy today, will look at this on Sunday/Monday.
4134:Mid-importance philosophy of language articles
3986:"I’m not a single purpose account." Redthank,
3347:Unverified claims - calling attention reverted
3120:This message was posted before February 2018.
2980:This message was posted before February 2018.
1734:Your participation would be entirely welcome.
1560:is what I came up with - it did the trick. In
334:This article is of interest to the following
1470:and use it repeatedly <ref name=hack/: -->
1001:template instead of this project banner. See
756:template instead of this project banner. See
619:template instead of this project banner. See
498:template instead of this project banner. See
348:template instead of this project banner. See
2041:talk page, Pinker's first solo-author paper
131:
4154:Contemporary philosophy task force articles
2364:it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
4139:Philosophy of language task force articles
4119:Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles
327:
325:
4144:GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
4029:Social sciences and society good articles
3060:I have just modified 4 external links on
2910:I have just modified 3 external links on
285:Social sciences and society good articles
4129:GA-Class philosophy of language articles
4049:Science and academia work group articles
3271:2604:2000:C5E0:BD00:5468:3A4C:16F7:8B88
3112:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/
2750:Pinker's views as pro-race and pro-HBD?
1750:comprehensiveness is NOT a GA criterion
1211:Knowledge:WikiProject Cognitive science
4174:Knowledge semi-protected edit requests
4124:Philosophy of mind task force articles
4016:
2843:of what science says human nature is:
2425:Added commentary on Pinker by Ed West.
2331:Verifiable with no original research:
1214:Template:WikiProject Cognitive science
847:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
2969:to let others know (documentation at
2059:Language, Cognition, and Human Nature
997:Please add the quality rating to the
752:Please add the quality rating to the
615:Please add the quality rating to the
494:Please add the quality rating to the
344:Please add the quality rating to the
4114:GA-Class philosophy of mind articles
3442:This template must be followed by a
2525:Illustrated, if possible, by images:
1195:This article is within the scope of
1064:This article is within the scope of
831:This article is within the scope of
676:This article is within the scope of
539:This article is within the scope of
408:This article is within the scope of
321:
267:
80:
46:
4164:Mid-importance Linguistics articles
4104:Mid-importance philosopher articles
477:the science and academia work group
207:
196:
170:
153:
146:
130:
99:
87:
13:
4094:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
4079:Mid-importance psychology articles
3454:and will be rejected; the request
3223:You are invited to participate in
2043:Formal Models of Language Learning
1135:
972:
956:
940:
924:
465:
266:
35:
4185:
3444:complete and specific description
3064:. Please take a moment to review
2914:. Please take a moment to review
2645:Have made the changes requested.
2351:it contains no original research.
1147:Philosophy of language task force
1084:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics
293:. If you can improve it further,
264:Revision as of 03:59, 2 July 2020
156:Revision as of 03:59, 2 July 2020
90:Revision as of 21:32, 1 July 2020
4169:WikiProject Linguistics articles
4109:Philosophers task force articles
4064:Low-importance Montreal articles
3554:
3388:
3197:Is the mass of citations in the
2526:
2518:
2510:
2500:
2469:Have described Sampson further.
2352:
2344:
2343:scientific citation guidelines;
2335:
2286:
1752:; glad I mentioned this now. "A
1244:
1188:
1163:
1087:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
1051:
1041:
1011:
853:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
818:
808:
766:
696:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
663:
653:
629:
532:
508:
395:
385:
358:
326:
271:
4084:WikiProject Psychology articles
3691:Yes the lead is way too long.
2051:Biographical Memoirs, Volume 77
1542:
1539:
1536:
1533:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1122:This article has been rated as
1104:This article has been rated as
891:This article has been rated as
873:This article has been rated as
856:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
734:This article has been rated as
716:This article has been rated as
699:Template:WikiProject Psychology
597:This article has been rated as
579:This article has been rated as
452:This article has been rated as
432:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
4054:WikiProject Biography articles
3664:
3458:be of the form "please change
559:Knowledge:WikiProject Montreal
435:Template:WikiProject Biography
281:has been listed as one of the
1:
4159:GA-Class Linguistics articles
4099:GA-Class philosopher articles
4069:WikiProject Montreal articles
3800:00:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
3647:15:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3632:15:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
3608:13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
3589:08:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
3573:00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
3543:23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
3524:23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
3473:user. Remember to change the
2897:aaatheist (plural aaatheists)
2636:I agree it looks really good.
1197:WikiProject Cognitive science
1144:This article is supported by
1078:and see a list of open tasks.
690:and see a list of open tasks.
562:Template:WikiProject Montreal
553:and see a list of open tasks.
474:This article is supported by
262:
253:
4089:GA-Class Philosophy articles
4074:GA-Class psychology articles
3775:23:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
3752:23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
3469:The edit may be made by any
3400:that an edit be made to the
3376:22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
3337:17:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
3319:11:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
3295:02:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
3279:02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
3188:06:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
2768:21:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
2527:
2519:
2511:
2501:
2353:
2345:
2336:
2287:
2047:Our article on Brown himself
2007:, starting at around 15:30.
999:{{WikiProject banner shell}}
754:{{WikiProject banner shell}}
617:{{WikiProject banner shell}}
496:{{WikiProject banner shell}}
420:contribute to the discussion
346:{{WikiProject banner shell}}
200:
137:
18:Browse history interactively
7:
4034:GA-Class biography articles
3305:(never saw this site before
3199:Better Angels of our Nature
2674:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2638:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2607:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2580:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2554:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2462:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2225:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
2116:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1991:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1975:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1930:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1898:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1814:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1785:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1741:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1706:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1695:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
1347:Short and sweet, check out
10:
4190:
4059:GA-Class Montreal articles
3831:02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
3732:18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
3707:18:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
3503:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
3241:if you want my attention.)
3214:03:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
3151:(last update: 5 June 2024)
3057:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
3011:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2907:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2874:17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
2826:21:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1217:Cognitive science articles
1128:project's importance scale
897:project's importance scale
740:project's importance scale
603:project's importance scale
198:
135:
3885:06:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
3867:06:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
3852:13:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
3738:Conflict with Phil Torres
3048:12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
2879:The aaatheistic conundrum
2815:https://www.pinkerite.com
2795:07:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
2695:15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
2677:15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
1349:Knowledge:Inline citation
1183:
1143:
1121:
1103:
1036:
980:
964:
948:
932:
907:
903:
890:
872:
803:
733:
715:
648:
596:
578:
527:
473:
451:
380:
342:
251:
218:
215:
152:
86:
4001:21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
3974:15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
3953:10:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
3931:It's pretty rich for an
3927:07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
3908:05:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
3560:Edit request implemented
3507:by Harvard University."
3253:22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
3227:about whether to delete
2744:10:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
2719:06:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
2703:Thomas Sowell influence?
2655:15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2641:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2632:09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2610:14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2583:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2572:09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2557:00:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2479:15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2465:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2449:08:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
2319:09:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
2256:19:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2228:21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
2216:20:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2153:19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2119:14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2109:01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2030:00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
1994:17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
1978:15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1968:14:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1875:08:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
4024:Knowledge good articles
3939:and to a lesser extent
3053:External links modified
2903:External links modified
2831:Defensible conclusions?
2361:Broad in its coverage:
1933:23:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
1919:06:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
1901:16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1817:16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1803:16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1788:16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1778:16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1744:16:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1726:15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1709:15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1698:13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1689:13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1574:09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1552:09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1524:09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1509:08:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1481:07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1448:08:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1421:06:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1394:06:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1362:05:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1342:05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
1067:WikiProject Linguistics
982:Contemporary philosophy
908:Associated task forces:
85:
2850:
2841:defensible conclusions
1826:notable amongst them (
1664:Talk:Steven Pinker/GA1
1236:Template:Vital article
1140:
1024:Philosophy of language
977:
966:Philosophy of language
961:
945:
929:
834:WikiProject Philosophy
679:WikiProject Psychology
470:
3806:Pinker as a linguist?
3237:this page, so please
3229:Intellectual Dark Web
3219:Intellectual Dark Web
2837:
2780:but he also cautions
2726:A Conflict of Visions
2382:The Language Instinct
2141:The Language Instinct
2055:The Language Instinct
1832:The Language Instinct
1139:
976:
960:
944:
928:
469:
411:WikiProject Biography
291:good article criteria
3132:regular verification
2992:regular verification
2605:suggested meanwhile.
1090:Linguistics articles
542:WikiProject Montreal
371:Science and Academia
3225:this AfD discussion
3122:After February 2018
2982:After February 2018
2961:parameter below to
1466:John Stewart Collis
859:Philosophy articles
702:psychology articles
3988:your contributions
3490:protection request
3176:InternetArchiveBot
3127:InternetArchiveBot
3036:InternetArchiveBot
2987:InternetArchiveBot
2182:How the Mind Works
1828:How the Mind Works
1141:
1110:content assessment
1059:Linguistics portal
978:
962:
950:Philosophy of mind
946:
930:
879:content assessment
844:general discussion
722:content assessment
585:content assessment
471:
458:content assessment
438:biography articles
309:: June 13, 2014. (
168:
97:
3833:
3817:comment added by
3802:
3786:comment added by
3734:
3718:comment added by
3709:
3697:comment added by
3549:Reply 14-NOV-2018
3501:
3500:
3360:Another example:
3281:
3269:comment added by
3242:
3152:
3012:
2730:Here's an article
2193:in the process.
1736:Comprehensiveness
1654:
1653:
1285:
1284:
1233:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1208:Cognitive science
1171:Cognitive science
1158:
1157:
1154:
1153:
995:
994:
991:
990:
987:
986:
826:Philosophy portal
750:
749:
746:
745:
671:Psychology portal
613:
612:
609:
608:
565:Montreal articles
492:
491:
488:
487:
320:
319:
316:
261:
154:
88:
68:
4181:
3812:
3781:
3713:
3692:
3679:
3677:
3668:
3629:
3627:
3619:
3570:
3568:
3562:
3558:
3497:
3479:
3440:
3392:
3391:
3385:
3329:NinjaRobotPirate
3313:
3287:NinjaRobotPirate
3264:
3232:
3204:Andrew Z. Colvin
3186:
3177:
3150:
3149:
3128:
3046:
3037:
3010:
3009:
2988:
2976:
2530:
2529:
2522:
2521:
2514:
2513:
2504:
2503:
2356:
2355:
2348:
2347:
2339:
2338:
2290:
2289:
2248:
2245:
2242:
2239:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2199:
2137:Words and Things
2101:
2098:
2095:
2092:
2022:
2019:
2016:
2013:
1867:
1864:
1861:
1858:
1764:article must be
1756:article must be
1608:Copyvio detector
1596:
1595:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1535:
1501:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1325:
1302:
1280:
1248:
1240:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1192:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1167:
1160:
1159:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1045:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1015:
1008:
1007:
1000:
915:
905:
904:
861:
860:
857:
854:
851:
828:
823:
822:
821:
812:
805:
804:
799:
796:
793:
770:
763:
762:
755:
704:
703:
700:
697:
694:
673:
668:
667:
666:
657:
650:
649:
644:
641:
633:
626:
625:
618:
567:
566:
563:
560:
557:
536:
529:
528:
523:
520:
512:
505:
504:
497:
440:
439:
436:
433:
430:
416:join the project
405:
403:Biography portal
400:
399:
398:
389:
382:
381:
376:
373:
362:
355:
354:
347:
331:
330:
329:
322:
314:
312:Reviewed version
303:
275:
268:
205:
204:
203:
191:
186:
167:
162:
144:
143:
141:
133:
125:
115:
96:
69:
60:
59:
57:
52:
50:
42:
39:
21:
19:
4189:
4188:
4184:
4183:
4182:
4180:
4179:
4178:
4014:
4013:
3941:Lawrence Krauss
3937:Alan Dershowitz
3844:Just plain Bill
3839:
3808:
3740:
3689:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3671:
3669:
3665:
3625:
3623:
3613:
3566:
3564:
3553:
3551:
3494:
3474:
3410:
3389:
3383:
3349:
3311:
3260:
3221:
3195:
3180:
3175:
3143:
3136:have permission
3126:
3070:this simple FaQ
3055:
3040:
3035:
3003:
2996:have permission
2986:
2970:
2920:this simple FaQ
2905:
2892:a- + aatheist
2881:
2833:
2803:
2752:
2742:
2705:
2276:
2246:
2243:
2240:
2237:
2206:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2191:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE
2099:
2096:
2093:
2090:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2011:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1856:
1836:The Blank Slate
1658:This review is
1650:
1622:
1594:
1292:
1290:
1281:
1275:
1253:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1173:
1108:on Knowledge's
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1057:
1050:
1030:
1027:
1021:
1006:
998:
913:
877:on Knowledge's
858:
855:
852:
849:
848:
824:
819:
817:
797:
794:
776:
761:
753:
720:on Knowledge's
701:
698:
695:
692:
691:
669:
664:
662:
642:
639:
624:
616:
583:on Knowledge's
564:
561:
558:
555:
554:
521:
518:
503:
495:
456:on Knowledge's
437:
434:
431:
428:
427:
401:
396:
394:
374:
368:
353:
345:
310:
258:
247:
240:
231:
226:
211:
206:
199:
197:
195:
194:
193:
189:
176:
174:
169:
163:
158:
150:
148:← Previous edit
145:
136:
134:
129:
128:
127:
123:
121:
105:
103:
98:
92:
84:
83:
82:
81:
79:
78:
77:
76:
75:
74:
65:
61:
55:
53:
48:
45:
43:
40:
38:Content deleted
37:
34:
29:← Previous edit
26:
25:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
4187:
4177:
4176:
4171:
4166:
4161:
4156:
4151:
4146:
4141:
4136:
4131:
4126:
4121:
4116:
4111:
4106:
4101:
4096:
4091:
4086:
4081:
4076:
4071:
4066:
4061:
4056:
4051:
4046:
4041:
4036:
4031:
4026:
4012:
4011:
4010:
4009:
4008:
4007:
4003:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3929:
3911:
3910:
3888:
3887:
3838:
3835:
3819:Dawkin Verbier
3807:
3804:
3778:
3777:
3767:Martinevans123
3739:
3736:
3688:
3685:
3681:
3680:
3662:
3661:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3639:Martinevans123
3616:Martinevans123
3592:
3591:
3581:Martinevans123
3550:
3547:
3546:
3545:
3535:Martinevans123
3499:
3498:
3480:parameter to "
3452:not acceptable
3437:protection log
3402:semi-protected
3393:
3382:
3379:
3348:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3298:
3297:
3259:
3256:
3245:Dr. Fleischman
3220:
3217:
3194:
3191:
3170:
3169:
3162:
3115:
3114:
3106:Added archive
3104:
3096:Added archive
3094:
3086:Added archive
3084:
3076:Added archive
3054:
3051:
3030:
3029:
3022:
2955:
2954:
2946:Added archive
2944:
2936:Added archive
2934:
2926:Added archive
2904:
2901:
2898:
2896:
2891:
2886:
2880:
2877:
2862:
2860:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2848:
2832:
2829:
2802:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2751:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2738:
2711:148.85.235.153
2704:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2680:
2679:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2613:
2612:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2534:
2523:
2515:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2435:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2349:
2340:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2291:
2282:Well-written:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2005:this interview
1997:
1996:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1936:
1935:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1904:
1903:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1819:
1729:
1728:
1712:
1711:
1669:
1668:
1652:
1651:
1649:
1648:
1643:
1638:
1632:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1621:
1620:
1618:External links
1615:
1610:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1243:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1193:
1181:
1180:
1168:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1142:
1132:
1131:
1124:Mid-importance
1120:
1114:
1113:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1076:the discussion
1063:
1062:
1046:
1034:
1033:
1031:Mid‑importance
1016:
996:
993:
992:
989:
988:
985:
984:
979:
969:
968:
963:
953:
952:
947:
937:
936:
931:
921:
920:
918:
916:
910:
909:
901:
900:
893:Mid-importance
889:
883:
882:
871:
865:
864:
862:
830:
829:
813:
801:
800:
798:Mid‑importance
771:
751:
748:
747:
744:
743:
736:Mid-importance
732:
726:
725:
714:
708:
707:
705:
688:the discussion
675:
674:
658:
646:
645:
643:Mid‑importance
634:
614:
611:
610:
607:
606:
599:Low-importance
595:
589:
588:
577:
571:
570:
568:
551:the discussion
537:
525:
524:
522:Low‑importance
513:
493:
490:
489:
486:
485:
482:Mid-importance
472:
462:
461:
450:
444:
443:
441:
407:
406:
390:
378:
377:
363:
343:
340:
339:
332:
318:
317:
302:
276:
265:
260:
259:
256:
254:
252:
249:
248:
245:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
232:
229:
227:
224:
221:
220:
217:
213:
212:
188:
187:
172:
151:
122:
119:Administrators
117:
116:
101:
70:
64:
62:
44:
36:
27:
23:
22:
14:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4186:
4175:
4172:
4170:
4167:
4165:
4162:
4160:
4157:
4155:
4152:
4150:
4147:
4145:
4142:
4140:
4137:
4135:
4132:
4130:
4127:
4125:
4122:
4120:
4117:
4115:
4112:
4110:
4107:
4105:
4102:
4100:
4097:
4095:
4092:
4090:
4087:
4085:
4082:
4080:
4077:
4075:
4072:
4070:
4067:
4065:
4062:
4060:
4057:
4055:
4052:
4050:
4047:
4045:
4042:
4040:
4037:
4035:
4032:
4030:
4027:
4025:
4022:
4021:
4019:
4004:
4002:
3998:
3994:
3989:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3962:
3961:
3960:
3959:
3954:
3950:
3946:
3942:
3938:
3934:
3930:
3928:
3924:
3920:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3909:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3893:
3890:
3889:
3886:
3882:
3878:
3874:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3864:
3860:
3854:
3853:
3849:
3845:
3834:
3832:
3828:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3803:
3801:
3797:
3793:
3789:
3785:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3764:
3760:
3756:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3749:
3745:
3735:
3733:
3729:
3725:
3721:
3717:
3710:
3708:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3687:LEAD TOO LONG
3675:
3667:
3663:
3660:
3648:
3644:
3640:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3630:
3628:
3617:
3611:
3610:
3609:
3605:
3601:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3593:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3577:
3576:
3575:
3574:
3571:
3569:
3561:
3557:
3544:
3540:
3536:
3532:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3521:
3517:
3511:
3508:
3504:
3496:
3493:
3491:
3487:
3483:
3478:
3472:
3471:autoconfirmed
3467:
3465:
3461:
3457:
3453:
3449:
3445:
3438:
3435:
3432:
3429:
3426:
3423:
3420:
3417:
3414:
3409:
3407:
3403:
3399:
3394:
3387:
3386:
3378:
3377:
3373:
3369:
3364:
3361:
3358:
3355:
3352:
3338:
3334:
3330:
3326:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3317:
3314:
3309:
3306:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3296:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3268:
3255:
3254:
3250:
3246:
3240:
3236:
3230:
3226:
3216:
3215:
3212:
3211:
3206:
3205:
3200:
3193:Citation clog
3190:
3189:
3184:
3179:
3178:
3167:
3163:
3160:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3147:
3141:
3137:
3133:
3129:
3123:
3118:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3093:
3089:
3085:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3071:
3067:
3063:
3062:Steven Pinker
3058:
3050:
3049:
3044:
3039:
3038:
3027:
3023:
3020:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3007:
3001:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2968:
2964:
2960:
2953:
2949:
2945:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2912:Steven Pinker
2908:
2900:
2893:
2888:
2884:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2858:
2854:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2842:
2836:
2828:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2816:
2812:
2809:
2806:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2779:
2775:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2736:
2731:
2727:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2687:Chiswick Chap
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2678:
2675:
2670:
2669:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2647:Chiswick Chap
2644:
2643:
2642:
2639:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2624:Chiswick Chap
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2611:
2608:
2603:
2602:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2581:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2564:Chiswick Chap
2560:
2559:
2558:
2555:
2551:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2535:
2532:
2531:
2524:
2516:
2508:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2471:Chiswick Chap
2468:
2467:
2466:
2463:
2459:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2441:Chiswick Chap
2439:
2436:
2433:
2432:
2429:
2424:
2423:
2421:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2399:
2398:
2396:
2391:
2390:
2388:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2363:
2362:
2360:
2350:
2341:
2333:
2332:
2330:
2329:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2311:Chiswick Chap
2308:
2307:
2306:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2292:
2284:
2283:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2257:
2254:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2226:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2179:
2174:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2145:Chiswick Chap
2142:
2138:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2120:
2117:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2107:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2031:
2028:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2006:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1995:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1979:
1976:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1960:Chiswick Chap
1957:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1934:
1931:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1911:Chiswick Chap
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1902:
1899:
1894:
1893:
1876:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1850:
1844:
1840:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1795:Chiswick Chap
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1770:Chiswick Chap
1767:
1763:
1759:
1758:comprehensive
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1718:Chiswick Chap
1714:
1713:
1710:
1707:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1683:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1655:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:Chiswick Chap
1563:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:Chiswick Chap
1512:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:Chiswick Chap
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1295:Chiswick Chap
1270:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1221:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1149:
1148:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1060:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1025:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1004:
983:
975:
971:
970:
967:
959:
955:
954:
951:
943:
939:
938:
935:
927:
923:
922:
919:
917:
912:
911:
906:
902:
898:
894:
888:
885:
884:
880:
876:
870:
867:
866:
863:
846:
845:
840:
836:
835:
827:
816:
814:
811:
807:
806:
802:
792:
788:
784:
780:
775:
772:
769:
765:
764:
759:
741:
737:
731:
728:
727:
723:
719:
713:
710:
709:
706:
689:
685:
681:
680:
672:
661:
659:
656:
652:
651:
647:
638:
635:
632:
628:
627:
622:
604:
600:
594:
591:
590:
586:
582:
576:
573:
572:
569:
552:
548:
544:
543:
538:
535:
531:
530:
526:
517:
514:
511:
507:
506:
501:
483:
480:(assessed as
479:
478:
468:
464:
463:
459:
455:
449:
446:
445:
442:
425:
424:documentation
421:
417:
413:
412:
404:
393:
391:
388:
384:
383:
379:
372:
367:
364:
361:
357:
356:
351:
341:
337:
333:
324:
323:
313:
308:
307:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
280:
279:Steven Pinker
277:
274:
270:
269:
263:
255:
250:
244:
242:
237:
235:
234:
230:
228:
225:
223:
222:
214:
210:
202:
184:
180:
175:
166:
161:
157:
149:
139:
120:
113:
109:
104:
95:
91:
73:
58:
51:
41:Content added
33:
30:
20:
3855:
3840:
3813:— Preceding
3809:
3782:— Preceding
3779:
3763:WP:RECENTISM
3741:
3714:— Preceding
3711:
3693:— Preceding
3690:
3674:request edit
3666:
3658:
3622:
3563:
3559:
3552:
3512:
3509:
3505:
3502:
3481:
3476:
3468:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3441:
3433:
3427:
3421:
3415:
3395:
3365:
3362:
3359:
3356:
3353:
3350:
3324:
3265:— Preceding
3261:
3258:Whitewashing
3222:
3209:
3203:
3198:
3196:
3174:
3171:
3146:source check
3125:
3119:
3116:
3059:
3056:
3034:
3031:
3006:source check
2985:
2979:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2956:
2909:
2906:
2894:
2889:
2885:
2882:
2866:24.36.33.119
2864:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2840:
2838:
2834:
2813:
2810:
2807:
2804:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2753:
2733:
2725:
2709:
2706:
2457:
2437:
2406:
2375:
2304:
2277:
2236:
2235:
2196:
2195:
2181:
2177:
2172:
2140:
2136:
2089:
2088:
2072:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2042:
2010:
2009:
1855:
1854:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1748:Thanks. No,
1735:
1692:
1681:
1671:
1670:
1657:
1646:Instructions
1532:
1531:
1489:
1488:
1428:
1427:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1374:
1373:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1307:
1304:
1291:
1262:
1250:
1234:
1200:
1145:
1123:
1105:
1065:
1005:for details.
934:Philosophers
892:
874:
842:
832:
791:Contemporary
779:Philosophers
760:for details.
735:
717:
677:
623:for details.
598:
580:
540:
502:for details.
475:
453:
409:
352:for details.
336:WikiProjects
304:
295:please do so
283:
282:
278:
3699:169.0.4.235
3404:article at
3323:Oh, right,
3312:Doug Weller
2973:Sourcecheck
2883:aaatheist:
2139:influenced
1660:transcluded
1562:other cases
1081:Linguistics
1072:linguistics
1019:Linguistics
209:Next edit →
32:Next edit →
4018:Categories
3765:. Thanks.
3626:Spintendo
3567:Spintendo
3475:|answered=
3368:Jbrockettm
3233:(I am not
3183:Report bug
3043:Report bug
1956:WP:SOFIXIT
1941:Yes, it's
1613:Authorship
1599:GA toolbox
1398:Redundant
1264:/Archive 1
850:Philosophy
839:philosophy
774:Philosophy
693:Psychology
684:Psychology
637:Psychology
289:under the
3759:WP:WEIGHT
3720:HeadwayNL
3678:template.
3600:Aufstrich
3516:Aufstrich
3398:requested
3166:this tool
3159:this tool
3026:this tool
3019:this tool
2890:Etymology
2887:English
2787:Poodleboy
2783:confront.
2735:Torchiest
2274:GA review
1973:approach.
1672:Reviewer:
1636:Templates
1627:Reviewing
1592:GA Review
1413:Viriditas
1354:Viriditas
1299:Viriditas
429:Biography
366:Biography
219:Line 214:
216:Line 214:
201:→Epstein
138:→Epstein
3966:Redthank
3945:Johnuniq
3900:Redthank
3873:Redthank
3859:Redthank
3827:contribs
3815:unsigned
3796:contribs
3784:unsigned
3728:contribs
3716:unsigned
3695:unsigned
3267:unsigned
3235:watching
3172:Cheers.—
3032:Cheers.—
2774:pro-race
2550:this one
2187:WP:SYNTH
1943:WP:UNDUE
1754:featured
1685:contribs
1641:Criteria
1251:Archives
1202:inactive
1176:inactive
1106:GA-class
1028:GA‑class
875:GA-class
795:GA‑class
787:Language
718:GA-class
640:GA‑class
581:GA-class
556:Montreal
547:Montreal
519:GA‑class
516:Montreal
454:GA-class
375:GA‑class
299:reassess
183:contribs
173:Redthank
112:contribs
56:Wikitext
3894:, See:
3837:Epstein
3788:Nancymc
3744:Nancymc
3419:history
3239:ping me
3066:my edit
2959:checked
2916:my edit
2818:Nancymc
2760:Wajajad
1514:treat.
1404:reading
1126:on the
1003:WP:PIQA
895:on the
758:WP:PIQA
738:on the
621:WP:PIQA
601:on the
500:WP:PIQA
350:WP:PIQA
3531:WP:COI
3396:It is
2967:failed
1834:, and
1675:Maunus
1408:browse
1112:scale.
881:scale.
724:scale.
587:scale.
460:scale.
306:Review
124:77,056
67:Inline
49:Visual
3993:Hoary
3919:Hoary
3892:Hoary
3877:Hoary
3659:Notes
3450:" is
3431:links
2740:edits
2587:Done.
2458:about
2178:seems
1766:broad
1662:from
192:edits
126:edits
102:Hoary
3997:talk
3970:talk
3949:talk
3923:talk
3904:talk
3881:talk
3863:talk
3848:talk
3823:talk
3792:talk
3771:talk
3761:and
3748:talk
3724:talk
3703:talk
3643:talk
3604:talk
3585:talk
3539:talk
3520:talk
3456:must
3425:last
3413:edit
3372:talk
3333:talk
3325:that
3316:talk
3291:talk
3275:talk
3249:talk
3210:Talk
2963:true
2895:Noun
2870:talk
2822:talk
2791:talk
2764:talk
2756:here
2715:talk
2691:talk
2651:talk
2628:talk
2568:talk
2475:talk
2445:talk
2315:talk
2253:talk
2213:talk
2189:and
2149:talk
2106:talk
2027:talk
1964:talk
1915:talk
1872:talk
1799:talk
1774:talk
1762:good
1760:; a
1722:talk
1679:talk
1570:talk
1558:this
1549:talk
1520:talk
1506:talk
1477:talk
1445:talk
1417:talk
1391:talk
1369:WP:N
1358:talk
1339:talk
1308:your
1297:and
783:Mind
418:and
179:talk
165:undo
160:edit
108:talk
94:edit
3933:SPA
3486:ESp
3482:yes
3466:".
3462:to
3140:RfC
3110:to
3100:to
3090:to
3080:to
3000:RfC
2977:).
2965:or
2950:to
2940:to
2930:to
2456:be
2173:and
1400:and
1118:Mid
887:Mid
730:Mid
593:Low
301:it.
4020::
3999:)
3972:)
3951:)
3943:.
3925:)
3906:)
3883:)
3865:)
3850:)
3829:)
3825:•
3798:)
3794:•
3773:)
3750:)
3730:)
3726:•
3705:)
3676:}}
3672:{{
3645:)
3606:)
3587:)
3541:)
3522:)
3492:.
3477:no
3374:)
3335:)
3307:,
3293:)
3277:)
3251:)
3243:--
3231:.
3207:•
3153:.
3148:}}
3144:{{
3013:.
3008:}}
3004:{{
2975:}}
2971:{{
2872:)
2824:)
2793:)
2766:)
2728:.
2717:)
2693:)
2653:)
2630:)
2570:)
2477:)
2447:)
2317:)
2151:)
1966:)
1917:)
1830:,
1801:)
1776:)
1724:)
1687:)
1572:)
1522:)
1479:)
1419:)
1360:)
1100:GA
1022::
914:/
869:GA
789:/
785:/
781:/
777::
712:GA
575:GA
484:).
448:GA
369::
315:).
190:22
181:|
140::
110:|
3995:(
3968:(
3947:(
3921:(
3902:(
3879:(
3861:(
3846:(
3821:(
3790:(
3769:(
3746:(
3722:(
3701:(
3641:(
3618::
3614:@
3602:(
3583:(
3537:(
3518:(
3464:Y
3460:X
3448:X
3439:)
3434:·
3428:·
3422:·
3416:·
3411:(
3408:.
3406:A
3370:(
3331:(
3289:(
3273:(
3247:(
3185:)
3181:(
3168:.
3161:.
3045:)
3041:(
3028:.
3021:.
2868:(
2820:(
2789:(
2762:(
2713:(
2689:(
2649:(
2626:(
2566:(
2473:(
2443:(
2384:.
2313:(
2247:w
2244:o
2241:n
2238:S
2207:w
2204:o
2201:n
2198:S
2147:(
2100:w
2097:o
2094:n
2091:S
2061::
2021:w
2018:o
2015:n
2012:S
1962:(
1913:(
1866:w
1863:o
1860:n
1857:S
1797:(
1772:(
1720:(
1682:·
1677:(
1568:(
1543:w
1540:o
1537:n
1534:S
1518:(
1500:w
1497:o
1494:n
1491:S
1475:(
1439:w
1436:o
1433:n
1430:S
1415:(
1385:w
1382:o
1379:n
1376:S
1356:(
1333:w
1330:o
1327:n
1324:S
1301::
1293:@
1205:.
1178:)
1174:(
1150:.
1130:.
899:.
742:.
605:.
426:.
338::
185:)
177:(
142::
132:m
114:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.