# Talk:Steven Pinker

This wiki ignores Pinker's long-time support for promoters of race pseudoscience in spite of the fact that in 2021, one mass-media outlet, the Guardian, finally asked him about his connection to Steve Sailer.[1]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/28/steven-pinker-celebrity-scientist-at-the-centre-of-the-culture-wars 
This wiki even cites Sailer interviewing Pinker in 2002. Shortly after, Pinker would promote Sailer, a career-long proponent of the most extreme race pseudoscience and a professional racist, by including Sailer's badly-written article "The Cousin Marriage Conundrum" in a collection of "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" of 2004. 
https://www.pinkerite.com/2021/11/steven-pinker-steve-sailer-and-cousin.html
I've been following Pinker's shameful career for years. Part of the shamefulness is the media's impulse to whitewash his activities on behalf of race pseudoscience.
[2]https://www.pinkerite.com Nancygerette (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Just make sure that you stick to information explicitly stated in reliable sources. The Guardian is good, but I don't think that you should cite pinkerite.com because it looks like a self-published source.      — Freoh 01:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
A few sources mentioning Steven Pinker's relationship to Steve Sailer and the "human biodiversity" movement:
Angela Saini's book, Superior: The Return of Race Science, mentions Steven Pinker in Steve Sailer's group starting as early as 1999.
Pinker’s progress: the celebrity scientist at the centre of the culture wars (The Guardian)
Nov. 19, 2009: Let’s Go to the Tape (The New York Times)
How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics (American Journal of Physical Anthropology)
The "Pinkerite" website would not qualify as a reliable source, being a self-published website. Hist9600 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Nancygerette, this also looks like a good source:
Evans, Gavin (2019). Skin Deep: Journeys in the Divisive Science of Race. London. ISBN 978-1-78607-622-9. OCLC 1059232398.{{cite book}}:  CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
This raises an obvious but tricky question: is someone a racist if they hold the idea that different population groups have different innate, average intelligence? A few of those advancing such views are indeed happy to own up to racism. One of those is Richard Lynn, the University of Ulster evolutionary psychologist, who has no hesitation about calling himself a 'racialist', a 'racist' and a 'scientific racist'. But most of those who advocate race science, including several who enthusiastically quote Lynn, deny they’re racists, preferring to view themselves as intrepid truth-tellers who follow science wherever it may lead. To say they are racists would put the likes of Steven Pinker, Andrew Sullivan, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Nicholas Wade, along with older hands such as Charles Murray, in a particularly odious circle of hell. I would prefer not to go that far, because I do not know what goes on in their every secret place. It is perfectly possible that all or some of these men treat black, white, Asian and Hispanic people the same, perhaps even that they have close friends who are not white, and that their belief that some population groups are, on average, less intelligent than others has no influence on the way they treat individual people from any of these groups. What I will say, however, is that some of the beliefs they advance are indeed racist, and that the adjective 'scientific' does nothing to mitigate this verdict.
Despite overwhelming evidence that tests of Jewish IQ in early-twentieth-century America and late-twentieth-century Israel showed lower than average IQ, the myth of perpetually high Jewish IQ persists. Steven Pinker said the Jewish IQ advantage was 'long standing and has been around for as long as there have been IQ scores of Jewish populations'.
Pinker has subsequently dug in on his view that different populations might have different innate intellectual abilities, reiterating his Ashkenazi idea and tweeting in favour of other race science promoters such as Murray and Linda Gottfredson who had faced 'no platform' pressure. Gottfredson has a thirty-year history of race science, including being the author of the founding document of the modern version of this calling. Pinker described her as an 'expert on ... intelligence', referencing a story on the right-wing website Quillette to back her.      — Freoh 18:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Freoh. My apologies for not responding sooner, I had neglected to monitor this Talk.
I certainly didn't expect that Pinkerite.com itself would be cited in Wikipedia, but I have collected plenty of evidence there, from sources that even a Wikipedia editor would consider valid, concerning Pinker's two decades-long support for race pseudoscience and those who promote it.
Furthermore, Pinkerite.com does not exist purely to "attack" Pinker, as the logo featured prominently on the site makes clear - the site is "Steven Pinker, the Intellectual Dark Web and Race Pseudoscience." I explain clearly why Pinker was named: he was identified by Bari Weiss as the most mainstream individual connected to the IDW.
[3]https://www.pinkerite.com/p/who-is-behind-pinkerite.html
As such, he deserves more scrutiny than the more extreme individuals associated with the IDW - and again, identified by Weiss herself - like Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
Pinker was asked in an interview in the Guardian about his support for Steve Sailer, an extreme racist, and while Pinker tried to hand-wave that away with his usual "guilt by association" the article goes on to point out that Pinker did not merely "associate" with Sailer, he advanced his career.
[5]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/28/steven-pinker-celebrity-scientist-at-the-centre-of-the-culture-wars
And I should add that the article Pinker chose to include in "The Best Science and Nature Writing" of 2004 was not very good at all, which I explain here:
https://www.pinkerite.com/2021/11/steven-pinker-steve-sailer-and-cousin.html
Which makes me suspect Pinker did it as a personal favor, rather than the quality of the piece.
The fact that there is such outrage that I dared to mention Pinker's support for race pseudoscience makes me wonder how partisan some editors at Wikipedia are, on behalf of Pinker. We already know that Pinker's PR people monitor his Wiki entry.
[6]https://www.pinkerite.com/2019/11/steven-pinkers-pr-machine.html Nancygerette (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, Pinker is making his third appearance, this July, at the annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research which has been criticized for its association with eugenics, and should be criticized for its long-time and ongoing support for race pseudoscience, or if you prefer, "hereditarianism."
[7]https://www.pinkerite.com/2023/06/steven-pinker-at-2023-racist-rodeo.html
Last year there was a controversy because Emil O. W. Kirkegaard was disinvited from the 2022 conference due to the complaint of another invited speaker, over Kirkegaard's promotion of race pseudoscience.
[8]https://a-abdellaoui.medium.com/how-to-keep-flies-away-from-our-picknick-7867151f6e69
Outside of ISIR, Kirkegaard was known as an unaccredited, racist crank - [9]|noted by geneticist Adam Rutherford in this tweet. - but apparently he was good enough for the ISIR for a long time. [10]http://programme.exordo.com/isir2018/
Which should make clear the disreputable nature of ISIR. Nancygerette (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
A clue is that someone has made a website (pinkerite.com) dedicated to attacking Pinker. (Personal attack removed) Basing material in this WP:BLP article based on a website like that is not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I never suggested Pinkerite be cited directly, but rather, Pinkerite.com provides plenty of evidence for Pinker's promotion of race pseudoscience, from Wikipedia-acceptable sources. The fact that you made a personal attack against me is absolutely typical of Pinker fans - they never actually address the issues I raise, but rather express their outrage that anybody would be "crazy" enough to dare criticize Pinker at all. This is how race pseudoscience manages to flourish - too much respect for "celebrity intellectuals" like Pinker to even dare broach the subject. Nancygerette (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
None of this looks WP:DUE or appropriate for a WP:BLP; it's a lot of guilt-by-association using almost entirely non-academic sources and in general is not what Wikipedia is for. Crossroads -talk- 23:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean? Gavin Evans is an academic, and he addresses beliefs that Pinker is directly promoting.      — Freoh 23:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The source is not from an academic peer-reviewed publisher, and his field is journalism rather than anthropology or something of relevance. We don't cite journalists for things like physics if we can help it, same goes for other fields. It's not due weight; we don't add every complaint about someone to their BLP. Crossroads -talk- 00:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
How does it not deserve due weight? There are a bunch of reliable sources above that talk about it, and I haven't seen any sources that contradict this information.      — Freoh 00:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
If the matter has been covered in multiple reliable sources, then there can be little doubt that it is relevant. Associating with white nationalists and scientific racists, citing them, promoting their work, and having those connections written about in a variety of reliable sources, including The Guardian, The New York Times, academic articles, and books on scientific racism, is certainly relevant (not merely a "complaint").
WP:DUE requires that all reliable sources be represented. Not that they all be excluded because the authors are not all anthropologists, or some other arbitrary made-up criteria. That would be as silly as claiming that all sources for the life of Albert Einstein must be authored by physicists. Hist9600 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This section doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 
First, these are trivial guilt-by-association accusations, irrelevant to Pinker's career of hundreds of interviews and essays. The Sailer essay was included in a collection that had nothing to do with race. Pinker briefly eavesdropping on the HBD listserv 20+ years ago is an obvious partisan attempt to discredit him, not a noteworthy fact about his career.
Second, Pinkerite isn't a credible source. Attempts to include a blogger who is known for nothing other than smearing people on Wikipedia should be frowned upon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki edit sp (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC) 

Re this recent removal, yes it's from his own website. But there is no reason to doubt it, it's entirely factual and it's not contentious. The examples given are notable entities. How is this "promo"? Presumably this could all be restored with some alternative source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It could be readily restored with alternative sources, yes. The version removed, without support from reliable, secondary sources, simply had no weight for our purposes. This isn't a judgement on its veracity; only on it's relevance here, per WP:TRUTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
For verification of the facts, a citation to his own self-published material is sufficient, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Being on the boards of notable journals and notable institutions seems self-evidently notable for a biography of the person in question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Surely they are not just claims about himself though, but claims about third parties, i.e. the institutions that he is claiming affiliation with? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Exactly what "claims" is he making about any of these bodies, apart from the fact he has been associated with them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)