Talk:The Language Instinct

Reception
I've removed the following from "Reception:"

'The statement that deaf babies "spontaneously invent sign languages with complex grammar" is actually only true in groups of deaf children (deaf communities) while a lone deaf child in a village where everyone else can hear never invents more than simple gestures.[2][3] Some argue that this supports a view of language as a social adaptation evolutionary kludge.'

The first sentence may be true, but it should be attributed to someone responding to the book to fit within this section. The second sentence needs to specify who 'some' are to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.108.4 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Old talk
One went so far as to describe Pinker as the only linguist he knew who was able to write readable prose.
 * I'd second that.


 * Chomsky is readable.... Dave 04:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Whew, just spent considerable time expanding on the stub. I admire Pinker's writing style, and the book's implications really are sweeping. It's important to put the work in the context of evolutionary psychology / sociobiology to understand what he and other authors are really getting at. --Kris Schnee 10:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
"One went so far as to describe Pinker as the only linguist he knew who was able to write readable prose."

If this is a genuine quotation, a reference should be cited. Otherwise it should be deleted.

84.9.80.17 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. Bjart 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
The implications of the language-instinct hypothesis are far-reaching. Language and similar abilities are some of the traits that most clearly set humans apart from other animals, and have been claimed by thinkers such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Samuel Taylor Coleridge [1] as the work of God. If language and other mental abilities are in fact explainable as products of evolution, as Pinker argues, then appeal to a deus ex machina is not necessary to describe why these abilities exist.

The idea that language is learned rather than innate does not require a deus ex machina either. There is no controversy here. The question is whether the language capability exists as a separate instinct or is derived by learning from the general intellectual capabilities of the human species (the latter hypothesis is the one Pinker polemizes with). Both a specific instinct and the general intellectual capabilities can be the result of evolution rather than god. And the thoughts of figures like Coleridge and Wallace are quite irrelevant in a modern scientific context. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinker challenges the fields of astrobiology and artificial intelligence as well. If language is a specialized ability evolved by humans' ancestors to aid survival in a particular environment, then a search for human-like intelligence elsewhere in the universe (e.g. SETI) is as futile as it would be for elephants to conduct a Search for Extra-Terrestrial Trunks and consider all non-trunk-using species inferior.

The sentence is ambiguous. "Futile" could mean that the search is hopeless or that it is pointless. The first is wrong, because there is such a thing as convergent evolution. The second is wrong, because clearly the presence of an alien human-like intelligence would be more significant for us than just the presence of alien life. And finally, the whole reasoning is mixing up language and intelligence, because the innateness of language does not preclude the existence of a more special - or even "superior" - form in intelligence in humans. Now, if Pinker himself reasoned like this, that can be attributed to him, but it certainly shouldn't be stated as a fact. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for this to be disputed, the section is presenting Pinker's views. If Pinker's views happen to be incorrect that is totally irrelevant, the correctly sourced and attributed facts are that he holds these views. --Xorkl000 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But the section doesn't say these are P's views. It reads as the editor's interpretation. If they are P's views, that should be stated clearly and the views should be: 1. attributed to him rather than stated as a fact, and 2. cited with chapter and verse. That's what I said in my last sentence in the previous paragraph, but you apparently didn't care to read it to the end. If you don't have the patience to read other people's contributions, then don't (insert profanity) edit Wikipedia.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My reading of the section is that these are P's views. Perhaps the wording should be made less ambiguous on this point, and the statements correctly sourced/cited. --Xorkl000 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have changed it, inserting stuff like "according to Pinker" everywhere and then adding a tag. The problem is that if this is not really "according to Pinker", then such an edit would mean transforming some naive Original Research into outright calumny. I've read the book, and while I could possibly imagine Pinker writing some pretty stupid things to keep the reader entertained, I just don't remember any statements like these. I'm sure I would have remembered the Wallace-Coleridge stuff, at least. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mavens
I have recently read the book, and found it most interesting. Apart from the chapter so headed, which was enraging. The people Pinker attacks are mostly people I've never heard of. The people I have heard of, who are regarded as genuine authorities on English usage, make no such assertions as Pinker attacks. For example, no one regarded as an authority defends the nonsensical ban on split infinitives. Not even the most conservative of them. None of them objects to ending a sentence with a preposition, most calling that ban a mere superstition. All of them have the objective of preserving written English as clear and lucid to all, not of keeping it fixed forever against all change, since all of them acknowledge change as inevitable and language as evolving. I have never seen such a set of straw men set up to be knocked over in my life, and it left me with severe doubts as to the worth of the rest of the book.

I will try at some point soon to contribute a section on the page with cites and so forth, but in the meantime just wanted to state my indignation.

81.155.104.20 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is a straw man argument, but so much of the general population believes that these notions (the ban on ending a sentence with a preposition, etc.) are etched in stone, so it's still worth mentioning. It was a while ago that I read this book, and I don't recall this section too well, but if he doesn't discuss how experts in the field of English usage also feel that such notions are bunk, then he should...so a modicum of indignation is appropriate ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.192.120 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 81.155.104.20 -- Only a few decades ago, many English-speaking schoolchildren were being taught not to split infinitives, and to be careful to use "prepositions" at the end of sentences only in somewhat limited and restrictive circumstances (of course, many such "prepositions" are not actually real prepositions, but instead verbal particles, as pointed out by Pinker). And 95% of the usage panel consulted for the American Heritage Dictionary first edition disapproved of singular "their", etc. etc... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the implications section, which is flagged for "factual inaccuracy," actually contains something more akin to original research than factual inaccuracies. I would think a citation to a literature review that mentions the implications raised ought to be cited, or the section ought to be removed on that basis. 24.147.242.72 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Content issues
An IP editor has objected to my removal of the following text, "There is evidence for rapid evolution, and humans are no exception. For instance, Tibetans have evolved more efficient lung and hemoglobin in just 3000 years. That means that even the Recent African Origin model for the evolution of modern humans leaves enough time for significant racial differences to form. The language instinct thesis predicts that it is possible to make language acquisition of the local language faster by eliminating innate potential to learn other languages, which then should have been selected for in cultures that values competence at a young age. The fact that people of any ethnic background can learn foreign languages therefore support learned, as opposed to instinctive, language."

I removed that material because, in my opinion, it is embarrassingly badly written, implausible, nearly incoherent, and improperly sourced. The source given is only, "Daniel Everett, New Scientist article on Piraha." One cannot even tell from that which article is the source, what issue it was published in, or any of the other crucial things that anyone who wants to verify that information would need to know. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that recent additions are inadequately sourced, and in this case I think we would need a quotation that allows us to verify the interpretation of the sources. They are also written as advancing a position. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The evolution of language is not properly explained.
Specific mechanisms theory predicts that at least three specific modules are necessary to get anything done at all: one for perceptual cognition, one for emotional motivation and one executive. None of them is of any use unless the other two are already there. This raises a severe evolvability paradox for psychological nativism/evolutionary psychology/computational theory of mind. There are also specific evolvability paradoxes, such as redundant phonemes (no reason why a vast range of innate phonetic potential should have evolved when far fewer phonemes are evidently enough for a complex language, as shown by Polynesian languages), the first moral evolvability paradox (that a single moral individual would not survive in a group where everyone else was amoral) and first individual evolvability paradoxes in regards to many sexual behaviors (especially species recognition and sexual characteristic recognition). Then there is evidence, especially from domestication research, that evolution can go very fast. This means that nativist theory predicts that different human groups should have evolved big racial differences in psychology by natural selection working on individual hereditary psychiatry. That prediction is falsified by studies showing that supposed racial differences disappear when social factors are taken into account. These evolvability paradoxes are described in greater detail on the pages "Brain" and "Self-organization" on Pure science Wiki, a wiki for the scientific method unaffected by academic pursuit of prestige. 79.138.146.232 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
 * Looks like original research to me, but just to be social... Geoffrey Miller in the Mating Mind gives an explanation for redundancy in language and its quick evolution, Robin Dunbar in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language gives an account of morality and mechanisms for language evolution, Dawkins somewhere has an explanation for honest signalling in a Darwinian paradigm. This is not the place for this stuff, the Origin of Language page exists elsewhere, this is a book page and only should have its contents and reception. --Resip27 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception, rejection
As was correctly stated in the previous version of this article which was reverted by User:Crossroads, Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky's innatist/nativist theory was rejected by the mainstream child language acquisition research community years ago. Here are some quotes from the removed sources: And here's what followed. De Bot, A History of Applied Linguistics: We see from the first quote (which includes further sources) that Pinker has been grouped with Chomsky in the debate. In the second quote we see that the mainstream applied linguistics community rejected innatism, and that the innatist have now their own conferences because they dare no longer enter the main ones (there's more about it around the quoted section). Weidorje (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fernald & Marchman 2006 in the Handbook of Psycholinguistics: "Although nativist views of language acquisition are forceful and still widely endorsed, there has been ongoing controversy about the adequacy of such theories as an account of how children develop competence in language. Some critiques directly challenge the logic of arguments made by Chomsky, Pinker, and like-minded theorists, questioning such core assumptions as the universality of generative grammar, the autonomy of syntax in language processing, and the fundamental unlearnability of language (e.g., Bates & Goodman, 1999; Braine, 1994; Pullum & Scholz, 2002; Tomasello, 1995)."
 * GG is generally seen as a declining paradigm and its proponents now tend to stay away from conferences like AAAL (the American Association of Applied Linguistics) and University of Boston Child Language Development conferences, as a cursory count of papers on the basis of abstracts shows ... In my view, it is no coincidence that in Levelt’s (1989) ground-breaking book on language production there is only one reference to Chomsky, and that is not N. but C. Chomsky. In the psycholinguistic community, the idea of innateness and a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) were seen as problematic, and the leading institute in the world, the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen was ostensibly anti-GG. This is also reflected in Levelt’s early criticism of the GG model in his 1975 work What Happened to LAD? There is also a sociological component in the debate about the position of GG at universities. Starting from the 1960s, GG was seen as the new way to go and many linguistics departments turned Chomskian, which led to serious conflicts with linguists of other persuasions who felt sidetracked. Now that generation of GG linguists is retiring and there is a tendency in many universities not to replace them with younger scholars of that school, but rather appoint UB oriented linguists. There is almost a euphoria that the grip of the nativists on what constitutes linguistics is gone and that other approaches and more social orientations are seen as meaningful alternatives. Others try to explain the reasons for the decline of GG ... Some informants are quite outspoken about the role of GG in AL. William Grabe states: “Fundamentally Chomsky is wrong and we wasted a lot of time. In 1964 Chomsky’s Aspects was published. Now, in 2014, we are 50 years later. What impact has all of that had in real world language use? This is an overstated theoretical direction.” Jan Hulstijn summarizes: “Generative linguistics has had no noticeable (or durable) impact.”
 * - I'm an amateur in this topic. What does GG mean? Your post seems to make sense, but what action are you recommending? Are you saying that the edit made by User:Crossroads be reverted? A really paranoid android (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GG = generative grammar, AL = applied linguistics, UB = usage-based. Can be reverted, but I could also come back with proper footnotes for each point. Weidorje (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Onlookers should read the discussion at FTN: Your quotes above do not support that it has been "rejected". The first source describes it as "still widely endorsed"; hardly an accurate summary. The second is not as strident as you are claiming; it also says that "other approaches and more social orientations are seen as meaningful alternatives"; it's not dominant anymore, but it's not fully rejected.
 * I just briefly checked Google Scholar. This 2017 review appeared in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, supporting the Chomskyan theory. This 2018 review in Trends in Cognitive Sciences treats it as one of two ends of a theoretical spectrum. I find these papers and the recent sources they cite hard to square with your claim that it's all been "rejected". It still appears to be taken seriously and engaged with, though not dominant. Crossroads -talk- 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As onlookers are called to look at the confused discussion at the fringe theories, as a brief note, I'm not a fringe theorist. There are now editors who suggest that I don't accept the full weight of evolution in language and elsewhere because my edits extract a different view from the research literature. As such, I am accused of being one-sided. So, in order for me to behave, I should remove all material which questions the primacy of evolution as an explanation of human behaviour. My answer is forming into this shape: I have noticed some mistakes in WP and come to correct them (for this they call me a pilgrim). When I do so, people tell me that language is caused by genes, so I should stop it right away! I don't see any reason to stop, and I want to bring attention to the point that I suspect I'm being opposed by the so-called Darwinists, an ideological group who believe in a complete worldview derived from natural selection theory. My comment is: it's not a truly scientific view because most claims remain unsupported. Now that I've said it I'll return with comments about the proper issue here briefly. Weidorje (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Crossroads for the links. I don't think they stand out. Remember that I wrote the innatist view was rejected by the mainstream child language acquisition community? The History of Applied Linguistics very clearly states that this is exactly what happened, e.g. that generativists/nativists now stick to their own events. In other words, it is a marginal position. The article by Chomsky you linked is quite in line with this view. The one by Christiansen takes UG into account, but doesn't question de Bot's conclusion. What we can do is tone down a little but not too much. It needs to be stated clearly that (de Bot) considers UG as rejected by the professionals (whether they are right or wrong). This should not be toned down. But what we could/should add is the point that UG has not disappeared, and that the research continues. And we should be able to do this without a great fuss. It would also be useful if you acknowledged that I didn't overemphasize the criticism at all – the original talks about "euphoria" and "dancing on Chomsky's grave". So, even if it seems that I've tried to deal the hardest possible blow, in reality I've toned down from the original. Weidorje (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Background information
I'll reintroduce the text with footnotes soon. There are opinions for and against, but whichever way the criticism will be edited, a synthesis of contradicting statements should be avoided. What you may want to know as background information is that innatism, proposed by Pinker and Chomsky, was replaced in the mainstream by usage-based linguistics (UB) which is another version of memetics. User:Crossroads took up Christiansen's (UB) view of language. His debate article is a good introduction. If you don't have time to read it all, you can go directly to Susan Blackmore's invited comment. Note that she is a skeptic and memetician, and she contests the originality of UB. But you were wondering whether the paradigm shift in applied linguistics means language is not considered innate anymore. The headline is "Language as shaped by the brain". So it's rather that language is biological but not directly innate (as was claimed by Pinker and Chomsky). Perhaps the best way to understand this is by explaining that language is a biotic system, a parasite or a symbiont which originally enters the brain during the language acquisition period. It adapts to the ecology of the human mind. So, the model is more biological than before, not less. However, what Christiansen argues for in the article you linked above is that there is nonetheless an innate element in language (acquisition). Weidorje (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Blackmore's reply is here (there were several comments with the original article print). You may have also noticed Christiansen's connection with the Santa Fe institute, relating to Complex Adaptive Systems. One of the reasons I was associated with fringe theorists is because I wrote CAS is linked with Universal Darwinism. For whatever reason they're fine with any other term – I thought it was neutral. Weidorje (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Chomskyism is increasingly characterized as pseudoscience. Chomsky famously ridiculed the collection of data, which is the basis of any science, as "butterfly collecting". That is, GG is not actually linguistics, not if by "linguistics" we mean the science of language. Usage-based linguistics does not reject evolution -- certainly Max Planck doesn't!, but merely requires evidence for theoretical claims. There's no actual evolutionary theory in GG either. There are internationally respected university departments that have graduate courses on Chomskyism the way an astronomy department might have a course on astrology, so that their graduates can debate the crackpots. The last gasp of GG is optimality theory, which is a cognitively implausible twist on generative phonology. That's still widely practiced, since it's a simplistic framework for publishing papers, whereas frequency/usage-based phonology requires real work. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This article and the one on Steven Pinker basically suggest that Sampson is an English teacher with no understanding of evolution, hence he champions some noble form of "culturalism". My impression is different and I think he's a Darwinist or sociobiologist of some kind. Here's what he actually wrote: "I conclude that there is no language instinct. On the available evidence, languages seem to be products of cultural evolution only. The biological foundations on which they depend are an open-ended ability to formulate and test hypotheses, which we use to learn about anything and everything that life throws at us, and perception and phonation mechanisms which evolved to serve other functions and have no special relationship with language."


 * I think Sampson's ideas are similar to those of Christiansen and others whose ideas Blackmore finds very similar to memetics, that is: language is a complex adaptive system, adapting to the brain which has evolved biologically. I don't see any evidence of structuralists/humanists challenging Pinker. Therefore I think the current wordings could be misleading. Weidorje (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No watering down of criticism
Fact: criticism against Pinker's theory of language is well-grounded but harsh, and there's plenty of it. I made it brief to keep it readable. User:Crossroads wanted to diminish it a bit further - quite unnecessary, but fine for the time being. User:PaleoNeonate made it his New Year's oath to watch my steps. So here he deletes the word 'many' so that the reader doesn't get the correct idea that Pinker's ideas have been disputed by many scholars as we can see from the quotes (did you read them?). What is happening here is the "Darwinists" are trying to water down unpleasant information. PaleoNeonate, did you also read above that Pinker's theory was destroyed by the Darwinists? You're achieving nothing and doing no favors. Weidorje (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be seeing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND of "Darwinists" vs., er, somebody. It's not, and that is not how editing is supposed to work. Crossroads -talk- 03:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Let's stick to facts and be truthful to the sources. Because this article is not a battleground, there's no need to water down criticism. Weidorje (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Battleground" has to do with interactions between editors. Regarding this which set this off, "many" seems to be an unsourced WP:WEASEL word. Crossroads -talk- 21:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Crossroads, unsourced it is apparently not, as already pointed out (did you read the quotes or did I add them in vain? I made them just for you). Now, of taste and style. You must be 100 % aware that anyone can find many reasons to include or exclude a particular word and what not, and all the formulations and so on and et caetera. OK? I don't want to spend an awful lot of time on that. But can you ask yourself whether what it is you want to do here, or desire to do, is to improve Wikipedia by helping the reader receive as much of the information that the reader wants and needs to know about the topic? Or is there something more? I'm not going to argue. I'm just asking you to think about it for a while. Weidorje (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this last comment was called for. However, in relation to my edit, the source said "some", as per my edit summary, making "many" an editorial.  It's also simply unnecessary, but sometimes acceptable to use "most" when a reliable source really says it.  Maybe an example of my recent editing can be used: Special:Diff/1000366750 says "various", but that too could optionally be omitted.  That's despite the fact that Hancock's claims are completely outlandish, way beyond things like scientific hypotheses (this case).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoNeonate as you shift your focus away from the aesthetics, does it not strike you as ironic that, while your edits normally target ideas that have been abandoned by the scientific community, here you protect the view that people have a genetically encoded syntax instinct – against the prevalent criticism that such a claim does not have any support in scientific research whatsoever: that it's essentially just made up? You're not detecting any warning signs or anything? Weidorje (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Time to get consensus on this one way or another
, since I misclicked and reverted you without an edit summary here, I'm bringing the matter here to the talk page, seeing as your own rollbacks were done without any explanation and apparently without concern for WP:BRD. Had I taken deeper note of the revision history and noticed that this issue had already been debated between yourself and other editors here on the talk page, I would have begun my commentary here and not just my edit summary, where I believe I also explained the need for reversion based on the sources and relevant policies. It seems in fact that there is a clear consensus against your changes based on the sourcing you have provided. I'll note that's unsurprising since you are making the rather WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that one of the most influential and broadly relevant paradigms in linguistics and cognitive science generally is now in decline across scholarship. Even assuming this article were the correct place to make such a broad indictment that can only really be discussed accurately with space or nuance, you would still need better sourcing than that which you have supplied here: the sources in question do not really align 100% with the full-throatedness of your denunciation of the field in Wikipedia's voice here, and even if they were closer in tone to the absoluteness of the statement you want to endorse here, you would need more, given the massive WP:WEIGHT of sourcing which holds up the nativist/inatist paradigm as a massively influential model in these spheres.

Now, having learned now that these concerns have been raised for you repeatedly here and that you keep re-entering the commentary in the article regardless, I have to explain to you that you are engaged in what Wikipedia's policies define as WP:edit warring. Per WP:BRD and other central policies, if you feel this information is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for that change. At present, it seems there is strong opposition from the other editors on this article to claim you want to advance. You will need to overcome that opposition (either by making an argument which compels your fellow editors to agree and/or through one of the project's WP:Dispute resolution processes. If you instead just insist upon going your own way and trying to force these changes into the article (and it would seem many other related namespaces), this will most likely be perceived as WP:Disruptive editing and may result in the editors here seeking oversite of your behaviour from an admin or the community at large.  This is a nuanced and deeply contentious area, so let us please get to the discussing rather than further reverting, as required under policies and community consensus.  As a starting place to reboot the discussion, can you please address the concerns I have raised in my edit summary and above, by either an effective argument or further sourcing? SnowRise let's rap 21:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging and  who have previously engaged with you at length on this topic and concerns about the expansiveness and strength of the claim you want to make here and what policy requires for such a claim, and, , , and , who have previously discussed these edits and other related changes to other articles (and the relatively weight this community ascribes to WP:RGW vs. WP:NPOV) at IFN.  As some of these editors have had (admitedly mixed) success in trying to point out the nuances of how we have to part our own perspectives (no matter how certain we are in them, how well informed we believe them to be, or how passionate we are about their general importance) from the form of our actual content, maybe we can find a way to discover an operative middle ground here that will preserve some of the criticism you want to invoke here, without veering outright into WP:OR.  But please remember, at this juncture, you have a strong consensus against your proposed edits: please do not introduce them into the article again until you have successfully and substantially reversed this state of affairs. Sn<b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For convenience, here's the now-archived discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. My concerns from back then about the changes to the Steven Pinker article apply here, I think. I am also concerned about the potential synthesis factor here; it seems like the goal of the disputed text is to call into disrepute the whole area in which the book lives, rather than discuss the response to The Language Instinct specifically. I get that that can be a fine line, but within Wikipedia articles, it's an important distinction. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted that myself in my edit summary removing the claim again, pending consensus for inclusion: this article is really not the place to be getting into the weeds of the question of how much the primacy of the innatist school has (or has not) abatted in recent decades. My primary concern is simply that Weidorje has (perhaps in good faith, without enitrely realizing how substantially they are running against policies) WP:Cherrypicked the two secondary sources they could find that had the most vociferous discussion of criticism of the innatist school of thought, and then somewhat selectively quoted them to even further support an absolutist rejection of this major subdiscipline, very much in conflict with the overall weight of literature in this field.


 * That said, even in the radically different universe where we all agreed with Weidorje that neo-behaviouralist schools had regrouped and delivered a shattering empirical blow to nativist/innatist views, such that it was a completely defunct area of inquiry rejected by scholarly consensus--and furthermore that sources overwhelmingly confirmed this--this would still be a dubious place to have that discussion about the field at large. While not wanting to do anything to undermine the assumption of good faith here before I even begin directly discussing this matter with Weidorje, given their susbtantially RGW take on these issues as expressed at the FTN and elsewhere, I get the impression that this is here because Pinker became the public intellectual who has most advanced the innatist perspective into popular science literature, and The Language Instinct was the major work that begun that trend.  In other words, a soapbox-ish statement by way of criticism section coatracking.  Again, even if consensus on the sourcing among the involved editors here/project-side was very much different and supporting Weidorje's take on this, reducing the complex debate in the relevant disciplines to a more particularized claim of lack of rigor by this author in this book (which is clearly what the comment is meant to imply from its wording), where such connection is not itself expressly voiced in a source directly making that connection, very much imputes WP:synthesis, as you note above. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 23:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly, we should not synthesize different views, but present the negative criticism as clearly as we can, and then you can add a contradicting statement right after it (like: but prof. A says Pinker's theory is still very important in acquisition/development). So it's best you leave the criticism as it is. Also, you're reading it quite wrong because what it suggests is that nativism was replaced by something akin to memetics. This is quite interesting for the reader, consider that Dawkins endorses Pinker and is (officially) opposed to memetics... but the situation has now changed. Anyway, the section doesn't discuss this in depth, it's only a couple of lines. Weidorje (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, it's good to be able to start out with some agreement, and I can grant you that we can, and should, discuss the controversy in cases such as these. But the policies that guide how we do that are WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION, and that I am afraid is where you're preferred approach to this issue becomes a problem. The way you had approached this issue in this article (and I note the way you have drastically rewritten large portions of generative grammar) is to make broad, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in Wikipedia's voice essentially amounting to the statement that linguistic nativism is a deadend field of inquiry that is discredited and virtually ridiculed by all serious scholars in applied linguistics...  And to support this extraordinary claim about a massively influential field of research that was and is a major pillar of the cognitive revolution, you found a couple of sources (at least one of which researcher you seem to be a major booster for on this project) that kinda-sorta suggest that the neo-behaviourist schools are in the ascension, and then finesse an interpretation from them that you think supports and is sufficient for that claim.


 * Well, I really don't want to be antagonistic here, but at the same time I think I must be blunt with you: I don't see any reasonable likelihood that the larger community of editors here is going to agree that is the right way to go under our policies, for reasons that have been explained to you above, in edit summaries, and at the FTN. Two sources relative to an ocean of research and discussion by and about very much extant, lively, ongoing and influential field of nativism does not even remotely begin to justify the extreme disconnect between what you want to say and what we can say in Wikipedia's voice based on those two sources. Now, if you want to add attributed statements from them, that's another matter: we should maybe discuss that option as a method for adding some criticism in some of these articles (though I'm not sure this particular article is ideal).  But what we can't do is make those particular claims in Wikipedia's voice: it's just not consistent with WP:NPOV in these circumstances. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 08:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Snow Rise, what I said about criticism is quite correct: it needs to be stated as it is and not watered down. No synthesis. My suggestion was clear enough: please add a line explaining that others disagree. There's no need to waste more time on that. Now, you'd probably want me to find more Chomsky bashing in the literature. I could, but it's not necessary. Just update your information. The latest say on innatism is now available here. To summarize,
 * it says nothing about Chomsky or UG
 * It is sympathetic to Pinker's idea that the human drive to communicate is gene-driven
 * but as regards innatism, research evidence only shows a link from inherited intelligence to language: "These studies clearly show that genetics plays an important role in the acquisition and maintenance of language"
 * also, language may be modular to a certain extent although it is processed in interaction with various other capacities
 * further claims are controversial. Weidorje (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Snow Rise, if you want to contribute to WP with high quality editing, you are welcome. However, if your point of being here is just to promote outdated ideas, I don't see how you're doing the reader a favor. Weidorje (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you misconstrue what my priorities are here and how this project expects us to distill our summary of the topic: it's not my place (nor indeed yours or that of any other contributor in this space) to present my own interpretations on the science. Rather, I must defer to what the WP:WEIGHT of the collective WP:reliable sources says on the matter.  Where the sources are in disagreement, I am compelled to present the controversy, discussing all significant views in WP:PROPORTION to their support in the literature at large.  What each of us cannot do is utilize Wikipedia's voice as a proxy for our own views on the veracity and value of a particular empirical tradition or school of thought.  And it is clearly the consensus of multiple editors who have tried to engage with you across multiple namespaces that this is essentially what you are doing: presenting your own views as straightforward fact in the prose, instead of representing the perspectives of your handful of supporting sources through carefully worded attribution, as policy very much directs you to do in these circumstances.


 * All of that said, once we get into the details, we may very well find elements we can agree on (some of what you say above suggests to me that may be so)--and even where we can't achieve a meeting of the minds, we can still leverage the guidance in relevant policies to find an appropriate way to layout the contours of the debate in this field for the reader to draw their own conclusions (though once again, this article is probably not the place to do that at length). But you can't just keep essentially repeating arguments like "But I know the WP:TRUTH!" and "I won't compromise: this is how it has to be." and "You just don't know as much as I do, and only think this way because your information is outdated." (without the least bit of knowledge about the place your rhetorical opposition is coming from in terms of background and motivation--not that our personal knowledge is meant to guide here anyway.


 * None of those are compelling arguments in policy terms on this project, but are in fact just argument from authority, WP:original research and you insisting it's your way or the highway. Well, to put it bluntly: no.  At present you do not have consensus in your favour: in fact, opinion is almost uniform against you here, on the other articles, and in the process spaces where this dispute has landed and where other editors have told you that your perspectives on the editorial issues do not conform to policy and sources.  So unless you can convince your fellow editors to endorse your changes (by engaging in discussion on the particulars), you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot by getting your proposals rejected wholesale. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the generative posse could team up to fight my edits together? I don't think it would be wise. As regards my "handful of sources":
 * One or two sources should be enough for each point. This doesn't mean others don't exist.
 * Talking of sources, you're still refusing to provide the first one.
 * Negative critical articles are not published on a regular basis. When previous claims are excluded from general reference publications after such criticism, it is per se an important cue to researchers.
 * International Handbook of Language Acquisition from 2019 includes the latest evaluation of the debate. We see clearly that innatism is on the decline. This is in line with the sources now included in the article which suggest that
 * Pinker's language instinct, in conjunction with generative grammar, became criticised between 1989 and 2000.
 * This led to the rejection of innatism in mainstream applied linguistics by 2015.
 * It doesn't suggest everybody is now against it. So it's all correct.
 * Furthermore, it was also correct that Tomasello led the UB movement to destroy Pinker and Chomsky, and this was considered a positive development by a majority in the field. Now, you seem to be suggesting I'm here to promote Tomasello. Not correct. I'm only promoting the facts, whether historical or scientific. These are what the reader wants to know, as painful as it may be. Weidorje (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As a clarification for anyone who reads the Handbook article, based on it, "innatism" is not necessarily on the decline "per se", but being redefined. Now the genetic/innate component means that some hereditary aspects, such as intelligence which is genetic to a certain degree, affects language acquisition (20 % in small children versus environmental effects). Furthermore, some speech pathologies may be innate. These findings are of course quite far from genetic grammar. But to such extent we can all agree that language is "innate". Elsewhere, the situation is similar as concerns "modularity" of language: language is modular to the extent that it is partially specialized in the brain, so we can talk of a language module which interacts with other processing aspects. This is also a redefinition of the original concept referring to Fodor and Chomsky's idea of an independent language compartment in the brain. Weidorje (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. User:Snow Rise, let's not rap. Weidorje (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Are you suggesting that the generative posse..."
 * First off, you need to stop suggesting that other editors here are in some sort of secret WP:CABAL who are here merely to protect a sacred cow, rather than being good faith editors looking to apply this project's policies irrespective of their own views on the matter. This repeated, unproductive distraction is getting towards WP:tendentious editing territory.  Please keep your comments focused on content, sources, and policy please, and cease with the constant speculation as to the ulterior motives you believe you perceive behind the actions of your rhetorical opposition: it is irrelevant to a content discussion here and en extremis, can be perceived as WP:disruptive.  Indeed, if you want to contribute here, you are meant to WP:assume good faith motivations in your fellow editors, not repeatedly imply that they are stubborn troglodytes fighting progress because of an affectation.
 * "...could team up to fight my edits together?"
 * Well, it's not called "teaming up" in the context of how thing work here: it's called enforcing consensus. And even then, no we would probably not edit war much with you over the matter.  But if you did try to enforce your version of the article against consensus, you'd probably end up reported for administrative oversight, at which point a block might be applied, limiting the scope of your editing privileges. Please understand I am not attempting to dissuade you from presenting your case: as far as I am concerned, we can discuss this as long as it takes to reach a version all contributors can feel satisfied with.  But you do need consensus to add contested content: that's just the name of the game here, and it's not considered improper or some sort of nefarious group think/dog pile: it's just the heart of our decision making process here.
 * "I don't think it would be wise."
 * Speaking of AGF, I'm going to assume that you didn't realize that phrasing is somewhat menacing in English.
 * "One or two sources should be enough for each point. This doesn't mean others don't exist."
 * By the same token, knowing those sources exist does not obviate you from demonstrating that the claim you want to make is supported by the balance of all sources which speak to the subject matter. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RECENTISM, and remember again my caution that WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary sourcing. You want to say (in Wikipedia's voice, without WP:attribution no less) that perhaps the most influential model for human linguistic cognition in the modern era, a concept which reshaped cognitive science at large, is now defunct and considered a rejected anachronism without any support in linguistics at large. Now I'll be blunt: I think you are disconnected from anything remotely approaching a neutral mindset on this topic if you actually believe that.  But again, it's not a matter of which one of us is right: it's a matter of you bearing the WP:BURDEN with regard to sourcing and consensus if you want to include such a statement.  More to the point, the sources you have presented so far don't even begin to satisfy that burden.
 * "Talking of sources, you're still refusing to provide the first one."
 * To which source do you refer?
 * "Negative critical articles are not published on a regular basis."
 * I don't know what field of research you are in, or how long you have been at it, but the nativist and behaviouralist schools of thought have been launch salvos at eachother for decades on end. There is no qualatative change in that relationship in the last few years that justifies your perception that since 2015, there has been a complete route and nativism has been run out of the halls of academia and gutted in the street... It's still a very influential model, and while I have no absolute WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'd be very surprised indeed if that changed any time soon, any more than behaviourism shrunk up and went away altogether when strict empiricism/tabula rasa perspectives were upended by the creation of nativism.  These two fields impute a lot of strong assumptions about human nature, so they both have a core of highly dogmatic adherents.  They also both get cross-polinated by researchers in adjacent behavioural and cognitive fields.  At the eventual heat death of the universe, the last Skinerian and a Chomsky stan will attempt to choke the life from eachother in a void amongst the last decaying subatomic particles.
 * "When previous claims are excluded from general reference publications after such criticism, it is per se an important cue to researchers."
 * I'm afraid that kind of negative evidence argument isn't likely to serve you well here. Besides which, Chomsky and UG still get plenty of play in countless sources that easily pass our WP:RS standards.
 * "Pinker's language instinct, in conjunction with generative grammar, became criticised between 1989 and 2000.
 * It became criticized before the first copies shipped. It' s a popular science work which touches about languistic prescriptivism in countless ways.  Of course it has its detractors.  That is a very different thing to saying the views of this eminent researcher and public intellectual have been disregarded wholecloth by the scientific community.
 * "This led to the rejection of innatism in mainstream applied linguistics by 2015."
 * You're very much begging the question/engaging in circular argumentation there: your premise and your conclusion are saying the same thing.
 * "It doesn't suggest everybody is now against it. So it's all correct."
 * No, you don't say "everybody" has abandoned it, just anybody with a brain who is in a place of influence or who operate anywhere in the mainstream. The fact that you don't exclude the entire world from adherence to nativism doesn't change the fact that your wording clearly identifies it as a morbibund and highly derided field.  Which is just not the reality at all, as far as just about every other editor here is concerned from our own read on the weight of sources.
 * "Furthermore, it was also correct that Tomasello led the UB movement to destroy Pinker and Chomsky, and this was considered a positive development by a majority in the field.
 * See, this is a problem: statements along these lines make it even more difficult for us to try to assume you are operating in accordance with the paramount concern of WP:NPOV: your phrasing when you talk about the relative rigor and standing of these two schools doesn't leave much doubt that you are a partisan within that very debate. Nobody "destroyed" anyone: this is academia, not The Highlander: there can be more than one. And indeed Chomsky is looking pretty good for a destroyed figure, considering he still the most cited linguist in history (in fact, he is thought to be the single most cited living academic of any field).  For that matter, Pinker doesn't even belong to school of generative grammarians you seem to think he does. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't currently have time to delve into the substance of the content itself, but I will agree with Snow Rise as to your technique of argumentation. You're being far too combative and confrontational, assuming people are coordinating against you. The fact is that our rules stipulate a certain editing technique and, when you edit against those guidelines, you'll find multiple people popping up to tell you so. That does not mean there's a "team" of editors attacking you, it means you've accidentally fallen afoul of our rules & guidelines, and people with more experience are telling you why your edits are inappropriate. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:HandThatFeeds, I wouldn't be too concerned about the content, either. But, admittedely I've been quite unfair to use The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, A History of Applied Linguistics (both of which have now been kindly removed by The Rapper to avoid an unjust bias), and even the new Handbook of Language Acquisition! It was uncalled for, and I apologize. Is there anything I can do to make you feel better? Weidorje (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read this thread and looked at the very recent article reverts. A problem that I can see is that information relating to GG (a hypothesis of "native grammatical structure") appears to be mixed in to claim that little-related topics (like the importance of evolved neurological structures that allow higher brain functions and complex symbolic language) would all be in crisis...  It is doubtful that this article is the right place for the proposed material...  To avoid synthesis, the sources would also be expected to be about Pinker's The Language Instinct.  At least the Sampson and Webster sources are directly about Pinker's book or views.  One could argue that Webster's book is mostly about religion and psychoanalysis, though...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:PaleoNeonate. Evans has also written a book on the topic, here's an introduction to it. By all means it can't be right to say criticism is extremely rare. Two thoughts: if The Language Instinct is purely an article on the book, the Reception section could be split into two: (i) positive (ii) negative. Here we could stick to proper reviews of Pinker's book. On the other hand, "language instinct" is now also a topic in its own right. If a scientific evaluation is not allowed on the book article, I suppose a different place should be assigned for it. Weidorje (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Splitting "Reception" explicitly into "Positive" and "Negative" would invite oversimplification, I think. Academics often like one part of a book and dislike another; they might appreciate the content but regret the style. Perhaps they find that the book explained the basics well but drew unwarranted conclusions. There has to be room for nuance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Negative" section would be a Criticism section, which is discouraged by WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To recap, I took it as a default to mix positive and negative (however SnowRise wants consensus "one way or another"). I suggested SnowRise add more positives. Instead, he only wants to remove the criticism. I could also find positive reviews, I just didn't think it would be my job. Wikipedia nonetheless accepts either solution: "include all related information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section ... "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." What I'm personally interested in is not criticism per se, but an evalution of the statement, namely: Is there a language instinct or not? What does the research say? What is the current opinion? This is the kind of expertise I have and believe the reader is interested in. I'm open to different solutions. When people gain proper information from WP, they will be less confused, and then editing will also become easier. Weidorje (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You're still not listening to us. As several editors before me have tried to express to you, this is not the place to talk about the state of generative grammar as an entire field, and any criticism directed against the concept itself which you believe in your own analysis also applies to the subject of this article you cannot add unless said sources expressly state that the criticism is directed against the subject of this article: short of that explicit link in the source, you are using WP:Original research by way of WP:SYNTHESIS as the justification for adding the content here, which is not a permitted content argument. Also I think you should be aware that "the language instinct" as referenced in the title of this book isn't even a 1-to-1 metaphor for generative grammar as you seem to have decided it was from superficial conjecture: Pinker's book discusses a vast array of topics, and Chomskyan approaches to universal grammar only constitute a very small portion of the pages of the book.  'The Language Instinct' is more of a reference to a more generalized concept of viewing language through a naturalistic lens.  I'm increasingly wondering just how familiar you really are with the subject of this article or Pinker's scholarship, despite your clearly very strong feelings on him as part of the "darwinian" tradition in linguistics, whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm concerned that the opinion expressed by others at the IFN is correct and that your main motivation here is to lob broadsides at a intellectual figure whom you wish to deride because of what you perceive their alignment to be with regard to some sort of philosophical dichotomy that means a great deal to you.


 * But also, addressing the nature of how we should be balancing coverage on the topic of generative grammar (because we will have to address these questions with regard to the generative grammar article itself, which you have altered even more profoundly despite the feedback you received from the IFN (more than six months before I recently became involved here, so let's say we drop the implication I am the first resistance you have faced on these edits: you merely ignored standing consensus and I was the one unlucky enough to catch it and draw your ire): we absolutely will include both supporting and critical language from a broad swath of experts in relevant disciplines of linguistics and cognitive science--that's what we do when there's a controversy. But we do that by WP:neutrally WP:attributing particular statements to their authors, not by making broad, extraordinary claims about the field being "destroyed" by behaviouralists in Wikipedia's voice.  I (and others) have tried to explain this distinction at length, and if you still won't take our word for it, please start reading up at the policy pages linked above in this discussion, because they will help to clarify for you that these are not the whims of the handful of "darwinian generative gangsters" out to thwart you here, but rather the guiding content policies which represent community consensus for this project.  It's very important that you at least understand WP:NPOV and WP:original research, because this...


 * "This is the kind of expertise I have and believe the reader is interested in."


 * ...suggests that you are still missing a point which is critical to editing here: we don't care about your expertise. There are others here with similar or greater levels of expertise, but we also don't care about that first hand knowledge.  It doesn't matter how much you assure us it is genuine knowledge, or what your bonafides are, or how certain it makes you that the content you would like to add is "the truth" of the matter.  All of these things are irrelevant to the consensus process on this project.  The opinion of an editor who has no credentials in this area will count more than yours if they make the better argument applying our policies to the content.  In fact, it is often recommended that editors stay away from the areas where they feel particularly driven and have particularly strong stances, at least when they are still relatively inexperienced, because this can often be the least ideal way to try to understand the ways in which Wikipedia expects us to part from our own opinions or even facts that we feel are the objective truth.   That might seem paradoxical to you, but trust me, we have good reasons for approaching content determinations in that way, not the least of which is that trying to operate discussion via argument from authority would lead to an endless morass of debate about whose authority should take precedence.


 * I recognize that these rules are not necessarily intuitive (although they shouldn't be entirely foreign to someone with training in realistic application of the scientific method), which is why patience has been extended here, despite some needless personalization of the debate, some very passive aggressive comments to users above, and a (mistaken) belief that your self-declared status as an expert buys you a higher level of credibility and weight to your arguments. But at this point, let me be blunt about how I see the situation: 1) there is a clear consensus here that this article is not the place to discuss sources which have general criticisms about generative grammar: not unless said sources also expressly mention this book, or at least Pinker himself, directly.  Now, consensus can change, but so far your arguments and sources have not convinced the other editors here that the language you want to add is appropriate for this page.  2) We can (and almost certainly will have to) discuss the question of how to represent criticism of generative grammar at the article for that topic.  In that space, we may have more luck in finding ways to present the parallel arguments supporting or disagreeing with the underlying presumptions of the field and the arguments of its adherents. But even there, we will do it with attribution and by providing the reader with the pieces (as described in reliable sources) and allowing them to come to their own conclusions, and not by inserting our own conclusions into the prose in Wikipedia's voice. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 11:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User talk:Snow Rise, you write on your page: "I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles." Can you please stop doing that? I wrote: "What I'm personally interested in is not criticism per se, but an evalution of the statement, namely: Is there a language instinct or not?" You answer: "You're still not listening to us. As several editors before me have tried to express to you, this is not the place to talk about the state of generative grammar as an entire field". User talk:Snow Rise, is there anything that could be done to avoid this? Weidorje (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * First off, whatever I choose to add to my user page is really zero concern of yours or for any other editor, provided it does not violate policy. I really don't know why you keep making reference to this, aside from to say that it seems to be part of your pattern of turning opposition to your content preferences into personalized conflicts, something that you've been asked to stop doing. Now, if it's the case that you took that comment to be a literal demand to engage me in rap battle if you want to make a complaint on my talk page, please understand that the notice is just a whimsical comment: in the six or so years that it's been up, just one editor has followed up on the joke and challenged me to drop some bars, and yet you will see that I have been happy to engage with the maybe hundreds of other editors who have come through there using everyday sentence structure. So please, if you have a personal inquiry (or even a complaint) to make there, don't feel forbidden from doing so in plain English. Write the comment in whatever format you prefer and I will respond in good faith, and as candidly as I can.


 * That said, if your complaint is going to be that I've pointed out that it's not just me opposing these edits, I'll preemptively direct you to review this page and the earlier FTN discussion. You're the one who seems keen to frame me as some sort of obstructionist who is thwarting your goals because (you believe) I have some sort of allegiance to a theory you feel at odds with. But you had more than a half dozen editors telling you that you were pushing a fringe angle on this topic six months before I got involved in the debate, which was just a few days ago. And you've made similar comments about the "generative gang" repeatedly, before I showed up and since. I really don't think I'm the one who is using improper rhetoric in my summary of the situation.  Frankly, you've got a pretty free pass on those comments so far, given they obviously constitute WP:aspersions which violate WP:AGF.  But regarding the fact that I pointed out that it is not just me who feels that the prose in question is inappropriate here, you should understand that the strong opposition that you face here is in fact very relevant to the question of WP:consensus. It's not the only factor: consensus is not a matter of a straight vote. But it is relevant that multiple experienced editors are telling you the same thing. Why would it not be? <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User talk:Snow Rise, what I was trying to suggest is you keep your comments compact and to the point. You "talk" too much. You're overwhelming this page. As regards ad hominem, it's true that I had a confrontation with the fringe guys six months ago, over a different article. As regards this one, I thought there was sufficient consensus the six months until you came around. You're trying to label me as a deviant, and you keep saying everyone here is against me. But to me it seems you only managed to recruit one true supporter, and I'm not sure he's so keen on this, either. If you look at your own comments, nothing of it is really true, is it? Weidorje (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know which of the several editors who have expressed concerns about your proposed changes you consider Snow Rise's "one true supporter", but I should caution you that this comment of yours is entering uncivil territory. Taken at face value, it is accusing another editor of dishonesty. Let's all work from the presumption that we mean what we say. Cordially, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it happening. There seemed to be some reasonable discussion at one point, but now it's kind of vanished. It is so fishy. It all reminds me what we had back in 2006 with neuro-linguistic programming. Weidorje (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to blow by your most recent WP:aspersion (that you made in response to a good faith comment from an editor asking you to watch that habit), and instead note that your observations there are very interesting, considering your account dates to 2016 and has very few edits until this last year, and none of them related to the article you just referenced. Is this not your only account that you use to contribute to this content area? <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 02:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) If you don't want my input, then perhaps you should stop pinging me back here repeatedly? I'm needing to respond to those pings at length because your are pushing an attack page approach to this and related articles which is highly problematic under our content guidelines and along the way you are making dozens of inappropriate talk page comments that are brightline violations of important behavioural policies, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:TE, for which you have been fortunate not to be reported up until this point. Both classes of problematic behaviour require a lot more space to respond to than it does to throw those policy-inconsistent/WP:OR arguments and personal accusations out.
 * 2) The NFT discussions specifically identified this article as one of those of concern with regard to your POV pushing. The feedback you received there (but dismissed to go your own way) is part and parcel with this discussion. Not that we need to rely on that discussion to show that consensus is against your preferred approach: every editor participating in this thread has told you that you have failed to gain consensus for the change you want to implement and they were telling you that months before I got involved in the last couple of days. But I don't know what else to say to you on this matter: if you really have a selection bias so strong that you can't see the shape of consensus here, I doubt anything I say at this point is going to change that.
 * 3) Nobody has labelled you a "deviant" or anything remotely like it (an accusation I note you made towards other editors in the previous discussion). I think you have a bias, yes: I would probably even go so far as to say you seem to have an agenda that is so express that it probably precludes you from contributing neutrally to any article related to scholars you consider to be "darwinists", based on the evidence I am seeing on multiple talk pages--and I'm not the first to express something like that opinion/concern. But that's not the same thing as implying you are a "deviant".


 * Look, if you don't want my further opinions, you can reduce their frequency by just not pinging me back here constantly. I doubt you believe it at this point, but my engagement with you has been in the hope that we might arrive at something of a meeting of the minds, a middle-ground position that would suit us all.  That's still probably possible if you will WP:DROPTHESTICK on the constant speculation of a secret cabal.  But I really have nothing to gain here from constantly engaging with you, other than working toward such a shared solution. At present, consensus is to keep your proposed addition out, as inconsistent with WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT and/or not being appropriate in this namespace.  If you edit war in violation of that consensus, any concerned editor can report that behaviour and a block will likely be forthcoming.  So we gain nothing here by engaging with you, and have only done so because maintaining open-mindedness is a important cultural value on this project.  But if all I am going to receive from your end are policy violation comments imputing some secret nefarious motive, I'm frankly done giving you the benefit of the doubt or my time.  And I expect others will follow suit, leaving you in a situation where you got nothing that you wanted because you couldn't countenance the idea of getting anything other than exactly what you wanted. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 02:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no more pinging. And I am sorry for the tone. Here is my point of view, briefly: I thought me and the other guys were discussing how to improve the Reception section, and it was suggested that I could add positive views on the book, and also, that a research update on innatism could be located elsewhere. We didn't get further than that. Our topic was precisely the language instinct. Then, as I saw it, the page was flooded with comments saying such suggestions won't work because I must stop writing about generative grammar in this article. I felt that it was this that ruined a constructive conversation. Weidorje (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our topic was precisely the language instinct But that should not be the topic here. The topic should be improvement of the article The Language Instinct about the book "The Language Instinct" (with capital letters) by Pinker. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, you noticed I left it ambiguous because that was one of the questions. Was the topic generative grammar? Weidorje (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This is a Wikipedia Talk page, and its topic is improving the article belonging to it. This is explained in WP:TALK. There is nothing "ambiguous" about that, and there are no "questions" about it. If you want to discuss something else, you should go somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that everyone should stop flooding the talk page with irrelevant comments. I said I was being ambiguous because the discussion including the question how to make a distinction between the language instinct and The Language Instinct was interrupted by irrelevant comments. Thereby, we don't have an answer to it. Referring to these questions here, assuming you are aware of them, was the topic generative grammar or not? You should only have commented if you had had a point relating to that which you were commenting. Weidorje (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"extreme genetic determinism"
What is the difference between genetic determinism and extreme genetic determinism? Genetic determinism already means that everything is 100% determined by genes. (Of course, Pinker is not a genetic determinist.) I am for deleting the word "extreme". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)