Talk:Steven Pinker: Difference between revisions

1857:

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.

1330:(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? 1719:

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.

241:::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.] (]) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 234:::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.] (]) 15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 2687:

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.

1837:

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:

343: 1326:

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.

1334:

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.

1421:, 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 1501:

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.

1853:) 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. 482: 2101:

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.

2238:

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.

989: 973: 957: 941: 1261: 2248:(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. 3405: 1783:. 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. 670: 646: 549: 1861:

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.

1205: 1180: 525: 288: 3979:

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.

2543: 2535: 2527: 2517: 2369: 2361: 2352: 2303: 1798:

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.

1068: 402: 375: 1731:

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.

3571: 1058: 1028: 71: 825: 783: 1152: 3372:"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. 2088:"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." 835: 3378:"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. 2791:? 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 680: 3932:

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? --

412: 2129:

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.

1622: 2060:, 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. 2072:, 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 3913:; 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. 2191:

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

2200:

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

3521:

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

2470:

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

1840:

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

1826:

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

1381:

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

1320:

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

3871:

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

3856:

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.

2237:

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

2128:

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

2100:

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,

1866:

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

1836:

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.

1797:

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

1543:

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

1329:

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

2247:

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

2190:

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

1856:

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

1500:

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

1325:

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

2055:

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

1910:

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

1753:

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

1528:

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

3931:

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

3612:

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.

2199:

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

1333:

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

2686:

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

2003:

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

1730:

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

1942:

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

2004:

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.

1718:

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

2619:

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

1860:

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

3978:

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

2357:

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

1366:

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.

272:::"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) 262:::"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) 1425:

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.

1382:

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

2158:. 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. 3593:

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!

2797:

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

1987:

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

161: 2445:

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: 2576:

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.

3277:

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.

3548:. 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. 3872:

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.

3528:

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.

2415:

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).

2562:

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

1754:

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?

2017:

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

3635:

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.

3289: 1807:

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.

3499:" 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 {{ 3890:, 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? -- 2815: 4005:

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." --

3825:

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.

3651:

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.

2437:

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.

3525:

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.

2820:

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.

1417:

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

1960:. 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. 1479:

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: 3136: 2996: 3685:

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

2395:

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

4054: 496: 3795:

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?

1302: 3950:

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

3154: 3150: 3014: 3010: 3395: 1483:, 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: --> 3285: 2412:

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.

2475:

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.

4049: 3309: 2793:

Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.

2729: 856:

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

1440:

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.

4159: 2884: 1544:

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...

1250: 215: 144: 4144: 3717: 2186:

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

3910: 3563: 3361: 3239: 3216:

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.

1142: 4164: 1969:

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

1660: 491: 385: 1356: 911: 754: 4149: 4129: 299: 4154: 4039: 3727:

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

3538: 2764: 617: 4139: 4059: 3614: 3530: 2422:

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.

4184: 4134: 3390: 1486:

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.

3802: 3758: 2840: 2832: 2774: 1627: 4124: 3351: 3333: 996: 948: 805: 793: 3293: 2463: 4174: 4114: 3112: 2962: 2862:"Individuals differ in personality and intelligence." Even in a perfect economic system, not everyone will have the same amount of wealth. 1650: 1132: 156: 93: 4104: 4089: 3661: 3622: 3603: 3557: 2758: 1764: 901: 744: 31: 28: 1889: 1632: 1588: 1566: 1538: 1523: 1495: 3789: 2782: 2669: 2655: 4179: 4119: 4074: 2709: 2691: 2646: 2624: 2597: 2586: 2571: 2493: 2479: 2167: 1992: 1982: 1933: 1831: 1817: 1802: 1792: 1758: 1740: 1161: 1038: 980: 801: 607: 3646: 3461:

of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change

3202: 3132:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1462: 1435: 1408: 1376: 4094: 429:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 72: 3988: 3967: 3922: 3062: 2809: 4064: 2952: 2942: 2391:

I think the section on "the language instinct and related books" could do a better job of summarizing the arguments in the books.

2270: 2242: 2230: 2133: 2123: 2068:. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press), which purports to support the claim that Brown's work was a major inspiration for 2044: 1211: 1185: 430: 4169: 4109: 4079: 4015: 3941: 3899: 3504: 2733: 1114: 1090: 3102: 3092: 2008: 1973:; I don't think we'll get this article sorted otherwise. I may therefore respond by editing the article rather than here. ;-} 1947: 1915: 1723: 4099: 4084: 2769:

There are many examples of Pinker saying that the denial ofmtue existence of racial groups in scientifically untenable, like

964: 883: 858: 797: 726: 702: 3911:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-edit-a-wikipedia-page-that-is-about-yourself-or-a-group-event-you-are-affiliated-with

3845: 2888: 4044: 3841: 3381:

There are other examples in the article of statements and claims that miss the mark, but that is all I have time for now.

2725: 2308:

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

462: 434: 152: 89: 3267: 4069: 3814: 3766: 3485: 1572: 589: 565: 313: 2880: 2349:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

438: 3319: 1867:

is and I'll try my best to make all appropriate additions to meet within your timeframe of review over the next week.

3752: 3713: 3122: 3067: 2407:

Merged it into the section on language books; its argument is discussed at length in the Research and theory section.

1081: 1033: 3627:

The OTRS email address is the only route to use for authenticating submitted material from a BLP article's subject.

3323: 3084: 2934: 4034: 3587: 2876:

Mr. Pinker may claim his conclusions are defensible but the article should not imply an invalid argument is valid.

2800:

It is hard to tell he was pro anything in the article other than open inquiry, and he was cautious even about that.

2717: 2548:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

848: 788: 693: 651: 3742: 3721: 3228: 2917: 2845: 2754: 2567:

which Pinker uses in the book would be better. I think the beaver is also to tangentially related to be included.

2333: 1655: 425: 380: 305: 3153:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3013:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1579:

with a good number of secondary refs I just didn't worry about it, but I agree that BLP requires extra caution.

4002: 3866: 3746: 556: 530: 2770: 3820: 3810: 3233: 2744: 2564: 3197: 3057: 2826:

You want more evidence of Pinker's support of hereditarian garbage? I have a whole web site devoted to it.

2532:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

1699: 1278: 1124: 893: 736: 599: 472: 1712: 2823:

There should be something about this in the article on Pinker. Otherwise you're just running PR for him.

179: 111: 3881: 3172:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3113:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051230145614/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/media/2004_04_26_time.htm

3032:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2963:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090930143349/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/

1703: 3837: 3347: 3305: 3083:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2933:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2061: 1576: 2300:

the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

3862: 1363: 2449:

Yes, you may be right there (all 3 comments); have reorganized for coherence and added new material.

3785: 3657: 3599: 3553: 2288: 1943:

problem - I think adding more content on his participation in the public debate is the best choice.

186: 118: 1089:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

701:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

564:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3451: 3445: 3412: 3188: 3048: 2705: 2665: 2642: 2582: 2489: 2459: 2329: 2163: 1978: 1929: 1813: 1788: 1736: 1584: 1534: 1491: 1484:

Hack, J. ''Tree-felling for total beginners''. Hacker and Choppit, Hicksville, 1901.</ref: -->

168: 100: 3157:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3116: 3017:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2966: 2854:

In his interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast in 2007, he provides the following examples of

3300:

Well, I have no idea what comments he may or may not have made. Do you have sources for this?

3263: 3173: 3080: 3033: 2205: 1678: 1674: 320: 2953:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140330020838/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu:80/books/wr/index.html

2943:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110608234526/http://www.nchum.org:80/who-we-are/the-professoriate

3738: 3701: 3688: 3343: 3330: 3301: 3243: 3223: 3207: 3160: 3020: 2396: 350: 66: 2893: 287: 3858: 3829: 3798: 3730: 3709: 3386: 3318:

His comments on the alt-right were misrepresented, and you can search for sources on this.

3281: 3272: 3180: 3103:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051229054325/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html

3093:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051229054325/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html

3040: 2987: 1216: 1190: 326: 8: 3833: 3806: 3781: 3777: 3653: 3639: 3630: 3618: 3595: 3580: 3549: 3534: 2805: 2267: 2227: 2120: 2041: 1886: 1563: 1520: 1480: 1459: 1431: 1405: 1372: 1353: 3757:

Why, exactly was my contribution on the Torres-Pinker conflict removed Martinevans123 ?

3503:}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a 2514:

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

3984: 3963: 3918: 3877: 3439: 3253: 3139:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2999:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2701: 2661: 2638: 2578: 2485: 2455: 2325: 2159: 1974: 1925: 1809: 1784: 1732: 1580: 1530: 1487: 1309: 1073: 3366:

Pinker is obviously a formidable intellectual. But that doesn't give him a free ride.

3179:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3039:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2867:

What the article calls a "defensible conclusion" is what others call a Formal Fallacy.

3762: 3510: 3259: 2836: 2778: 2747:

where he calls it "wonderful". He also uses the book in college courses he teaches. —

2524:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

1970: 1606: 840: 685: 309: 2956: 2946: 2593:

Maybe a photo of Chomsky would be more relevant in the section about language books.

2195:

to say). In any event, he never gave up visual phenomena entirely: by the point of

1911:

section on work. Then it will be easier to make the biography section chronological.

3773: 3325: 3217: 3106: 3096: 2722:

This seems suspect. No source is cited. the C-SPAN source does not mention Sowell.

2688: 2652: 2621: 2594: 2568: 2476: 2239: 2130: 2005: 1989: 1944: 1912: 1828: 1799: 1755: 1720: 1709: 1693: 417: 16: 3123:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060118201913/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/

2320:

I think the Lead need to be expanded to accurately reflect the changes to content.

4011: 3955: 3951: 3937: 3895: 3851: 3416: 3399: 3382: 2930: 2700:

Thank you very much for the careful review and the suggestions for further work.

2201: 1957: 175: 107: 481: 3734: 3249: 2801: 2749: 2249: 2209: 2102: 2023: 1868: 1571:

I have once or twice been faced with absurd concern about primary sources, and

1545: 1502: 1441: 1427: 1387: 1368: 1335: 1313: 1017: 772: 635: 514: 364: 3433: 3145:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3005:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2019: 1287: 4028: 3980: 3959: 3947: 3914: 3887: 3873: 3545: 3076: 2926: 2871:

It is not a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

1260: 47: 3500: 3427: 3420: 1681:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 3126: 3146: 3006: 1924:

I've moved the awards to a new section; the sequence is now not too bad.

1689: 1383: 1291: 1086: 1293: 988: 972: 956: 940: 4007: 3933: 3906: 3891: 3342:. I remember now. Yeah, that was essentially Pinker getting trolled. 853: 852:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 698: 1386:. Ok, I think I'll proceed along those lines, thank you, Viriditas. 2426:

Ok, added brief summaries positive and negative, with lists of refs.

669: 645: 3544:

How do we know he has requested this? And if he has, then he has a

1289: 1204: 1179: 1067: 561: 548: 524: 437:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 401: 374: 3570: 2324:

Extended Lead to cover language acquisition and Better Angels.

2773:

for example. This deserves a mention in the article somewhere.

1294: 3117:

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/media/2004_04_26_time.htm

2967:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/

2914:

A person who does not believe in the existence of aatheists.

2739:

Pinker frequently has good things to say about Sowell's book

2551:

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

3772:

As per my edit summary, the reasons (that I could see) were

2972:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2850:

Under the heading "Research and theory" the article states:

2829: 2637:

Thanks; I think the article is pretty much up to speed now.

1057: 1027: 824: 782: 3087:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2937:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2404:

The section on "words and rules" is also extremely short.

4055:

Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles

1303:

Regarding the GA nomination and concerns about sourcing.

1151: 2293:

Here is my evaluation of the article's current state.

2064:, contains a ref (Kagan, J 1999. Roger William Brown. 54: 3396:

Request to change Steven Pinker's Photo on Knowledge

1827:

this and others don't. I hope we can find a balance.

1254: 1085:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1063: 830: 697:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 675: 560:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 407: 3369:I was struck by some unverified, anecdotal claims. 3149:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3009:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2150:In his obituary of Brown, Pinker said Brown's book 4050:GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles 1708:I'll be reviewing this article over the next week. 2957:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/wr/index.html 2947:http://www.nchum.org/who-we-are/the-professoriate 4026: 3107:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html 3097:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/longbio.html 1214:, a project which is currently considered to be 312:. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 4160:Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles 2816:Pinker is a long time proponent of race science 2453:Busy today, will look at this on Sunday/Monday. 4145:Mid-importance philosophy of language articles 4001:"I’m not a single purpose account." Redthank, 3362:Unverified claims - calling attention reverted 3135:This message was posted before February 2018. 2995:This message was posted before February 2018. 1749:Your participation would be entirely welcome. 1575:is what I came up with - it did the trick. In 349:This article is of interest to the following 1485:and use it repeatedly <ref name=hack/: --> 1016:template instead of this project banner. See 771:template instead of this project banner. See 634:template instead of this project banner. See 513:template instead of this project banner. See 363:template instead of this project banner. See 2056:talk page, Pinker's first solo-author paper 199: 4165:Contemporary philosophy task force articles 2379:it addresses the main aspects of the topic; 4150:Philosophy of language task force articles 4130:Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles 342: 340: 4155:GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles 4040:Social sciences and society good articles 3075:I have just modified 4 external links on 2925:I have just modified 3 external links on 300:Social sciences and society good articles 4140:GA-Class philosophy of language articles 4060:Science and academia work group articles 3286:2604:2000:C5E0:BD00:5468:3A4C:16F7:8B88 3127:http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ 2765:Pinker's views as pro-race and pro-HBD? 1765:comprehensiveness is NOT a GA criterion 1226:Knowledge:WikiProject Cognitive science 4185:Knowledge semi-protected edit requests 4135:Philosophy of mind task force articles 4027: 2858:of what science says human nature is: 2440:Added commentary on Pinker by Ed West. 2346:Verifiable with no original research: 1229:Template:WikiProject Cognitive science 862:about philosophy content on Knowledge. 2984:to let others know (documentation at 2074:Language, Cognition, and Human Nature 1012:Please add the quality rating to the 767:Please add the quality rating to the 630:Please add the quality rating to the 509:Please add the quality rating to the 359:Please add the quality rating to the 4125:GA-Class philosophy of mind articles 3457:This template must be followed by a 2540:Illustrated, if possible, by images: 1210:This article is within the scope of 1079:This article is within the scope of 846:This article is within the scope of 691:This article is within the scope of 554:This article is within the scope of 423:This article is within the scope of 336: 282: 80: 46: 4175:Mid-importance Linguistics articles 4115:Mid-importance philosopher articles 492:the science and academia work group 214: 198: 167: 150: 143: 130: 99: 87: 13: 4105:Mid-importance Philosophy articles 4090:Mid-importance psychology articles 3469:and will be rejected; the request 3238:You are invited to participate in 2058:Formal Models of Language Learning 1150: 987: 971: 955: 939: 480: 281: 35: 4196: 3459:complete and specific description 3079:. Please take a moment to review 2929:. Please take a moment to review 2660:Have made the changes requested. 2366:it contains no original research. 1162:Philosophy of language task force 1099:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics 308:. If you can improve it further, 279:Revision as of 21:32, 1 July 2020 153:Revision as of 21:32, 1 July 2020 90:Revision as of 21:32, 1 July 2020 4180:WikiProject Linguistics articles 4120:Philosophers task force articles 4075:Low-importance Montreal articles 3569: 3403: 3212:Is the mass of citations in the 2541: 2533: 2525: 2515: 2484:Have described Sampson further. 2367: 2359: 2358:scientific citation guidelines; 2350: 2301: 1767:; glad I mentioned this now. "A 1259: 1203: 1178: 1102:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 1066: 1056: 1026: 868:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 833: 823: 781: 711:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology 678: 668: 644: 547: 523: 410: 400: 373: 341: 286: 4095:WikiProject Psychology articles 3706:Yes the lead is way too long. 2066:Biographical Memoirs, Volume 77 1557: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1514: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1137:This article has been rated as 1119:This article has been rated as 906:This article has been rated as 888:This article has been rated as 871:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 749:This article has been rated as 731:This article has been rated as 714:Template:WikiProject Psychology 612:This article has been rated as 594:This article has been rated as 467:This article has been rated as 447:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 4065:WikiProject Biography articles 3679: 3473:be of the form "please change 574:Knowledge:WikiProject Montreal 450:Template:WikiProject Biography 296:has been listed as one of the 1: 4170:GA-Class Linguistics articles 4110:GA-Class philosopher articles 4080:WikiProject Montreal articles 3815:00:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 3662:15:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC) 3647:15:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) 3623:13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 3604:08:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 3588:00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 3558:23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 3539:23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 3488:user. Remember to change the 2912:aaatheist (plural aaatheists) 2651:I agree it looks really good. 1212:WikiProject Cognitive science 1159:This article is supported by 1093:and see a list of open tasks. 705:and see a list of open tasks. 577:Template:WikiProject Montreal 568:and see a list of open tasks. 489:This article is supported by 277: 265: 258: 4100:GA-Class Philosophy articles 4085:GA-Class psychology articles 3790:23:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC) 3767:23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC) 3484:The edit may be made by any 3415:that an edit be made to the 3391:22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 3352:17:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC) 3334:11:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC) 3310:02:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) 3294:02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC) 3203:06:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2783:21:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC) 2542: 2534: 2526: 2516: 2368: 2360: 2351: 2302: 2062:Our article on Brown himself 2022:, starting at around 15:30. 1014:{{WikiProject banner shell}} 769:{{WikiProject banner shell}} 632:{{WikiProject banner shell}} 511:{{WikiProject banner shell}} 435:contribute to the discussion 361:{{WikiProject banner shell}} 205: 134: 18:Browse history interactively 7: 4045:GA-Class biography articles 3320:(never saw this site before 3214:Better Angels of our Nature 2689:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2653:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2622:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2595:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2569:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2477:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2240:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2131:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 2006:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1990:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1945:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1913:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1829:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1800:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1756:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1721:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1710:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 1362:Short and sweet, check out 10: 4201: 4070:GA-Class Montreal articles 3846:02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3747:18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 3722:18:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC) 3518:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3256:if you want my attention.) 3229:03:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 3166:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3072:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3026:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2922:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2889:17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 2841:21:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 1232:Cognitive science articles 1143:project's importance scale 912:project's importance scale 755:project's importance scale 618:project's importance scale 203: 132: 3900:06:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 3882:06:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 3867:13:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 3753:Conflict with Phil Torres 3063:12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 2894:The aaatheistic conundrum 2830:https://www.pinkerite.com 2810:07:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 2710:15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 2692:15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 1364:Knowledge:Inline citation 1198: 1158: 1136: 1118: 1051: 995: 979: 963: 947: 922: 918: 905: 887: 818: 748: 730: 663: 611: 593: 542: 488: 466: 395: 357: 225: 222: 149: 86: 4016:21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3989:15:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3968:10:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3946:It's pretty rich for an 3942:07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3923:05:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3575:Edit request implemented 3522:by Harvard University." 3268:22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 3242:about whether to delete 2759:10:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 2734:06:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 2718:Thomas Sowell influence? 2670:15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2656:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2647:09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2625:14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 2598:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2587:09:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2572:00:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2494:15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2480:12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2464:08:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC) 2334:09:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) 2271:19:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 2243:21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) 2231:20:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 2168:19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 2134:14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 2124:01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 2045:00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 2009:17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 1993:15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 1983:14:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 1890:08:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 4035:Knowledge good articles 3954:and to a lesser extent 3068:External links modified 2918:External links modified 2846:Defensible conclusions? 2376:Broad in its coverage: 1948:23:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 1934:06:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 1916:16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1832:16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1818:16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1803:16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1793:16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1759:16:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1741:15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1724:15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1713:13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1704:13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1589:09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1567:09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1539:09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1524:08:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1496:07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1463:08:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1436:06:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1409:06:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1377:05:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1357:05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1082:WikiProject Linguistics 997:Contemporary philosophy 923:Associated task forces: 85: 2865: 2856:defensible conclusions 1841:notable amongst them ( 1679:Talk:Steven Pinker/GA1 1251:Template:Vital article 1155: 1039:Philosophy of language 992: 981:Philosophy of language 976: 960: 944: 849:WikiProject Philosophy 694:WikiProject Psychology 485: 3821:Pinker as a linguist? 3252:this page, so please 3244:Intellectual Dark Web 3234:Intellectual Dark Web 2852: 2795:but he also cautions 2741:A Conflict of Visions 2397:The Language Instinct 2156:The Language Instinct 2070:The Language Instinct 1847:The Language Instinct 1154: 991: 975: 959: 943: 484: 426:WikiProject Biography 306:good article criteria 3147:regular verification 3007:regular verification 2620:suggested meanwhile. 1105:Linguistics articles 557:WikiProject Montreal 386:Science and Academia 3240:this AfD discussion 3137:After February 2018 2997:After February 2018 2976:parameter below to 1481:John Stewart Collis 874:Philosophy articles 717:psychology articles 4003:your contributions 3505:protection request 3191:InternetArchiveBot 3142:InternetArchiveBot 3051:InternetArchiveBot 3002:InternetArchiveBot 2197:How the Mind Works 1843:How the Mind Works 1156: 1125:content assessment 1074:Linguistics portal 993: 977: 965:Philosophy of mind 961: 945: 894:content assessment 859:general discussion 737:content assessment 600:content assessment 486: 473:content assessment 453:biography articles 324:: June 13, 2014. ( 165: 97: 3848: 3832:comment added by 3817: 3801:comment added by 3749: 3733:comment added by 3724: 3712:comment added by 3564:Reply 14-NOV-2018 3516: 3515: 3375:Another example: 3296: 3284:comment added by 3257: 3167: 3027: 2745:Here's an article 2208:in the process. 1751:Comprehensiveness 1669: 1668: 1300: 1299: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1239: 1223:Cognitive science 1186:Cognitive science 1173: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1010: 1009: 1006: 1005: 1002: 1001: 841:Philosophy portal 765: 764: 761: 760: 686:Psychology portal 628: 627: 624: 623: 580:Montreal articles 507: 506: 503: 502: 335: 334: 331: 276: 151: 88: 68: 4192: 3827: 3796: 3728: 3707: 3694: 3692: 3683: 3644: 3642: 3634: 3585: 3583: 3577: 3573: 3512: 3494: 3455: 3407: 3406: 3400: 3344:NinjaRobotPirate 3328: 3302:NinjaRobotPirate 3279: 3247: 3219:Andrew Z. Colvin 3201: 3192: 3165: 3164: 3143: 3061: 3052: 3025: 3024: 3003: 2991: 2545: 2544: 2537: 2536: 2529: 2528: 2519: 2518: 2371: 2370: 2363: 2362: 2354: 2353: 2305: 2304: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2254: 2223: 2220: 2217: 2214: 2152:Words and Things 2116: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2028: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1779:article must be 1771:article must be 1623:Copyvio detector 1611: 1610: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1317: 1295: 1263: 1255: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1207: 1200: 1199: 1194: 1182: 1175: 1174: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1060: 1053: 1052: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1030: 1023: 1022: 1015: 930: 920: 919: 876: 875: 872: 869: 866: 843: 838: 837: 836: 827: 820: 819: 814: 811: 808: 785: 778: 777: 770: 719: 718: 715: 712: 709: 688: 683: 682: 681: 672: 665: 664: 659: 656: 648: 641: 640: 633: 582: 581: 578: 575: 572: 551: 544: 543: 538: 535: 527: 520: 519: 512: 455: 454: 451: 448: 445: 431:join the project 420: 418:Biography portal 415: 414: 413: 404: 397: 396: 391: 388: 377: 370: 369: 362: 346: 345: 344: 337: 329: 327:Reviewed version 318: 290: 283: 212: 211: 209: 201: 193: 183: 164: 159: 141: 140: 138: 125: 115: 96: 69: 60: 59: 57: 52: 50: 42: 39: 21: 19: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4025: 4024: 3956:Lawrence Krauss 3952:Alan Dershowitz 3859:Just plain Bill 3854: 3823: 3755: 3704: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3686: 3684: 3680: 3640: 3638: 3628: 3581: 3579: 3568: 3566: 3509: 3489: 3425: 3404: 3398: 3364: 3326: 3275: 3236: 3210: 3195: 3190: 3158: 3151:have permission 3141: 3085:this simple FaQ 3070: 3055: 3050: 3018: 3011:have permission 3001: 2985: 2935:this simple FaQ 2920: 2907:a- +‎ aatheist 2896: 2848: 2818: 2767: 2757: 2720: 2291: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2206:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2026: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1851:The Blank Slate 1673:This review is 1665: 1637: 1609: 1307: 1305: 1296: 1290: 1268: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1188: 1123:on Knowledge's 1104: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1094: 1072: 1065: 1045: 1042: 1036: 1021: 1013: 928: 892:on Knowledge's 873: 870: 867: 864: 863: 839: 834: 832: 812: 809: 791: 776: 768: 735:on Knowledge's 716: 713: 710: 707: 706: 684: 679: 677: 657: 654: 639: 631: 598:on Knowledge's 579: 576: 573: 570: 569: 536: 533: 518: 510: 471:on Knowledge's 452: 449: 446: 443: 442: 416: 411: 409: 389: 383: 368: 360: 325: 273: 271: 263: 254: 249: 242: 235: 218: 213: 204: 202: 197: 196: 195: 191: 189: 173: 171: 166: 160: 155: 147: 145:← Previous edit 142: 133: 131: 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: 4198: 4188: 4187: 4182: 4177: 4172: 4167: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4142: 4137: 4132: 4127: 4122: 4117: 4112: 4107: 4102: 4097: 4092: 4087: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4067: 4062: 4057: 4052: 4047: 4042: 4037: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3944: 3926: 3925: 3903: 3902: 3853: 3850: 3834:Dawkin Verbier 3822: 3819: 3793: 3792: 3782:Martinevans123 3754: 3751: 3703: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3677: 3676: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3654:Martinevans123 3631:Martinevans123 3607: 3606: 3596:Martinevans123 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3550:Martinevans123 3514: 3513: 3495:parameter to " 3467:not acceptable 3452:protection log 3417:semi-protected 3408: 3397: 3394: 3363: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3313: 3312: 3274: 3271: 3260:Dr. Fleischman 3235: 3232: 3209: 3206: 3185: 3184: 3177: 3130: 3129: 3121:Added archive 3119: 3111:Added archive 3109: 3101:Added archive 3099: 3091:Added archive 3069: 3066: 3045: 3044: 3037: 2970: 2969: 2961:Added archive 2959: 2951:Added archive 2949: 2941:Added archive 2919: 2916: 2913: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2895: 2892: 2877: 2875: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2847: 2844: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2753: 2726:148.85.235.153 2719: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2695: 2694: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2628: 2627: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2538: 2530: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2450: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2364: 2355: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2297:Well-written: 2290: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2020:this interview 2012: 2011: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1951: 1950: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1919: 1918: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1834: 1744: 1743: 1727: 1726: 1684: 1683: 1667: 1666: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1636: 1635: 1633:External links 1630: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1258: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1235: 1208: 1196: 1195: 1183: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1157: 1147: 1146: 1139:Mid-importance 1135: 1129: 1128: 1117: 1111: 1110: 1108: 1091:the discussion 1078: 1077: 1061: 1049: 1048: 1046:Mid‑importance 1031: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1000: 999: 994: 984: 983: 978: 968: 967: 962: 952: 951: 946: 936: 935: 933: 931: 925: 924: 916: 915: 908:Mid-importance 904: 898: 897: 886: 880: 879: 877: 845: 844: 828: 816: 815: 813:Mid‑importance 786: 766: 763: 762: 759: 758: 751:Mid-importance 747: 741: 740: 729: 723: 722: 720: 703:the discussion 690: 689: 673: 661: 660: 658:Mid‑importance 649: 629: 626: 625: 622: 621: 614:Low-importance 610: 604: 603: 592: 586: 585: 583: 566:the discussion 552: 540: 539: 537:Low‑importance 528: 508: 505: 504: 501: 500: 497:Mid-importance 487: 477: 476: 465: 459: 458: 456: 422: 421: 405: 393: 392: 378: 358: 355: 354: 347: 333: 332: 317: 291: 280: 275: 274: 269: 268: 266: 264: 261: 259: 256: 255: 252: 250: 247: 244: 243: 240: 238: 236: 233: 231: 228: 227: 224: 220: 219: 190: 187:Administrators 185: 184: 169: 148: 122: 119:Administrators 117: 116: 101: 70: 64: 62: 44: 36: 27: 23: 22: 14: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4197: 4186: 4183: 4181: 4178: 4176: 4173: 4171: 4168: 4166: 4163: 4161: 4158: 4156: 4153: 4151: 4148: 4146: 4143: 4141: 4138: 4136: 4133: 4131: 4128: 4126: 4123: 4121: 4118: 4116: 4113: 4111: 4108: 4106: 4103: 4101: 4098: 4096: 4093: 4091: 4088: 4086: 4083: 4081: 4078: 4076: 4073: 4071: 4068: 4066: 4063: 4061: 4058: 4056: 4053: 4051: 4048: 4046: 4043: 4041: 4038: 4036: 4033: 4032: 4030: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3869: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3849: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3818: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3750: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3725: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3702:LEAD TOO LONG 3690: 3682: 3678: 3675: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3645: 3643: 3632: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3576: 3572: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3511: 3508: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3487: 3486:autoconfirmed 3482: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3444: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3424: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3409: 3402: 3401: 3393: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3370: 3367: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3255: 3251: 3245: 3241: 3231: 3230: 3227: 3226: 3221: 3220: 3215: 3208:Citation clog 3205: 3204: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3162: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3138: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3077:Steven Pinker 3073: 3065: 3064: 3059: 3054: 3053: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3022: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2998: 2993: 2989: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2927:Steven Pinker 2923: 2915: 2908: 2903: 2899: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2857: 2851: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2794: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702:Chiswick Chap 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662:Chiswick Chap 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2639:Chiswick Chap 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2618: 2617: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2579:Chiswick Chap 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2539: 2531: 2523: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2486:Chiswick Chap 2483: 2482: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456:Chiswick Chap 2454: 2451: 2448: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2438: 2436: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2403: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2378: 2377: 2375: 2365: 2356: 2348: 2347: 2345: 2344: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326:Chiswick Chap 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2307: 2299: 2298: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160:Chiswick Chap 2157: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2135: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2021: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2002: 2001: 1994: 1991: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975:Chiswick Chap 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926:Chiswick Chap 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1865: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1835: 1833: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810:Chiswick Chap 1806: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785:Chiswick Chap 1782: 1778: 1774: 1773:comprehensive 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733:Chiswick Chap 1729: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1662: 1659: 1657: 1654: 1652: 1649: 1648: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1634: 1631: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581:Chiswick Chap 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531:Chiswick Chap 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488:Chiswick Chap 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1407: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1310:Chiswick Chap 1285: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1236: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1164: 1163: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1075: 1069: 1064: 1062: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1040: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1019: 998: 990: 986: 985: 982: 974: 970: 969: 966: 958: 954: 953: 950: 942: 938: 937: 934: 932: 927: 926: 921: 917: 913: 909: 903: 900: 899: 895: 891: 885: 882: 881: 878: 861: 860: 855: 851: 850: 842: 831: 829: 826: 822: 821: 817: 807: 803: 799: 795: 790: 787: 784: 780: 779: 774: 756: 752: 746: 743: 742: 738: 734: 728: 725: 724: 721: 704: 700: 696: 695: 687: 676: 674: 671: 667: 666: 662: 653: 650: 647: 643: 642: 637: 619: 615: 609: 606: 605: 601: 597: 591: 588: 587: 584: 567: 563: 559: 558: 553: 550: 546: 545: 541: 532: 529: 526: 522: 521: 516: 498: 495:(assessed as 494: 493: 483: 479: 478: 474: 470: 464: 461: 460: 457: 440: 439:documentation 436: 432: 428: 427: 419: 408: 406: 403: 399: 398: 394: 387: 382: 379: 376: 372: 371: 366: 356: 352: 348: 339: 338: 328: 323: 322: 315: 311: 307: 303: 302: 301: 295: 294:Steven Pinker 292: 289: 285: 284: 278: 267: 260: 257: 253: 251: 248: 246: 245: 239: 237: 232: 230: 229: 221: 217: 207: 188: 181: 177: 172: 163: 158: 154: 146: 136: 120: 113: 109: 104: 95: 91: 73: 58: 51: 41:Content added 33: 30: 20: 3870: 3855: 3828:— Preceding 3824: 3797:— Preceding 3794: 3778:WP:RECENTISM 3756: 3729:— Preceding 3726: 3708:— Preceding 3705: 3689:request edit 3681: 3673: 3637: 3578: 3574: 3567: 3527: 3524: 3520: 3517: 3496: 3491: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3456: 3448: 3442: 3436: 3430: 3410: 3380: 3377: 3374: 3371: 3368: 3365: 3339: 3280:— Preceding 3276: 3273:Whitewashing 3237: 3224: 3218: 3213: 3211: 3189: 3186: 3161:source check 3140: 3134: 3131: 3074: 3071: 3049: 3046: 3021:source check 3000: 2994: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2971: 2924: 2921: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2881:24.36.33.119 2879: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2855: 2853: 2849: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2768: 2748: 2740: 2724: 2721: 2472: 2452: 2421: 2390: 2319: 2292: 2251: 2250: 2211: 2210: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2155: 2151: 2104: 2103: 2087: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2057: 2025: 2024: 1870: 1869: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763:Thanks. No, 1750: 1707: 1696: 1686: 1685: 1672: 1661:Instructions 1547: 1546: 1504: 1503: 1443: 1442: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1389: 1388: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1322: 1319: 1306: 1277: 1265: 1249: 1215: 1160: 1138: 1120: 1080: 1020:for details. 949:Philosophers 907: 889: 857: 847: 806:Contemporary 794:Philosophers 775:for details. 750: 732: 692: 638:for details. 613: 595: 555: 517:for details. 490: 468: 424: 367:for details. 351:WikiProjects 319: 310:please do so 298: 297: 293: 3714:169.0.4.235 3419:article at 3338:Oh, right, 3327:Doug Weller 2988:Sourcecheck 2898:aaatheist: 2154:influenced 1675:transcluded 1577:other cases 1096:Linguistics 1087:linguistics 1034:Linguistics 216:Next edit → 32:Next edit → 4029:Categories 3780:. Thanks. 3641:Spintendo 3582:Spintendo 3490:|answered= 3383:Jbrockettm 3248:(I am not 3198:Report bug 3058:Report bug 1971:WP:SOFIXIT 1956:Yes, it's 1628:Authorship 1614:GA toolbox 1413:Redundant 1279:/Archive 1 865:Philosophy 854:philosophy 789:Philosophy 708:Psychology 699:Psychology 652:Psychology 304:under the 3774:WP:WEIGHT 3735:HeadwayNL 3693:template. 3615:Aufstrich 3531:Aufstrich 3413:requested 3181:this tool 3174:this tool 3041:this tool 3034:this tool 2905:Etymology 2902:English 2802:Poodleboy 2798:confront. 2750:Torchiest 2289:GA review 1988:approach. 1687:Reviewer: 1651:Templates 1642:Reviewing 1607:GA Review 1428:Viriditas 1369:Viriditas 1314:Viriditas 444:Biography 381:Biography 226:Line 213: 223:Line 213: 206:→‎Epstein 135:→‎Epstein 3981:Redthank 3960:Johnuniq 3915:Redthank 3888:Redthank 3874:Redthank 3842:contribs 3830:unsigned 3811:contribs 3799:unsigned 3743:contribs 3731:unsigned 3710:unsigned 3282:unsigned 3250:watching 3187:Cheers.— 3047:Cheers.— 2789:pro-race 2565:this one 2202:WP:SYNTH 1958:WP:UNDUE 1769:featured 1700:contribs 1656:Criteria 1266:Archives 1217:inactive 1191:inactive 1121:GA-class 1043:GA‑class 890:GA-class 810:GA‑class 802:Language 733:GA-class 655:GA‑class 596:GA-class 571:Montreal 562:Montreal 534:GA‑class 531:Montreal 469:GA-class 390:GA‑class 314:reassess 180:contribs 112:contribs 56:Wikitext 3909:, See: 3852:Epstein 3803:Nancymc 3759:Nancymc 3434:history 3254:ping me 3081:my edit 2974:checked 2931:my edit 2833:Nancymc 2775:Wajajad 1529:treat. 1419:reading 1141:on the 1018:WP:PIQA 910:on the 773:WP:PIQA 753:on the 636:WP:PIQA 616:on the 515:WP:PIQA 365:WP:PIQA 139:purpose 3546:WP:COI 3411:It is 2982:failed 1849:, and 1690:Maunus 1423:browse 1127:scale. 896:scale. 739:scale. 602:scale. 475:scale. 321:Review 192:77,056 124:77,056 67:Inline 49:Visual 4008:Hoary 3934:Hoary 3907:Hoary 3892:Hoary 3674:Notes 3465:" is 3446:links 2755:edits 2602:Done. 2473:about 2193:seems 1781:broad 1677:from 194:edits 170:Hoary 126:edits 102:Hoary 4012:talk 3985:talk 3964:talk 3938:talk 3919:talk 3896:talk 3878:talk 3863:talk 3838:talk 3807:talk 3786:talk 3776:and 3763:talk 3739:talk 3718:talk 3658:talk 3619:talk 3600:talk 3554:talk 3535:talk 3471:must 3440:last 3428:edit 3387:talk 3348:talk 3340:that 3331:talk 3306:talk 3290:talk 3264:talk 3225:Talk 2978:true 2910:Noun 2885:talk 2837:talk 2806:talk 2779:talk 2771:here 2730:talk 2706:talk 2666:talk 2643:talk 2583:talk 2490:talk 2460:talk 2330:talk 2268:talk 2228:talk 2204:and 2164:talk 2121:talk 2042:talk 1979:talk 1930:talk 1887:talk 1814:talk 1789:talk 1777:good 1775:; a 1737:talk 1694:talk 1585:talk 1573:this 1564:talk 1535:talk 1521:talk 1492:talk 1460:talk 1432:talk 1406:talk 1384:WP:N 1373:talk 1354:talk 1323:your 1312:and 798:Mind 433:and 176:talk 162:undo 157:edit 108:talk 94:edit 3948:SPA 3501:ESp 3497:yes 3481:". 3477:to 3155:RfC 3125:to 3115:to 3105:to 3095:to 3015:RfC 2992:). 2980:or 2965:to 2955:to 2945:to 2471:be 2188:and 1415:and 1133:Mid 902:Mid 745:Mid 608:Low 316:it. 4031:: 4014:) 3987:) 3966:) 3958:. 3940:) 3921:) 3898:) 3880:) 3865:) 3844:) 3840:• 3813:) 3809:• 3788:) 3765:) 3745:) 3741:• 3720:) 3691:}} 3687:{{ 3660:) 3621:) 3602:) 3556:) 3537:) 3507:. 3492:no 3389:) 3350:) 3322:, 3308:) 3292:) 3266:) 3258:-- 3246:. 3222:• 3168:. 3163:}} 3159:{{ 3028:. 3023:}} 3019:{{ 2990:}} 2986:{{ 2887:) 2839:) 2808:) 2781:) 2743:. 2732:) 2708:) 2668:) 2645:) 2585:) 2492:) 2462:) 2332:) 2166:) 1981:) 1932:) 1845:, 1816:) 1791:) 1739:) 1702:) 1587:) 1537:) 1494:) 1434:) 1375:) 1115:GA 1037:: 929:/ 884:GA 804:/ 800:/ 796:/ 792:: 727:GA 590:GA 499:). 463:GA 384:: 330:). 208:: 178:| 137:: 110:| 4010:( 3983:( 3962:( 3936:( 3917:( 3894:( 3876:( 3861:( 3836:( 3805:( 3784:( 3761:( 3737:( 3716:( 3656:( 3633:: 3629:@ 3617:( 3598:( 3552:( 3533:( 3479:Y 3475:X 3463:X 3454:) 3449:· 3443:· 3437:· 3431:· 3426:( 3423:. 3421:A 3385:( 3346:( 3304:( 3288:( 3262:( 3200:) 3196:( 3183:. 3176:. 3060:) 3056:( 3043:. 3036:. 2883:( 2835:( 2804:( 2777:( 2728:( 2704:( 2664:( 2641:( 2581:( 2488:( 2458:( 2399:. 2328:( 2262:w 2259:o 2256:n 2253:S 2222:w 2219:o 2216:n 2213:S 2162:( 2115:w 2112:o 2109:n 2106:S 2076:: 2036:w 2033:o 2030:n 2027:S 1977:( 1928:( 1881:w 1878:o 1875:n 1872:S 1812:( 1787:( 1735:( 1697:· 1692:( 1583:( 1558:w 1555:o 1552:n 1549:S 1533:( 1515:w 1512:o 1509:n 1506:S 1490:( 1454:w 1451:o 1448:n 1445:S 1430:( 1400:w 1397:o 1394:n 1391:S 1371:( 1348:w 1345:o 1342:n 1339:S 1316:: 1308:@ 1220:. 1193:) 1189:( 1165:. 1145:. 914:. 757:. 620:. 441:. 353:: 270:: 210:: 200:m 182:) 174:( 114:) 106:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index