Sorry… you don’t think printing what notable critics of Pinker say about him is relevant?

It should not form 100% of an encyclopedia article about anyone. And they aren’t notable, it seems as if tue one editor who’s been running that page since last year added every possible article they found through Google.

It would be worth including his seminal work such as his 1990 paper on th evolution of language (worth a read)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/natural-language-and-natural-selection/CDD84686D58AF70E3D2CB48486D7940B

Is his so-called science above criticism?

No one is above criticism but an encyclopedia is meant to be comprehensive.

Is the racism much of his so-called science is based upon also beyond criticism? And no, evo psych is garbage because it’s garbage. Or at least mostly garbage.

Well now we’re just being silly. You can’t seriously believe that animal behaviour has no evolutionary component? You believe in souls instead?

Let’s start with the Center for Inquiry. I hope, as someone posting in a skeptic community, you consider them a valid source: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/03/22164612/p23.pdf

Well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer and it’s an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines.

But in case you don’t, here’s spam

Please don’t spam, I’d rather hear you articulate your reasons rather than resorting to other people to do the work for you.

(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)