This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Canada: Quebec / Montreal Low‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (assessed as Low-importance). Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Philosophy of language Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force. Cognitive science (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

I have some past familiarity with the topic.

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

None of the content is controversial.

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

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

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

You can't even spell his name.

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

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

Nothing that I have said is "shouting."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes onto indicate say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Pinker's new book.

When Everyone Knows that Everyone Knows... (2025)

He was on Bill Maher. Can't post a link to audible for some reason. 76.26.106.160 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What change to the article are you suggesting? The book has already been added to the article, even though it's not published until 23 September. Including it now suggests some kind of WP:PROMO. So I am inclined to remove it, until it has actually been published and/or it has been the subject of some kind of WP:RS review(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Canadian" to "Canadian-born American" or take out "Canadian" This is the first sentence: Steven Arthur Pinker (born September 18, 1954)[2][3] is a Canadian cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author, and public intellectual. Pinker is now an American citizen. The first sentence could be: Steven Arthur Pinker (born September 18, 1954)[2][3] is a Canadian-born American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author, and public intellectual. I have no evidence. I learned from videos that his wife is an American philosophy professor, and the he officially became an American citizen. Wparadigm (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source(s) to support the claim that he has relinquished his Canadian citizenship? Or is this now automatically lost, these days, by means of some Presidential executive decree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Steven Pinker and Jeffrey Epstein on 2002 Flight to TED conference in Monterey, California.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the series of edits made to the article that created the Interactions with Jeffrey Epstein section should be reverted until the content is rewritten and sourced in accordance with the requirements for public figures under the biographies of living persons policy. Pinker qualifies as a public figure (per the BLP policy's explanatory essay for distinguishing high-profile from low-profile individuals and the subject-specific notability guidelines for persons and academics), but most of the claims in the section are contentious and are not mostly referenced with multiple sources that are reliable and independent.

Much of the content uses a Medium post written by Dylan Evans, Twitter posts by Pinker, and a Why Evolution is True blog post that includes comments by Pinker as second sources for claims when cited. Perennial source discussions have established a community consensus that Medium posts should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons because it is a self-published source—which is what the biographies of living persons policy for self-published sources requires in general. As for Pinker's comments in the Twitter and blog posts, the biographies of living persons policy requires that self-published sources authored by the subject of a Wikipedia article only be used when it does not involve claims about third parties (which the Twitter and blog posts all effectively do are since they discuss Pinker's interactions with other persons). Moreover, some claims included in the section are made without even a second source cited at all.

As such, I believe the edits made to the article since December 21 that created and expanded the section do not follow the biographies of living persons policy. Per the policy's requirements to immediately remove poorly sourced material, I will revert the content back to the December 4 revision until further comment. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the section with sourcing I found. It is true that currently, there do not exist enough reliable secondary sources to corroborate the timeline, Pinker's commentary, and further criticisms. I've saved my edits in a draft, and will consider reimplementing it should more independent, reliable sourcing be released. JulDer Wiki (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that material needs much improvement before it really satisfies BLP policies. There are also WP:DUE issues with its length. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are also WP:DUE issues with its length. Agree with this as well. The length of the section was outsized in light of what the few reliable sources said about Pinker and Epstein's few interactions (e.g. only met on three occasions, no research funding relationship, no correspondence, probable mutual disliking of one another), but also when considering that the December 4 revision of the article already noted Pinker's interactions with Alan Dershowitz related to Epstein. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]