Talk:Criticism of Noam Chomsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] Misquotation

Chomsky's quote regarding the prophet Elijah in "Accusations of Anti-Semitism" is inaccurate. The quote is in fact, "Are you the one who troubles Israel?" The rest of the statements Chomsky attributed to Ahab are Chomsky's own and are not from the Bible. This should be noted. The quote is from the Book of Kings. ben-ze'ev 08:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Have removed the Elijah quote for clarity, It seemed a rather laboured precursor on the part of Chomsky to the more essential response which at present I've kept in. --Zleitzen 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of Balance

This page grants far too much space to Chomsky's defenses of himself and far too little to the arguments of his critics. I have no objection to reproducing Chomsky's arguments in defense, but a page on criticism of Chomsky should grant at least equal space to his critics. Many of the discriptions of the criticisms against him are also clearly biased towards Chomsky's side and are not well-researched. I have the suspicion that they are reiterations of Chomsky's own description of his critics and not based on the criticisms themselves. I notice this in particular in regards to the anti-semitism issue and the Faurisson affair. There is no mention, for instance, of Alain Finkielkraut or Martin Peretz. Chomsky already has a lengthy page of his own, and a page dedicated to his critics ought to give their arguments the opportunity to be heard. ben-ze'ev 06:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and balance are not one and the same. Perhaps the criticisms offered have less sourceable validity, and are mere conjecture?

I disagree. These criticisms exist or they do not. Many of them are not issues of fact but of interpretation. As such, these interpretations should be heard. I point, for instance, to the Faurisson affair. Chomsky's critics were of the point of view that Chomsky's defense of Faurisson was indefensible. This is not falsifiable, it is an opinion. Their critique should be allowed to stand. A page on criticism of Chomsky consisting of nothing but Chomsky's counter-attacks on his critics is clearly unbalanced and unfair.--ben-ze'ev 17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you Benjamin. The article, alongside "Chomsky's political Views" is in danger of spiralling out of control. I would prefer to see this page edited with more consise points / rebuttals. There are way too many quotes here and overlong descriptions. The Faurisson affair is long enough even before you realise that there is a whole other page detailing the business. --Zleitzen 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
On the issue of balance. There is a danger that this whole page is disproportionate. There are many more well known and more controversial figures than Chomsky than don't get their own "criticisms page" (even Darwin escapes!). Although I would concede that many criticisms of Chomsky's work do carry a uniquely detailed essence that perhaps warrants a fair body of work.
What I've noticed from the debates below are 2 factors (1) Chomsky has his critics, but who are they and what are their credentials? How is this adjudicated? Who makes the cut? As Horowitz has written extensively on the man I guess he gets in, but a Blogger who has created an "anti-chomsky" website? We may as well end up naming and sourcing critics such as Benjamin Ben-Ze'ev and Zleitzen. Where is the line drawn here? (2) The other factor is the sourcing of the criticisms themselves. I would agree with you in your debate below that it is less relevant whether the critics are justified in their criticisms. That fact that they make them is what is notable here. However, again we are faced with the dilemma of which ones make the cut? The very contentious "anti-semite" criticisms appear in the article, but then Chomsky has also been described countless times as "evil" [1] "twisted" and having a "sick mind" [2]. Presumably these would not make the article, yet the earlier label gets through. Are we going to end up with a vast piece that concludes with the comments "Some critics believe that Chomsky is evil and has a sick mind"? Where is the line drawn here?
Please reply for consensus--Zleitzen 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, have no issue with a foot link to Benjamin Kerstein's Diary of an anti-Chomskyite but question the insertion into the actual article itself, there are inherent issues which arise from this concerning the nature of the encyclopedia. Issues involving privileges of certain POV's etc based on self sustaining sources. If you get my meaning Benjamin...--Zleitzen 09:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see the problem. Chomsky himself makes highly tendentious comments about those he criticizes and these are noted on this page and Chomsky's own page. Most of the criticisms cited here quote and cite Chomsky extensively. They are no more ad hominem than many of Chomsky's own arguments. While there may be more controversial figures than Chomsky, in intellectual circles he is extremely divisive and something of a cottage industry has grown up around criticizing him. I think this justifies its own page. The size of the page itself would seem to indicate the interest people have in the subject.--ben-ze'ev 10:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The size of the page should be determined by clarity and coherence, not by the interest people have in the subject, Benjamin. This piece is now 4000 words and three times larger than the entry for Italy for example. The other Chomsky pages are no more concise. There is also a danger that this page could begin to serve as an extended webspace for the cottage industry you describe involving the self sustaining methods mentioned above. This is not the role of Wikipedia and is explicitly discouraged by policy. There are problems here that need to be addressed before the restructuring of this page. Which criticisms are genuinely of note, and who makes them.--Zleitzen 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that the fact that someone criticises someone else deserves to be writen into an encyclopedia. It may be worth noting substantiated claims, if someone states that chomsky frequently quotes out of context in a misleading manner then, sure, find a couple of examples, reference them and write the statement "Chomsky frequently quotes out of context in a misleading manner". An encyclopedia has to be well referenced, objective and a filter of background noise. I'm not sure about this next point, what do you think...should criticisms that can be refuted be analysed with respect thre motives? Chomksy asays much that is not popular and in certain cases it may be clear to see that he is being smeared because he is seen as a threat. This would be of significant interest to me if I where lookng for background on someone. Calvin Jones
Why does Chomsky have more criticsm on here than Hitler? We've apparently decided to allow just about anyone who has disagreed with Chomsky, and somehow elevated what is often just academic name-calling (see Horowitz) to the level of encyclopedic material. I may be alone on this one (especially on this page), but the fact that this subject has its own wiki page might be more a function of who spends their time on here than anything else. Then again, wiki even has porn biographies... so maybe the blatant disrespect, slander and bias from this community is a back-handed complement.Palenque 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horowitz

I deleted the description of critics of Horowitz as 'rightist' - the antiwar.com site cited clearly isn't. Not sure if this was a typo or a misunderstanding.--Jack Upland 04:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Antiwar.com identifies itself as a right-wing libertarian website; they're "paleoconservatives". David Sneek 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

this section is also woefully lacking. horowitz's criticism of chomsky is much more complicated than is presented here. ben-ze'ev 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz is a fringe conservative (in anywhere outside of the US) and has demonstrated a reactionary and borderline racist character on other subjects. I put it to you: Who cares what this man says about Chomsky? Palenque 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting and enjoyable response. Chomsky wrote the same thing about others when asked to critique his own page. He wonders why people that are easily shown to be incorrect are given so much weight when discussing him. I tend to agree with him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk • contribs).
One might ask who cares what Chomsky (or User:72.208.38.164) cares about Horowitz. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of "Anti-Semitism"

I removed the phrase about Hamas and Hezbollah calling for the destruction of Israel and establishment of an Islamist state. Although some members of Hamas have called for that, I think that's an oversimplification of their position. After all, Yasir Arafat did recognize Israel's right to exist in an official letter.

Chomsky has never, ever called for the "dismantling" of Israel. That is an outright lie, and I challenge the author to corroborate it. Chomsky was calling for a two-state settlement long before Dershowitz was, for example. Chomsky coined the term "International Consensus". Does this sound like a person in favor of 'dismantling' Israel? Additionally, the criticisms listed under "Criticisms from Pro-Palestinian Activists" directly contradict these claims, and are much more accurate. -- Chris Caesar

You have either not read Chomsky or are deliberately distorting his record. Both Peace in the Middle East? and The Fateful Triangle clearly advocate a bi-national state. He has also stated many times that he favors a one-state solution with religious/semi-political autonomy for the Jewish community. In other words, a dismantling of Israel as a sovreign Jewish state. This is in keeping with his claims to be in sympathy with the pre-state ideology of the left wing of the Kibbutz movement. He has supported a two-state solution only since the recent publication of the Geneva Accords. Chomsky has made the recent claim that he has supported a two-state solution since the 1970s, and "this is an outright lie" as you put it. I suggest you reread Peace in Middle East?, chapter 1. As for coining the term "International Consensus", are you serious? Its been a common diplomatic term for a century. No doubt there are pro-Palestinian activists who consider Chomsky's position inadequate. There are disgreements even among extremists. Especially among extremists. ben-ze'ev 06:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
He has advocated a few different solutions depending on the situation. His initial concept was a one-state solution. Later it became unreasonable, and he changed to a two state solution with each state granted the rights afforded to all other states, even though he believes the rights afforded to states unreasonable. He has also stated that he is not for any state as a Jewish state, or a state based on race. He has said that a state should be an organization of it's people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk • contribs).

could someone please add citations to the section on "anti-semetism?" some of these quotes seem quite far-fetched.

Someone has removed the entirety of this section and left only Chomsky's defense of himself. This is absurd. It removes all description of the criticism of Chomsky from a page whose topic is criticism of Chomsky. one cannot have a section on accusations of anti-semitism which erases the accusations themselves. This is what I mean by a serious problem of balance on this page. There is an obvious tendency to skew the issue Chomsky's way. As for citations, one of Chomsky's books is mentioned as are the names of several of his critics and the nature of their criticism of him. These author's works are listed in the weblinks below, so it should not be a problem for people to verify their statements. i believe "the fateful triangle" is also online at ZMag's chomsky archive. i have restored the full version of the section, and i believe it should be allowed to stand. i have removed nothing of chomsky's defense of himself, so i believe the section is balanced. certainly, it is more balanced than before. ben-ze'ev 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben-Ze'Ev,

I will outline my problems with the section in question:

"Chomsky has, for instance, compared Israel to Nazi Germany on several occasions; a use of rhetoric many Jewish critics consider offensive and deliberately slanderous" -- -- Where did he say this? There is not even a mention of a book, let alone a public utterance to support this allegation. You cannot make such a serious accusation, and then expect readers to sift through a huge number of links on the bottom in an attempt to find the instance in question. Please support this, or else I will be compelled resort to other measures to ensure that neutrality is restored to this page.

"Alexander Cockburn, who made Jewish conspiracy claims in regards to Zionism and Israel; Norman Finkelstein, whose work has been reproduced on Holocaust denial websites and who has claimed that the Holocaust is exploited by Jews for monetary reasons." -- -- The debate on whether Alexander Cockburn is an anti-semite is unsettled. A truly neutral page would echno the unsettled nature of this debate, as opposed to using loaded, usubstantiated evidence to support its claims. Eric Alterman, a fellow columnist of Cockburn's at the nation, may indeed believe that Cockburn is an anti-semite. But there is no overwhelming opinion on this subject. Norman Finkelstein, on the other hand, has no control over where his work is published. If a deluded Holocaust-denier republishes his work, that does not, in any way, suggest an endorsement by Finkelstein of Holocaust denial. Finkelstein, as the record indisputably indicates, has become sadly too familiar with the catastrophe: he is the son of two Holocaust survivors. Were this context provided, these allegations of anti-semitism would lose much of their edge. Again, I ask that you take these objections into consideration if you truly wish to maintain a neutral overview of criticism of Chomsky.

The dedication for Norman Finkelstein's first book, by the way, reads:

"To my beloved parents,

Maryla Husyt Finkelstein, survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, Maidanek concentration camp

and

Zacharias Finkelstein, survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, Auschwitz concentration camp.

May I never forget or forgive what was done to them."


"Chomsky has echoed Shahak's claims, which many critics consider indistinguishable from anti-semitic rhetoric, in his own writings, particularly in The Fateful Triangle." -- -- Which claims? Again, if such serious accusations of Chomsky's work are going to be made, then specifics will have to be provided. This sentence does not point to a single sentence within the book, much less offer even a page number that the casual reader could refer to. Again, simply dropping the name of a book does not suffice. There is a higher burden of proof for those who seek to call Chomsky's work into such serious question on this site.

"Chomsky has also made statements of his own in regards to Jewish power and influence in the United States, charging, for instance, that anti-semitism is exploited by the Jews, who are "the most privileged" group in America, in order to gain total control rather than partial control over America. Many critics consider such statements mere reiterations of standard anti-semitic conspiracy theories in regards to Jewish power. It especially echoes, many have noted, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." -- -- I have actually read the full context of Chomsky's quote in question here. It does not draw these conclusions. In fact, Chomsky is discussing the anti-semitism prevalent on college campuses during his early years in college. It's a fairly inoccuous quote, and that is not reflected at ALL in the way it is portayed on this page. Furthermore, invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is completely unwarranted when Chomsky has a.) made no mention of them, b.) displayed no intent to echo even the spirit of the protocols, c.) made these remarks in a context that is entirely contrary to the thrust of the protocols.

These points are only a beginning. I will take the time to compile a far more exhaustive critique of the supposed "neutrality" of this page. In the meantime, I would suggest we take the time to revise these passages if we are truly concerned about maintaining balance.

Balance is not achieved simply by giving Chomsky an equivalent amount of space as baseless, inflammatory criticisms. It is achieved by carefully and critically evaluating all content, and ensuring that legitimate scholarly viewpoints are given due consideration at the expense of scurrilous slander.

  • Norman Finkelstein, this page fails to mention, is the son of two Holocaust survivors.
Which makes his rhetoric all the more disgusting. Ten Dead Chickens 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You simply prove my point. You have no idea what you are talking about and simply take Chomsky's statements as objective truth. Finkelstein may be the descendent of survivors. So are many of the people he accuses of exploiting the Holocaust. Some of them, such as Elie Wiesel, are survivors themselves. Mr. Finkelstein's ancestry is totally irrelevent to his writings on the Holocaust or what his critics say about them. Nothing written about him here is untrue in any way. His writings have been reproduced on Holocaust denial sites and he quite openly accuses Jews and Zionists of exploiting the Holocaust. In fact, he considers the Holocaust itself a historiographical construction designed to serve Jewish interests.
As for Shahak, I suggest you learn to read. I wrote that Shahak considers traditional Judaism genocidal and racist. This is true. I have written that Chomsky has echoed this claim in The Fateful Triangle. This is also true. I have written that he has been criticized for this, most notably by Werner Cohn. This is also true. I would note that when Anti-War.com is mentioned in the Horowitz section, their position is simply paraphrased. There is no quote or specific reference given. The section on accusations of anti-Americanism does the same. Apparently, pro-Chomsky claims are acceptable no matter what, but for Chomsky's critics there is "a higher burden of proof." You expose yourself as biased by your own words.
As for Chomsky on Jewish power, you have not even read the quote in question, which does not refer to anti-semitism in his youth but rather to power relations in America today. Critics have compared it Jewish conspiracy theories, of which the Protocols are the oldest and most well-known.
As I have said, Chomsky's critics have made their claims or they have not. If this page wishes to be objective or balanced in any way it must grant them their say. I have no objection to citing Chomsky's rebuttals, many of which are irrelevent and nonsensical. Nor do I object to citing defenses of Chomsky from others. I do object to suppressing and erasing criticisms of Chomsky in a craven attempt to pretend that such criticisms do not exist or should not be taken seriously. The latter is for readers to decide, not you.--ben-ze'ev 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for disgusting rhetoric, there is nothing more disgusting than people so afraid of the truth they have to resort to censorship and suppression in order to escape it.--ben-ze'ev 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ben,

your argument that I take chomsky's statements to be "objective truth" is abjectly false: I welcome a page outlining criticisms of Chomsky's work, but merely ask that it be substantiated with documentation and accessible evidence. the page, as it currently stands, does not offer ANY documentation for the most scurrilous accusations contained within (please see my previous post on this discussion page, and refer again to a number of arguments that you simply chose to ignore).

you have not responded to, or even acknowledged, my request for citations and evidence. you cannot depend on readers to scroll to the bottom of the page and wade through lines and lines of links to see what you are referring to.

your use of the term "historical construction" to describe norm finkelstein's views is reprehensible and reckless. you have again conveniently failed to acknowledge my argument: the reproduction of finkelstein's work on websites operated by individuals outside of his control in NO way can be construed as an endorsement of their work by him. moreover, criticism of a holocaust survivor is not sufficient to demonstrate anti-semitism or holocaust denial. if you intend to make such a claim, please provide evidence or citations that would point one to the nature of such criticism, as opposed to its mere existence, so that the claim may be fairly evaluated by readers. please do not simply assume that your views are in sync with objective reality, and then tailor this page accordingly.

truth, additionally, is not the only issue here. context matters as well, and that is precisely why I dispute the neutrality of this page. the context of finkelstein's criticisms (namely, that they are coming from a son of holocaust survivors, and from someone that has consistently acknowledged not only its existence but its raw cruelty) is noticeably absent.

if you do not feel that I have read the Chomsky quote you allude to, then I invite you to post it here so that I may read it. and please include context as well. i want to know the EXACT circumstances in which the quote was said, and that includes not only the lecture or book from which the quote has been lifted, but the sentences preceding and succeeding the quote in question.

perhaps chomsky indeed echoed shahak's claim in his book "fateful triangle." but where is your PROOF? can you offer a page number? can you link to an excerpt of the book where he echoes this claim? until you are able to do this, making unwarranted leaps in logic and trying to link chomsky to the protocols of the elders of zion remains an unwarranted exercise at best, and a vile exercise in character assasination at worst.

other portions of this article clearly need to be removed as well, as you point out in the example of antiwar.com, for they do not offer citations. if you do not provide these citations, i may request a deletion of this page. but destroying one's reputation through unsubstantiated claims is far worse than neglecting to cite articles in favor of them. therefore, the "higher burden of proof" that applies to you is perfectly reasonable, and in no way implies a bias: mere conjecture cannot be tolerated on a page when the academic and scholarly reputation of someone is being brought into such serious question. you need to be able to back up what you say, and you have proven absolutely unable to do so thus far.

in the meantime, I will continue to erase the said section. i feel that we can ultimately opt to be reasonable about this and present a fair overview of criticisms, but until then this page is woefully inadequate.

By all means continue erasing this page, and I will keep reinstating it. If you request a deletion I will challenge it. Such a request would, in any case, be outright censorship and obviously reprehensible. You are quite clearly concerned with protecting Chomsky's reputation (as well as Finkelstein's apparently) and nothing else. You state as much quite openly: "destroying one's reputation through unsubstantiated claims is far worse than neglecting to cite articles in favor of them." Besides being hysterical, since I very much doubt Chomsky's reputation is in danger from anything on Wikipedia, it is also fundamentally absurd. Why don't we simply create a "Chomsky is God" page and be done with it?
You also seem deeply deluded about my actual role here. I am not making any claims whatsoever. I am recording the claims of Chomsky's critics, none of which have been set forth inaccurately in this article. You seem to prefer that the article consist entirely of quotes from Chomsky. In which case, why don't you spend your time reading his books instead of foisting your prejudices on the rest of us.
I do not see where I have ignored any of your arguments. Perhaps you should write with more concision and then you could remember what you actually wrote.
Your claims regarding Norman Finkelstein are absurd. I did not write that he is anti-semitic, I wrote that he is widely considered to be anti-semitic. In fact, this was understating the case, he is almost universally considered anti-semitic. If you dispute this, you are ignorant of Jewish politics in general and Jewish attitudes towards the Holocaust in particular. As for his views on the Holocaust, read his book, he hardly makes a secret of them. He does not deny the Holocaust, and no one claims he does. He does claim that the way the Holocaust is presented and how it is percieved in Western culture is a historiographical construction in service of Jewish interests. Again, Finkelstein is quite open about this.
I agree that context matters, which is precisely why I have provided accurate and truthful descriptions of the criticisms against Chomsky rather than leaving Chomsky's description of them to stand alone. A situation you apparently prefer. Furthermore, if in your opinion I "cannot depend on readers to scroll to the bottom of the page and wade through lines and lines of links to see what you are referring to" than it says more about your contempt for the readers of this page than anything to do with me. What I have added to this page is as well attributed as information on many other pages, including what others have contributed to this one. Your demands are unreasonable and obviously disengenuous, and are furthermore typical of pro-Chomsky participants, for whom no amount of proof or documentation can suffice if it dares question the great professor's reputation. As for Chomsky's reputation, I must again emphasize, I am not claiming anything. These are the positions of Chomsky's critics and they have a right to be heard, even if you don't like what they have to say.
Finally, I must emphasize the obvious. This is not a page on Chomsky, it is a page on his critics. The "higher burden of proof" therefore, is upon people like you who wish to suppress any such criticisms.--ben-ze'ev 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For your unlikely edification, the quote:

By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal.

Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East. With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what’s called ‘propaganda’ when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there’s no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there’s no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish ‘that’ then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there’s talk in the US about anti-Semitism.''--ben-ze'ev 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben,

So that we are clear on every single point of contention, and so that no arguments go ignored any longer, let's begin with a point-by-point engagement. Let's begin with what I find to be one of the most troubling lapses in neutrality on this page: perhaps chomsky echoes shahak's claim in his book "fateful triangle." but where is your PROOF? can you offer a page number? can you link to an excerpt?

pp. 443-446 are quite clear in referring to traditional Judaism (as constrasted with Enlightened thinking) is racist and genocidal. The Bible is also referred to as genocidal. Chomsky's critics consider this anti-semitic and believe it is an echo of Shahak's claims, see the Werner Cohn link.--ben-ze'ev 12:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source for the nasty remark about "privileged people" (what a hilarious euphemism in light of the obvious context) desiring "total control" is the transcript of a speech found on this page:

http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html

Ben Ze'ev, I haven't read "The Fateful Triangle", so I am unfamiliar with its content. However, thanks to our marvelous friend, the internet, the text of the book can be searched through on this page:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745315305/qid=1140788994/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-6325799-8556007?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Quick searches for "Shahak" and "racism" pull up many pages. (Something I hadn't seen until now, which is a bit much even for Chomsky, is his assertion on pps. 488-489 that Israel was running some kind of Palestinian slave trade. As an aside, I wonder if Chomsky has ever written a word about the very real and brutal slavery in Sudan and Mauritania. Perhaps he is too busy penning fantastical tales to fight real human rights abusers.)

--Benl47 14:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben147 and Ben Ze'ev,

You have failed to add an important qualification to Shahak's work — one that any cursory reader of Wikipedia would identify upon casually looking up the man's name. His criticisms have been directed towards an orthodox interpretation of Judaism. Just as it is fair to argue that orthodox interpretations of Islam or Christianity can lead to undesirable results and mistaken conclusions, Shahak's thesis, with this qualification, is not nearly as extreme or as hateful as you would have one believe.

Moreover, given the emphasis I place on fair context, you have also neglected to mention that Shahak himself is a victim of the Holocaust. Whether or not you believe this in diminishes the supposed anti-Semitism of his views, readers must nevertheless be offered this information as they make their own assessments. To you, it may be irrelevant. But others (myself included), feel that it affords them a unique perspsective on the issues they tackle, and to exclude mention of such a profoundly troubling personal catastrophe (one that frequently ties into what they argue) is to ignore the figurative elephant in the backyard.

Ben Ze'ev, I remain unsatisfied with this page, and I will continue to dispute the portions in question.

To the author of the post above (please sign your name), I never made any particular claim about Shahak. I simply provided a source for the "total control" remark that has apparently been removed from the main page, and a link for the other Ben so that he will be able to cite his source regarding the Chomsky-Shahak connection. That said, Shahak's statement that orthodox Jews worship Satan is a repulsive and awe-inspiring mendacity (many members of my family are orthodox, so orthodox Judaism is not a foreign concept to me; this probably is not the case for the vast majority of people who will read Shahak's work). However, this is not the place to argue over Shahak or his grotesque views. We are here to establish the legitimacy of the various criticisms of Chomsky, since many of his followers insist on eliminating portions on a whim.

--Benl47 16:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben, Shahak may indeed make incorrect claims about orthodox Jewish worship (I have no reason to doubt you on this matter, and hold the highest regards for your religious views), but his focus (however mistaken its assertions may be) remains confined to orthodox Jews. As a Jew and a Holocaust survivor, a far more convincing case will have to be made in order to 1.) label him an anti-Semite (and thereby an opponent of ALL Jews, and not merely the government of Israel or orthodox Jews), and 2.) to then make an effort to tarnish Chomsky through a scholarly association with portions of Shahak's work. Because the page, as written, employed this very strategy, the unsettled controversy over the nature of Shahak's work remains pertinent to our discussion. An additional implication of this argument is that even if citations of Shahak in "Fateful Triangle" are produced, it would still take a leap in logic to label Chomsky anti-Semitic.

I would like to conclude with a response to your characterization of Chomsky's remarks regarding Jews and anti-Semitism in America — "the nasty remark about 'privileged people' ... desiring 'total control'." Whereas I personally disagree with Chomsky in his characterization of Jews as the MOST privileged group in America (I happen to feel that there are a multitude of racial and ethnic minorities, Jews included, who enjoy more relative prosperity on a large scale than others, just as there are underprivileged minorities), I fail to catch the same whiff of anti-Semitism that you have. Chomsky's remark on "privileged people" seeking to expand control to an absolute level was not directed at Jews specifically. Instead, it was made at any group that he considers privileged (and he believes there are many, as any casual Chomsky reader should quickly learn).

I also have a hard time believing that Chomsky, as a Jew who began higher education at a time of pervasive anti-Semitism on American universities (as he vividly describes in this talk), could plausibly be called anti-Semitic. It seems to me that a much more convincing case will have to be made.

Respectfully, Reuven (how do I sign my posts like you did?)

Hello Reuven (to sign it like I did, you have to click the little icon second from the right above the editing text box),

It is not my purpose to contend that Chomsky is an anti-Semite. Readers can make whatever judgments for themselves. My sole point is that they should be given the information. The veracity of that quote has been substantiated by the source I provided. In light of this, it can fairly be added to the "Criticisms" page.

(On a side note, I didn't mean to imply that I, myself, am orthodox. I am too undisciplined, unfortunately haha. But many people in my family are, and any sane human being understands that Shahak's suggestion is ludicrous, to say the least.)

--Benl47 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Noam Chomsky probably deserves a category all his own. In light of his having written an introduction to a book by Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson - who also spoke at the Iranian hate-fest - Chomsky should now be known as a Jew for Holocaust Deniers. Chomsky has claimed that he was only defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, but that defense rings hollow. " Jews for Ahmadinejad

[edit] Pentagon Payments

I seem to remember an issue being made of Noam Chomsky actually receiving payments for consulting work done for the U.S. military, despite his criticisms of U.S. policies, see no reference here though..

Yep, that's also true. If anyone needs a source for that, Peter Schweizer discusses it in his book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)". --Benl47 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The above assertion is incorrect. Noam Chomsky did not reeceive payments for consulting work. Rather, some funding for research for his linguistics book "Syntactic Structures" was provided by the U.S. Army.

Perhaps "consulting" is not the proper word. Here are a few quotes from pages 20-22 of Schweizer's book (hopefully this constitutes Fair Use):

To hear Chomsky describe it, the Pentagon has got to be one of the most evil institutions in world history. He has called it several times "the most hideous institution on this earth" and declares that it "constitutes a menace to human life." (...) So imagine my surprise when I discovered Chomsky's lucrative secret: He himself has been paid millions by the Pentagon over the last forty years. (...) He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research. Though Chomsky says that American corporations "are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism," he apparently didn't mind taking money from them, either, because the Eastman Kodak Corporation also provided financial support. His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division. (...) Why would the Pentagon fund research into linguistics? Were they simply interested in advancing science? Chomsky would call anyone who believed such a thing supremely naïve. As Chomsky well knew, his work in linguistics was considered vital by the air force and others to improve their "increasingly large investment in so-called 'command and control' computer systems" that were being used "to support our forces in Vietnam." As air force colonel Edmund P. Gaines put it in 1971, "Since the computer cannot 'understand' English, the commanders' queries must be translated into a language that the computer can deal with; such languages resemble English very little, either in their form or in the ease with which they are learned and used."

(I had to put it in the form of a giant paragraph because of Wiki formatting problems) --Benl47 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DO NOT revert so fast, please!

I am adding the supporting documentation! AWM -- 68.122.118.161 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap. My mistake. I would've expected more from Chomsky. Mego'brien

You wanna balance it out better? Be my guess. Otherwise, he take the hit in the nuts like the rest of us mere mortals. Ya know, old people are supposed to KNOW when they are losing their touch and when it is time to be more careful. You can undo a lot of reputation in those last few years if you are not careful. Of course, autopsies sometime give kooky old people an out. My impression is that Noam would benefit from having a little more flak to screen and vet these proprosals for interviews. If he only gave 50 interviews next year rather than 100, he might be better off in the long run. Nikki is bitch slapping Noam where is counts and he deserves it. The man did it to himself. -- 68.122.118.161 07:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As historians, I think that our best approach is to let this tempest in a teapot stand. If such gaffs by Chomsky are not repeated, we may be able to conclude that this Hustler interview was anomalous and remove it. Give it a year and see how things go. -- 68.122.118.161 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Craft respect Chomsky on the whole, but she chose to take him to task on this matter. -- 68.122.118.161 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sphexus

Sphexus is reverting and making changes to the Talk page w/o signing. It is a new account making Chomsky-only edit and it displays a pro-Chomsky bias. Keep an eye on what that account is doing. If Sphexus does one more thing w/o signing, call in the admins. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section on anti-semitism is being constantly censored, I will presume by Sphexus. The page is already marked as disputed, enough is enough.--ben-ze'ev 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're right, and I apologize. The best solution for now is to allow readers to understand the substance of this dispute by referring to this page, and I will refrain from deletions.

[edit] The Funny Thing

All this debate about balance and bias. I think there may be some valid criticism of Chomsky, but much of what I see here are Ad hominem and/or unintentional (I hope) Straw man fallacies being used to back up the criticism.

I say, if people want that sort of criticism listed here, fine, but I don't understand why. Not if they were serious about it. Much of the criticism here collapses under any sort of scrutiny. At least, it does when it is not cited vaguely or selectively and/ or sloppily in such a way as to provide a distorted picture. -sigh- Which is problematic, sadly in much of this article.

I've no problem with an article about criticism, but if it can't stand without distorting the facts or misrepresenting them, there's no criticism. If you can't find sources that aren't biased or don't present logical arguments, you might not have sources, which is also a problem.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 04:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

You seem to misunderstand the intention of this article. If Chomsky's critics use such arguments, it is not the concern of this article. It is detailing criticism and what it contains, that is all. You seem more concerned with protecting Chomsky than presenting his critics honestly. You're statement that "Much of the criticism here collapses under any sort of scrutiny" indicates a fairly clear bias. Many people think the same of Chomsky's work. You may not agree with what his critics say, but that is not the same as reporting that criticism inaccurately.--ben-ze'ev 07:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant that bias is a good thing to keep vigilant for. I think we actually agree about a key point in this, though.
"It is detailing criticism and what it contains, that is all."
&
"I've no problem with an article about criticism, but if it can't stand without distorting the facts or misrepresenting them, there's no criticism,"
......seem to be mighty compatible. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Citing clearly

[Chomsky was further criticized for his personal friendship with Serge Thion (who has links with Holocaust-deniers), as well as for the fact that Noontide Press, the publishing arm of the revisionist Institute for Historical Review, published The Fateful Triangle -- a move that saved the beleaguered publisher and institute. ]

The preceding text needs to be cited clearly. Whose criticisms are these?

Also, if the source needs to clearly demonstrate that Chomsky has a personal friendship with Serge Thion by establishing more than simply, "Chomsky was contacted by Thion" and "Chomsky subsequently wrote an essay defending civil liberties for one of Thion's friends". The word "personal" implies "close", which is not necessarily shown by facts thus far.

Also, the fact that a book of Chomsky's was published by another company does not necessarily show anything other than the fact that the company that owns the rights to publish Chomsky's works allowed Noontide Press to publish it. Publishing decisions are often made by the publishers, not the authors. Unless the source for this establishs that this case is somehow an exception to this, it may not be adaquate as support.

It would also need to be shown by the source that the publishing of the book in question saved the publisher from a specific fate (I would assume bankruptcy but it's not clear as to what it was saved from).

If your citation takes on a different meaning because it is cited incompletely or out of context, it renders the respectability of the source moot.

Please, remember: WP:V & Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Attribution_and_citation. There is much here that is so vaguely or poorly cited that it should be deleted. To those of you who contributed such material, it is up to you to clean it up. Many of us may attempt to verify or clean up for you, but if this is not done, such material does not belong.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Public Speaking

All I want to say is that I attended 3 lectures, the first time because I knew him from linguisitcs and not for his politics. thte Other 2 times to get a sense of what he was doing. I never got a linguistics question in, and learned nothing about what he thinks, only what he dislikes. Or to put it another way I learned more in 20 minutes on wikipedia than at 4.5 hours of lectures and Q&A. This may be POV to some extent but it is also an objective critique in that hopefully someone else will find it useful for figuring out how best to spend their time.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please do not add POV material to wikipedia. Ex. "Chomsky's lectures are boring, a better source are the internet, books, etc..." I have deleted the section and will delete it again if it is reverted.--Jersey Devil 14:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even Chomsky says hes not a good speaker --- revert (bottom of page for quote) [3] If not of practical importance, it is at least of historical note. Maybe it belongs in his biographic information? FOr what its worth I found the quote by trying to find someone on google who says Noam chomsky is a good speaker. Mrdthree 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The section is POV, it has been reverted before by other posters for the same reasons. NPOV is taken very seriously on Wikipedia and statements like "he is boring, better sources are his books and the internet" are POV. Please refrain from reverting the article or I will be forced to ask an administrator to take some action in protecting this page. This article is already horribly written as is with the multiple "geocities" and random blogs being linked as sources.--Jersey Devil 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please address or have an administrator address my central claim: it is of practical and historical note to know that he is not a good speaker, and that he himself admits this as a failing. I think it is an issue of note, and I could have used it before deciding to go to three lectures, thinking the first were aberrations. Mrdthree 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the quote (if sourced from a reputable source) could and should be included in the article. However, that section must be trimmed of the POV aspects such as "he is boring...see his books and internet that is better..etc..." (See WP:POV for Wikipedia Policy).--Jersey Devil 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that criticism of Chomsky's public speaking be attributed to even ONE of the supposedly "many" people who criticize it? Aren't perceptions of the effectiveness of a given individual's public speaking skills inherently subjective, including when directed against oneself? Is Chomsky suddenly an expert on making such subjective judgments, even when offering modest characterizations of his own abilities? By your logic, if Chomsky said Bush was a terrible public speaker, what's to stop us from devoting an entire section on the Chomsky page and treating the statement as an utterance of the gospel truth, as you apparently seem to treat his self-characterization?

This is an already lousy page, becoming lousier by the day. To save Wikipedia's material on Chomsky at least a little bit of face, I insist that this shoddy section be improved immediately, or I will resort to removing it. -- Reuven

[edit] RE: Misquotation

Maybe in the copy of the 2nd Book of Kings Ahab does call Elijah a "hater of Israel", like in the origianl Hebrew edition? User:Merlov 10:52, 13 March 2006

In the original Hebrew, Ahab calls him a troubler of Israel. Elijah replies with the same verb detailing Ahab's idolatry and corruption. The context therefore clearly denotes an action and not an emotion, i.e. what Ahab is saying is "why are you causing..." not "why do you feel..." and Elijah responds in kind. The word in question, incidentally, is עכר "ocher". Ahab says האתה זה עכר ישראל. In its literal sense, the word denotes muddiness or impurity in water. So Ahab is accusing Elijah of poisoning Israel or rendering it impure. Its from the First Book of Kings 18:17. In the Hebrew, the Book of Kings is not divided in two.
Chabad.org, which can be expected to hew closely to the Hebrew, tanslates the verse: "And it was when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said to him, "Is this you, the one who brings trouble upon Israel?"--ben-ze'ev 07:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much on Horowitz

There is way too much info in the Horowitz section. The large section which details his book could be briefy summarized. I'll give folks a week to decide before any action is to be taken. --Zleitzen 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The book is not only Horowitz's, it contains articles by many different authors. Most of them are cited nowhere else in the article and should be mentioned. Horowitz is also Chomsky's most prominant critic and thus deserves a detailed section. In my opinion, there is far too much Chomsky in this article. Almost half the text is taken up with quotes and/or summaries of his statements in defense of himself.--ben-ze'ev 07:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Benjamin. I agree that there are too many Chomsky quotes, which are plainly too long. These too needs to be cleaned up. And I also understand that the nature of Horowitz and Colliers book doesn't lend itself easily to summary. But I believe the whole piece needs to be condensed and clarified for the sake of the encyclopedia itself. In respect to the book, if a reader needs more detailed information than a summary can give, then they can check on numerous other sites. Horowitz is hardly an internet wall-flower after all! --Zleitzen 08:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to moving the description of the book to a seperate page so long as it is linked to the main article on Horowitz.--ben-ze'ev 10:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A summary on the Chomsky Criticisms page and a link to a seperate page detailing the book would clarify the entry.--Zleitzen 11:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"The book is not only Horowitz's, it contains articles by many different authors."

Then the criticisms of the other authors need to be in a different section than Horowitz's. Furthermore, this is not an article titled "Critics of Noam Chomsky". It is titled "Criticism of Noam Chomsky". Perhaps a small, but important distinction to make.

As such, the information should be organized by "Chomsky assertion (or stance) being challenged), not by critic. So Horowitz's criticisms, should be filed under whatever categories apply, not under a section titled, "Criticism by Horowitz". We want this article to make sense to readers, yes?

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, the Horowitz section contributes with little facts, it seems to be more about how much Horowitz dislikes Chomsky.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.238.215.110
The Horowitz section has already been considerably shortened. He is by far Chomsky's most prominant conservative critic and deserves the space he has.--ben-ze'ev 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Benjamin, would you mind casting an eye over the "anti-chomsky reader" page prehaps adding more detail and context to the the preamble if appropriate. --Zleitzen 11:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure.--ben-ze'ev 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about the length of his section, just that this article is called "Criticism of Noam Chomsky" not "Critics of Noam Chomsky". The title implies that the article be organized by issue of criticism, not by critic. Furthermore, I think it's easier to read what the criticisms are if they are organized by issue, rather than scattered primarily under different critic headings.
The summary of what I propose is: organizing by Issue of Criticism, with sub-headings under each "Issue" section for sub-issues when needed. (Example= Issue Section: Allegations of Chomsky Anti-semiticism, sub-section: Faurisson Affair.)
Again, this is not an article about any one critic, let alone Horowitz. The prominence of any particular critic will be evident as the article is read, especially if a name keeps coming up, I don't think we need to "lead horses to water" here. Besides, the sum of what he has said against Chomsky is gathered at his article too, is it not?
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Criticism from anarchists

I think this entire article comes from a highly pro-Chomsky POV, but I wanted to point out another problematic section that nobody else has written about so far on the talk page.

The section on "Criticism from Anarchists" is strongly POV, being heavily biased toward a defense of Chomsky against such criticism. The characterization of his critics as "politically exclusivistic anarchists" is blatantly POV. It should be noted that Chomsky is a very controversial figure within Anarchism, with many people having strong opinions of him, both pro and con. It should also be noted that John Zerzan is far from the only anarchist critic of Chomsky.

I'll also point out that Chomsky's generally-positive views on third-world socialism are extremely at odds with any school of anarchist thought. Anarchists hold that "socialism" as practiced in China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. is not socialism at all, but rather authoritarian state capitalism. In particular, Chomsky's affinity for Maoism and his past defense of the Khmer Rouge is profoundly at odds with any kind of anti-authoritarian political standpoint at all. Anarchists do not seek to build an egalitarian socialist society at the point of a gun and strongly condemn those who do; insofar as Chomsky has shown comradeship to such violent authoritarian "humanitarians", he's fallen far short of his professed anarchism. Peter G Werner 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just say that. You have to quote notable anarchists saying it. Additionally, you are wrong. Chomsky has praised the good and condemned the bad in the regimes he describes; this goes for China, Cambodia, the US... but overall he says that all these regimes should be replaced by libertarian socialism. — Gulliver ✉ 06:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1/30/07: As an anarchist, I thought this section's first sentence remains POV where it says he's "generally" respected among anarchists. Is there some sort of polling of anarchists to justify that claim? ;-) ONLY anarchists who criticize Chomsky are mentioned in the entire section, so really, it appears that Werner or others have shown anarchists against Chomsky, and now YOUR side (Gulliver's) should quote anarchists who favor Chomsky to at least partially justify the 1st sentence saying he's "generally" accepted by anarchists: but unless an actual poll is available, I think this unfounded "generally"/generalization should be removed altogether.

Have removed a couple of lines referring to the "politically exclusivistic anarchists" which as Peter G Werner noted were POV and misleading. However, the remaining points, would need to be verified / justified. --Zleitzen 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The removal of "politically exlusivistic anarchists" is a step in the right direction. I realize I need to find quotes by anarchist authors, but I'm just pointing out to whoever is actively working on this article that anarchist criticism of Chomsky goes beyond just John Zerzan. I would say criticism is particularly strong among Post-left anarchists.
And Gulliver, I'm not wrong about this - I've read enough quotes by Chomsky praising Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban communism to know that he at least offers "critical support" to these systems. Admittedly, some of these quotes are old, so if he's refuted these positions, I'd love to know when he did so. Knowing Chomsky, however, he probably hasn't refuted anything - one of the problems with Chomsky (and this is a criticism that goes beyond anarchist critique) is that he can never admit he was wrong about anything. Unfortunately, those worshiping at the alter of Chomsky are utterly blind to. Peter G Werner 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"his past defense of the Khmer Rouge"

So let's get this straight. Chomsky and that co-author were apparently talking about "mass atrocities committed by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge". They seemed to be discussing that the media has had a hand in "downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

I don't see how that is defending the Khmer Rouge. They were talking about the Khmer Rouge, to illustrate something about the way media was operating. The actual subject of their discussion was the media. Furthermore, the language describes atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge. If I said that you had committed atrocities, I fail to see how I'm defending you.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Restructuring and removals

Have restructured the article somewhat and removed two paragraphs concerned with Chomsky's public speaking and the Hustler incident feeling that they are trivial and undermine the more important critisisms elsewhere. The Public Speaking section was just plain pointless I afraid, we may as well have a section saying that critics find Chomsky ugly and dull. The Hustler incident felt trivial and tedious. I know people have argued for its inclusion above, but on a page that is already struggling under the weight of greater criticisms and heavily cited points it's just not important enough to warrant inclusion. It's a minor episode of marginal interest. --Zleitzen 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The restructuring strikes me as fair and acceptable.--ben-ze'ev 07:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should concisely outline the various sourced notable criticisms of Chomsky's work and no more. What this page should not be is

  • An endless list of sourceless or marginal criticisms, critics say Chomsky is a heretic or critics point to Chomsky's alleged occultism blah blah blah.
  • A detailed critical attack of Chomsky's failings, and/or a dumping ground for those who wish to express their grievances against Chomsky's writing. ie long paragraphs saying Chomsky stated in 1977 that the Soviets... blah blah blah ...which contradicts what he said in 1995... etc. If relevant it needs to be concisely summarized and sourced. If folks need to know more details they can look it up.
  • A further forum for Chomsky's POV on various issues containing disproportionate rebuttals. There is already a Chomsky's Political views page. The priority here is for the criticisms, if appropriate Chomsky's response should be noted but given secondary importance. --Zleitzen 18:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, so long as the concept of "notable criticisms" is not used as a pretext for removing important criticisms that may be considered "marginal" by Chomsky's supporters. Horowitz, for instance, has been dismissed in this manner.--ben-ze'ev 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Have removed the factuality dispute from the warning bar leaving the neutrality dispute still on. This should remain for the time being for consensus and then hopefully that can be removed also. I've removed the factuality because, quite simply, the article reports the facts of the criticisms, not the facts within the criticisms themselves.--Zleitzen 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Restructuring Plan Proposal

The dialogue concerning the restructuring of this article is likely at least partly related to the fact that this article should be readable, yes? As such I have attempted to reorganize the information in a clear manner (description of some of my recent edits). These are the premises under which I am operating:

  • Criticism is an argument (or counter argument).
  • An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion (otherwise known as a conclusion), based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises.
  • It should be clear what assertion is being criticized. I.E., his stance regarding an issue and the premise(s) (the why) behind his assertion.
  • The grounds for criticism should be clear. That is, an assertion needs to be clearly made by a critic. The premises supporting that assertion need to be clear. Finally, the assertion being made by the critic needs to clearly challenge or refute a premise (or premises) supporting an assertion made, i.e., a stance held by Chomsky.
  • Titles describe subject matter.
  • If subject matter in an article section concerns criticism of a particular assertion, the title of that section should clearly reflect it.

This might be evident to many of you, but there are contributors who simply place content critical of Chomsky, without an eye for how to paraphrase it while still preserving the arguments made. In their defense, critics do not always present clear arguments. If we are going to edit this section, however, we need to be aware of proper form of argument.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Your definition of criticism is far too narrow. Criticism is not solely the refutation or rejection of specific arguments. It can also be analysis or inquiry into the entirety of a body of work and what the critic considers to be the implications, contradictions or failures inherent in that body of work. Furthermore, the way an intellectual and his work are percieved and the image that an intellectual presents to the world at large are perfectly valid subjects for critical inquiry.--ben-ze'ev 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Before any critic can convince people that what he considers to be "implications, contradictions or failures," is so, he has to present an argument. That argument, by definition, has to follow the correct form, or it is not meaningful.
If you want to depict "the way an intellectual and his work are percieved (sic), etc.," and critically inquire about it, you have to make assertions or claims when you identify aspects of that work. In order to be taken seriously, you would have to in turn provide evidence/premises to back those assertions up.
Anyone can make an assertion. I could say that Noam Chomsky has horns. But until I provide pictures (i.e., evidence/premises) to support that assertion, what I have said is not meaningful or convincing. If I am commenting on anything Noam Chomsky has done, I have to clearly show what he did in order to clearly criticize it.
So my definition is not too narrow. It, in fact, is wide enough to encompass all the "counter-examples" you are citing. Sorry for the confusion. I am talking about arguments in the logical sense.
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
I have a question Antelope based on your definitions, presented through a hypothetical case,
If Prince Charles described Noam Chomsky as a pathological liar would that warrant inclusion here? Going on the premise that Prince Charles never attempts to justify is statement and constructs no evidence in it's support. If so why? If not why not? --Zleitzen 00:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"would that warrant inclusion here?" Not sure what you mean by "here". I *think* you mean, "Is my hypothetical statement an argument?" -Or- "Does my hypothetical statement fall under the definition of logical argument?" If this is what you mean, then this is the answer to your question: Yes. Why? Because something is being asserted (i.e., a claim is being made).

  • Assertion: Noam Chomsky is a pathological liar.
  • Premise (i.e., evidence): [Not Cited in the scenario]

What I am basically saying is, when there is criticism of Chomsky or anyone, for that matter, such criticism is going to be making a assertion (i.e., a claim). In this case, that he is a liar. However, such an assertion means little until you provide a premise or premises. In this case, for example, you would have to cite examples of pathological lying.

Furthermore, the accuracy of a given assertion depends on the truth of the premises. So all of that should be depicted, lest we provide an inaccurate/incomplete picture.

[So if Prince Charles never attempts to justify his statement in your hypothetical case, his criticism may perhaps be included but it should be clear in it's depiction that nothing is backing up the assertion (conclusion/etc.)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, when I mean "would that warrant inclusion here?" I mean on this page of this encyclopaedia.
I agree that such a hypothetical comment should be mentioned here and summarized briefly etc. Beyond that I'm not sure what you are suggesting and how it relates the practical status of the page. I can only repeat what I wrote earlier, that I think this page should concisely outline the various sourced notable criticisms of Chomsky's work and no more. It is not for us to ascertain the accuracy of these assertions, anymore than it would be pertinant on the Chomsky's Political Views page.
In other words, if Chomsky asserts a position on (say) the systematic propoganda filters within the US media we can report that here at wikipedia on the Chomsky's Political Views page. We don't need to analyse the media ourselves to ascertain whether this is a valid or accurate assertion. --Zleitzen 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"is not for us to ascertain the accuracy of these assertions,"

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the assertions themselves must be accurately depicted. I'm also saying that it needs to be clear what stance/view/etc. is being challenged by an argument being presented by a critic. We don't need to ascertain the accuracy. We merely accurately depict, and people can make up their own minds.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 04:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

You're right. Although we should bear in mind the vast volume of work on both sides that contribute to these arguments, and the difficulties of presenting this in a concise and accurate manner.
By the way, take a look at Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias for an example of a similar page with similar issues. --Zleitzen 06:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the easy part presents itself if/when a vast volume of work is challenging the exact same premise of the exact same assertion. Why not indicate in some way that "these parties" all challenge "this premise" of "this assertion" (with links to the appropriate sources). This, as opposed to a paragraph of Guy X saying Y..... 3 paragraphs about how Guy Z said Y..... 2 paragraphs about how Guy A said Y.

It might not be possible in every case, but it does provide a possible way to organize things. I wonder if part of the problem is that people get attached to the amount of content devoted to a critic vs. (in this case) what Chomsky said.

I see the potential to summarize the Chomsky content on this page. Usually, his defenses consist of a clarification or reiteration of a previously stated position. If this is the case, one might be able to simply combine his "defense" with the previously stated position being criticized. This would only be possible if one can clearly identify the structure of logical argument.

Even if there is a vast volume on the other side (Chomsky's side), some voiced by people other than Chomsky, could be irrelevant (since this is criticism of Chomsky). That could help trim things down as well.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Chomsky himself does not always make logical arguments. The Faurisson affair is a case in point. He was criticized for the nature of his defense of Faurisson and made his defense on the issue of free speech, which was not what he was criticized for. Accurate depiction of these controversies must deal with issues which are not always X+Y=XY.--ben-ze'ev 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In your example, you state that the critics were making assertion(s) regarding "the nature of Chomsky's defense of Faurisson", and that Chomsky's responded by defending free speech (or by defending the importance of free speech).
If we as Wikipedians are not aware of proper logical argument form, then it would be difficult to realize that this debate seems to revolve (in part) around a disagreement over the wording of the petition (which, by the way should be cited in that section and didn't appear to be). Chomsky critics assert that the wording does more than merely support free speech, it also endorses Faurisson's work. Chomsky has asserted that the petition only supports free speech. As such, they disagree about what the issue of debate really is.
"Accurate depiction of these controversies must deal with issues which are not always X+Y=XY...." I beseech you to read the logical argument article if you are going to insist on debating this further. Knowing logical argument form makes depictions of instances where people don't follow logical argument form easier to understand. Sometimes it can be difficult to translate the elements of a given debate into logical argument form, but it is the standard for depicting debates in an organized, understandable way.  ;)
(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Note that there is a whole page detailing the Faurisson affair linked at the heading of the section, which carries a full wording of the petition and an exposition of the main arguments. The section here is designed as a brief description of the various criticisms and charges. Again I’m not sure how our esoteric debate relates to the practical status of the Criticisms of Chomsky page and I fear I will struggle without tangible examples. Sorry. --Zleitzen 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"which carries a full wording of the petition....." lol. Thank you. Well, in that case, the brief description on the "main" page abbreviates in a way that fails to describe at least one basic element of the "affair"". Understandable though, given that the whole thing got so complicated.
"not sure how our esoteric debate relates" ....tangible examples... lol -sigh- Well, I have taken every scenario thrown at me and applied logical argument form to it.... but once again.....
  • This page was about depicting criticism of a guy, i.e., arguments.
  • Logical argument form is the standard for depicting arguments in an organized, understandable way.
A somewhat stripped down version of my initial post at the top of this section. Sorry for the confusion. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

No problem Antelope. We just need to ensure that any future edits are clear, concise and NPOV and we should be fine. --Zleitzen 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 ;) lol. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Faurisson Affair

why have you reverted my edit identifying Thion as a known Holocaust denier? If you click on Serge Thion that's the description of him on the WP. Surely his being better known for Holocaust denial than for any work in sociology is relevant to the affair.

Have described Thion as a "holocaust revisionist" and sourced it to a speech Thion made on the subject. Is this adequate? Apologies for removal without discussion. --Zleitzen 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted. I linked "holocaust revisionist" to the WP article, which redirects to "holocaust denial". If you want to give Thion the benefit of a psuedo-respectable title which means the same thing, I'm not about to start an edit war over it. Isarig
The title "holocaust revisionist" refers to the source I could find. Unfortunately it doesn't explicitly state denial in that source, and thus we are bound to use that turgid term. We could do with a better source if one is available? --Zleitzen 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone look for a better source. we don't need another external review that's critical of us. User:Merlov 10:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Interseting tracing items in the web - Schoenman>Werner Cohn>Chomsky before you finally find out that the main people trashing Schoenamn are trashing Chomsky and in turn getting trashed ( rightfully ) by Chomsky. I guess I will return to reading Schoenman since Cohn appears to be a pro-Israeli scholar who is brought out to defend the "cause".

[edit] Quick Note about Grammar

Benjamin Ben-Ze'ev (Talk | contribs) (→Allegations of Anti-Semitism - sentance (sic) made no grammatical sense. "refers" to what?)

The sentence in question: "....and refers to the current campaign by what he identifies as the "Holocaust industry" to extort money from Europe in the name of "needy Holocaust victims."

It refers to "the current campaign". Specifically, the campaign by what he identifies as the "Holocaust industry" to extort money from Europe..... etc., etc.. -shrugs-

I am glad you summarized it without stripping away the meaning. It was getting obnoxious. However, I'm perhaps a little troubled by your question; reading the sentence in full answers your question. I have to think it was a good old-fashioned misunderstanding (it was a long and unwieldly sentence), or else think that you're purposefully editing content without reading it & understanding it. ^_^;;;

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Neutrality Disputed Tag

Do any editors still have POV issues which warrant the Neutrality Disputed Tag at the top of the page? --Zleitzen 03:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that "criticism" articles are Wikipedia:POV forks. A neutral title would be something like "Commentary on Noam Chomsky", and would contain both positive and negative views. I don't think there's any major NPOV problems with the content though, so probably the tag can be removed. Cadr 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I hope mentioning "POV forks" isn't too provocative. I realise that the creation of this separate article was based on a legitimate desire to cut down the size of the main article, I just think it's wrong to have an article which only contains criticism. Cadr 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about the Wikipedia:POV fork,Cadr, I have expressed similar sentiments myself. There were a number of reasons why we decided to present it this way though. (1) As Ben states above, there is a substantial body of work devoted to criticisms of Chomsky, notable by a certain standard whether valid in content or not. (2)There is a politics of Chomsky page which deals quite respectfully with his political views, it would be too much of a rehash to voice that material again (3) We tried to present each criticism in a way that emphasised the notability of the charge, but allowed the reader the opportunity to decide for themselves on the merits of each charge, by carrying a brief Chomsky riposte with a link or two. I don't know if we achieved this, but the arguments have died down considerably which is progress. --Zleitzen 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK fair enough. I agree there'd be no point in disrupting things by trying to move the article at this stage. Cadr 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the neutrality disputed tag has outlasted any relevancy it might have had. I think a proper balance has been achieved here between criticism and defense. Further issues can be dealt with here, hopefully in a civilized fashion.--ben-ze'ev 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Kampf

Although I couldn't care less either way, the edit war concerning the "Oliver Kampf" weblink is unproductive. Users who insist on it's inclusion / removal should state clearly their reasons here, to allow other editors to comment. --Zleitzen 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not particularly bothered either. I restored the link a couple of times because I didn't think the reasons for removing it are valid. (Even if that is his real number, I doubt many people are going to start stalking him!) Cadr 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Who do you mean by "him"? Tcsh 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oliver Kamm Cadr 13:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh. So Gezza thinks that this is the home phone number of Oliver Kamm? If that's true, then it's invasion of privacy, and deleting the link isn't an adequate solution. We should either contact blogspot.com and request that they remove the phone number, or we should contact the wikipedia developers and request that they remove all the history revisions that have this link in them. Tcsh 04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you couldn't care less either way, then why did you delete the link? Tcsh 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it because it wasn't relevant enough to this page to waste people's time with an edit war. You haven't anwered the question, Tcsh. Why do you insist on it's inclusion? --Zleitzen 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't know how to answer this question, because there isn't anything special about this link. So far I restored all the various links that were deleted. The only links that I wouldn't care about are ones that are boring, i.e. there isn't anything noteworthy about them. Other than that, I'm opposed to censoring links. Let the reader decide what he wants to read. Tcsh 04:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, Tcsh. The number certainly isn't Kamm's, or anyone else's. I have no idea why this user is concerned about the link. I've asked them myself to address the problem.--Zleitzen 05:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
He/she is objecting to printing someone's business phone numer and email address and urging people to phone and send emails that aren't for business reasons. That's obvious and completely justified objection. If that's not invading privacy I don't know what is... User:Blubberboy
Wake up, that email address and phone number aren't real, it's satire. Tcsh
Duh. You've been contributing with no knowledge or understanding. Of course they are real, that's why they're there... Its called stalking. You've missed the point of it. Gezza
Oh really? Did you try to send an email to that address, or call that number? Please let us know what happened when you tried? Again, if they were real, it's an illegal invasion of privacy, so deleting the link is a bad option. Try to contact blogspot.com or a wikipedia developer and ask him to delete all the history revisions, it'd be fun to see their response... Tcsh 08:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes really. Duh-uh.--Gezza 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone else restore the link? I cannot do it until tomorrow because of the 3 reverts rule I think. This Gezza person appears to be insane. Tcsh 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the frank admission that you're a troll and demosntrating your technique of hurling abuse and disrupting the site. I've already seen from your user page that others have discovered this before me. Now listen carefully: the link you keep posting is a stalker link that prints subject's phone no. and email. That's invading privacy.--Gezza 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny that you should call me a liar and mention the two others who left notes on my userpage. Though those people weren't insane like you, anyone who bothers to go over what they wrote will see that they're liars, or at least have tendency to make false statements. Anyway, it's very easy for anyone to check if the email address and phone number are fake, and see which one of us is lying. Now stop it. Tcsh 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The last contributor's persistent trolling, obsessive introduction of irrelevant links and references, personal abuse and stalking are in breach of this site's policies. It is not acceptable to introduce irrelevant links that violate a public figure's privacy. This site has had a lot of problems with the last contributor, who won't accept the site's policies and hurls abuse when they are asked to stick to them. I'll watch carefully for future vandalism like that.--Gezza 07:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You are making a fool of yourself. "OLIVER.KAMM@COMMERZBANKIB.COM The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=de;a=dbp;p=commerzbank;l=SV0554410605181430K7MVZP0X MSEXCH:IMS:Commerzbank:FFM00:SV055441 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient". You created a separate reality for yourself by blindly believing in what's written in a satire site. Tcsh 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit abusive troll comment to remove unauthorised email address that enocurages stalking.--Gezza 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Kampf again

Right, I have spent 20 minutes of my time creating the solution to your problem. I just hope the creator of the original site doesn't complain. Can all users now end this dispute.[4] --Zleitzen 16:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gezza has now removed a link to Oliver Kampf that doesn't show any phone numbers or emails.--Zleitzen 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt is appreciated, but there is no need to remove the real link. The number and address there are fake. You can send an email to that address and see that it comes back with "unknown recipient" message. I even explained above that if it was real, and it was an invasion of privacy, then removing it isn't the correct solution, because someone could post links in other websites to the wikipedia history revision that contained it, and thus wikipedia would host illegal information and serve it on demand. But neither logic nor reality are enough in order to convince Gezza that he's wrong. Tcsh 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that linking to (as opposed to publishing) even a real email address or phone number would be illegal. Oliver Kamm in fact publishes his real email address on his real blog (I emailed him once with a criticism of one of his posts). Apologies for all the italics. Cadr 17:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As the consensus here is to keep the link, Gezza will just have to follow the dispute process. As this user has entered an edit war on their initial contacts with wikipedia, I imagine the process will not find in their favour. Most likely leading to a block on using the site - and the reinsertion of the link by another user. So it really is a waste of their time.--Zleitzen 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. To be clear, I don't personally care whether the link is in the article or not. Cadr 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I recall that it was decided by a court somewhere that linking to copyrighted mp3 files that are hosted elsewhere is illegal. Anyway, blogspot.com would still be hosting this information illegally, according to Gezza's theory, but he doesn't seem interested in contacting blogspot.com, as I suggested to him. Or maybe he did and they just ignored him, so he thinks that they're part of the conspiracy? Maybe he hasn't tried the email to see that it's fake, and so he still actually believes in the separate reality that he created for himself. But he also censored the link without the number and address, so who knows what motivates him... Tcsh 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if copyright cases are really analagous. It's generally accepted that once information has been published somewhere, it's fair game for anyone to refer to it. In any case, I doubt that merely publishing an email address and phone number constitutes a crime. Especially when the person in question is a public figure, whom people might wish to contact for perfectly legitimate reasons. Cadr 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But the phone number and email address aren't published anywhere else, e.g. google doesn't have them when you search for "0207 653 7000" or "oliver.kamm@commerzbankib.com". Just because an anonymous blogger invaded someone's privacy doesn't mean that it's now ok to claim that this information is fair game and give it even more publicity. I think that if it weren't a hoax, then it would fit the concept of invasion of privacy. But whether or not it's a crime, I don't know. Tcsh 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The same user removed "Oliver Kamm has been compared to writers such as Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, Chip Mitchell and David Aaronovitch." from the Oliver Kamm page - citing "stalker comment removed". So there is clearly an issue of misuse of wikipedia here. I will alert the relevant admins etc.--Zleitzen 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Gezza is simply right on this.The email and phone no. are accurate and shouldn't be shown. I've looked at Tcsh's user page and it's clear he inserts irrelevant material to boost Chomsky. This is is completely out of order.--86.141.169.62 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a fake email that returns with "unknown recipient" error. Anyone can try and see by sending an email there. You wrote that you "have email to prove it"? Prove what? Please prove it, whatever it is. Tcsh
As above, readers should check tcsh's user page to see that he has history of abusing Wikipedia and being warned for trolling, bias and putting completely irrelevant comments in. He doesn't want to people to know about it, I see. --Gezza 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote above that anyone is invited to check those comments and see who is lying. Why wouldn't I want people to know about it? And what's the relevance? Why don't you stop with the excuses and tell us why you really want to censor that page, after all you also deleted the version that didn't contain the fake address that you claim to object to? Different people dislike different articles, but censorship will get you nowhere. Tcsh
Trolling stalker deleted along with irelevant stalking external link. Readers check Tsch user page to see she/he has had two warnings about abuse of Wikipedia and then tries to censor info about it.--Gezza 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What info did I try to censor? Your projections are fascinating, someone should investigate the separate reality that you built for yourself. Tcsh

Apologies to all users for inadvertant breach of three-revert rule when deleting stalker material. I forgot to make allowance that times don't show summer time/daylight saving time, so thought I was posting an hour later. --Gezza 13:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Users please note that Tcsh has broken the three revert rule deliberately. Please see her/his user page to see other notes of her/his abusing site policies incl. trolling, bias and breaking three-revert rule. Will be reported to administrators.--Gezza 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but by 'rv+1' he means that you've gone one over so he's going one over. He probably shouldn't have, as it's a dreary edit war and if you'd left it eight minutes you wouldn't have broken the rule and his insults arent' necessary, but there it is and it's not as bad you're saying. What IS bad though is the way Tcsh is refusing to investigate or even listen to straight statements that the address is right. I wasn't going to get into this 'til I'd finished some enquiries but as this dispute is getting tedious I'll jump the gun (and if I'm wrong I'll say so and change things back). It's obviously silly for Tcsh to claim it's a fake email on the Kampf site. It isn't it, it's a corporate email address that hasn't got anything to do with Kamm's journalism or blog. You can find the second part of the address on Google, so that's right, and you can find Kamm working at that company on Google too, and the phone no. is the switchboard. If the email address is wrong now for whatever reason (perhaps the fact that it was on a spoof site with the call to phone him up) then it's likely to have been right when the site was active. Not stalking perhaps but an invasion of privacy even if the blogger thought it was a joke. If I'm wrong then I'll put it back -- but I don't think I am so I'm going to take a harsh view on a very bad practice. --Delworth 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Delworth is another user whose edits have been confined to the Oliver Kamm article, like Gezza. It's true that there's an email server at that address, i.e. it's the server that returns the "Unknown Recipient" error that I pasted above, anyone is invited to try it out and see. This user at least seems to acknowledge that there isn't a real email for that address, which is at least a little progress compared to Gezza. However, the rest of the above is false, e.g. his claim that "you can find Kamm working at that company on Google" is false, as far as I can determine. Tcsh 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I think I can see now what the problem is -- you won't listen or investigate a serious question. When you say my comments are false "as far as I can determine" you just prove either you don't know how to Google or (more likely) you refuse to because you want to do the same things that have caused so many complaints on your User page. I'm sorry but I'm not impressed. The explanation of the email details seems to be that the address did work when the spoof site was going but --like the spoof site --is defunct now. I'm checking this. IMO a site that publishes someone's private contact details and urges using them to make trouble doesn't belong here (and wouldn't belong even if it was relevant to Chomsky criticisms)..--Delworth 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no point to try to make things sound more complex than they are. You claimed above that Oliver Kamm works for the company under which this commerzbankib.com mail server operates, and you claimed further that it is possible to discover this via google. Your claims are false, unless you or someone with better searching skills than I can prove me wrong. I'm getting tired of trying to prove a negative. If you have evidence for any of the claims that you made above, then please prove a positive by showing evidence. Until then, I expect you to apologize and restore the link that you deleted. Much less likely to expect Gezza to apologize for his various statements, including calling me a liar, then calling me a troll, then saying I try to censor info (?!), and so on, even though what I say is true, and all of these things that he said are false. Tcsh 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're offended but I'm not going to apologize for trying to clear up this edit war. What you should have done immediately was try and check the statements made to you. It wouldn't have cost you anything and you would have saved a lot of bad feeling. Checking isn't difficult, you just need to go to Google and enter a name and a company name, and you'll find that what you keep denying is in fact true, or at least it was true when the spoof was running and there should be a clear understanding that that is wrong. Spoofs are often good, they prick pretension, but when they invade privacy I can understand why people object.Please now let this one go.--Delworth 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep making false statements with zero evidence to back them up. Your claim that "you can find Kamm working at that company on Google" is a pure fabrication, I did in fact search in google for various such combinations quite a long time ago, and now, so I know that your latest excuse for having nothing to back up your claims is also false. Note that the logic is also quite interesting: you claim that the spoof website published the real email address, but now this website is no longer running, and thus it also made this real email address to stop working. And it's still invading privacy to link to this nonexistent address, that was supposed to exist according to what you declared here with zero evidence. Fascinating logic. Also note that I explained above why even if your false claims were true, you should seek to remove it from blogspot.com, or from the entire wikipedia history revisions, and not your simple and ineffective censorship attempt. You repeat that having such spoof sites here that publish this kind of info is wrong, and if you check above, you'll see that I agreed with that several times, under the assumption (which is false in this case) that there's anything real about the info published. Also note that Gezza also deleted a link with none of this fake info in it, i.e. the excuses are getting more and more weird as we progress. I'll wait a little longer to see if you have the decency to restore what you deleted. Tcsh 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Chomsky on 9/11??

The main article on Chomsky states he has been criticised for his views on 9/11, yet nothing on this page mentions anything about this.

I feel that either a citation is needed on the main page, or something needs to be added here. Otherwise the reference should be removed.

And PLEASE use citations; critcisms without them are baseless and unmerited (read: POV). I understand where the burden of proof rests, considering this page is devoted to highlighting criticisms, but things like "My uncle Jimmy said he heard Noam Chomsky was getting blasted about his views on 9/11" hardly qualify as worthy of inclusion if Wikipedia is to maintain it's integrity as a valid source of information.

-thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.226.16 (talk • contribs) .

Chomsky has become the champion target of criticism as a ["left gate-keeper"] on 9/11, also on the JFK assassination and other issues. There is a piece on him as gatekeeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_%28communication%29) in the book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 ISBN 0865715734 by Canadian TV producer [Barrie Zwicker]. REferenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie_Zwicker. Definitely this should be cited on the criticism of Chomsky page, if not on his main page.

Chomsky is accused of being a disinformation agent working for the government, putting out useless leftist propaganda that leads nowhere, while squelching any useful initiatives that could really threaten the establishment, such as exposing the 9/11 conspiracy. He works for MIT which is a big defense contractor. So does Prof. Eagar, who promoted the pancake theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers.JPLeonard 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree that 9/11 criticism needs to be citied

How long has this remained uncited? No mention of what Chomsky actually believes about 9/11 is mentioned here or in his main article. Also....why do certain people merit their own respective criticism pages while others do not? It seems rather arbitrary and sometimes frustrating. Sterichinderance 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Most of the external links were to blogs, or comments from redlinked (i.e. not significant) people. Take a look at WP:EL. What we want here is cited sources for individual criticisms, per WP:CITE, and - well, probably nothing else, really. WP:NOT a link farm. This article should distill the criticisms, cite the sources for them and leave it at that. Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marked up a lot of unreferenced statments

I noticed a huge amount of original research and unreferenced sources when going through this page. I have marked a lot of sentences with [citation needed], far too many to talk about individually. In some of the cases, I was not sure if '[citation needed]' was the correct thing to put, but I'm a little new to this and I hope people understand the direction I am coming from. This article needs a lot of work on it as there are a lot of peacock terms and weasel words to be cleaned out of this article.--FearedInLasVegas 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that much of the political material you have highlighted is sourced in the article. For instance, you have highlighted this
I will keep here to advocacy in the serious sense: accompanied by some kind of feasible program of action, free from delusions about 'acting on principle' without regard to 'realism'—that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people
When it is actually sourced and atrributed a sentence earlier. I also don't believe it is neccessary to have a citation saying that David Horowitz is one of Chomsky's biggest critics - when it is clear in the article that the man has written books on the subject.--Zleitzen 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Horowitz "is one of Chomsky's most consistent critics". I don't believe it is the role of the Wikipedia editor to determine this: it needs to be qualified by a relevant person. Regarding your revert, Zleiten, there was more changed than just that citation needed reference. Also the reference used was, I think, in the wrong place, so that's why I missed it. I shall move back to my changes and move the citation to the correct place. EDIT: Forgot to sign my posts :/ --FearedInLasVegas 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In the anti-semitism section there are a lot of statements that need to be qualified. Here is a list of sentences that need to be referenced to avoid generalisations being made:

  • 'This rhetoric is considered by many Jewish critics to be offensive and deliberately slanderous...'
Aside from rhetoric in this sense being used as a derogatory term, the relationship between what Chomsky said and offence being taken needs come from a relevant source.
  • '...rhetoric that is common among anti-Semites'
The relationship between what Chomsky said and anti-semitic language needs to be qualified.
  • 'Chomsky has drawn strong criticism from some quarters...'
This is a weasel term. Although critics may be cited such terms as 'some quarters' are misrepresentative.
  • 'Critics charge that such statements are merely reiterations of standard anti-semitic conspiracy theories in regards to Jewish power.'
These specific critics need to be mentioned in text and not passed off as a generalisation. It does not matter if some critics are referenced, it is not for us to generalise like this.
  • '... Chomsky has endorsed the writings of several other figures considered by some to be anti-Semitic including Norman Finkelstein...'
Similarly, 'considered by some' is passing of unreferenced information as a generalisation.

I think that the items in the list above need to be properly referenced. --FearedInLasVegas 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable suggestions for change. (I have to get off-line now but if nothing is done in a few days, I'll check back and start picking at them.)
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Linguistics Section

All the lingustic material should go as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. No citation, no material on the page. --Oakhouse 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

Well it does seem a bit much to simply omit all the linguistics stuff which is easily sourced (to be fair it wasn't sourced in the original). In any case, this page should now be renamed 'political criticism of Noam Chomsky' but that leaves a bizarre lacuna: is it being implied that Chomsky's politics have been criticised but not his linguistics? That is very far from the case. The phrase above: 'unless it can be sourced' is the key one: the information can be very easily sourced, and the idea that it is 'pseudo information' is risible: many of the links at the end of the article are actually the sources to be referred to. The idea that this is a 'negative' biography when this is an article entitled 'Criticism of Noam Chomsky' is again risible: you would prefer it if it was non-critical criticism? You are acting as if this article was simply a neutral discussion of Chomsky, but it self-evidently wasn't: it was entitled 'criticism of Noam Chomsky'. As I say this removal was particularly bizarre in that criticism of Chomsky's linguistics is neither difficult to find, nor controversial (i.e. it's not controversial that Searle, Putnam, Davidson, Kripke etc. said it). In any case if this article is really simply to be 'criticism of Chomsky's politics' then the sources at the end should go as well. 130.209.6.40 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I just checked up the relevant Wiki rules which say, and I quote: 'Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).
Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

'

I have emphasised the relevant words. This is not a biographical article (it is not called 'Noam Chomsky' or 'life of Chomsky' or anything like that. it is called 'Criticism of Chomsky'): therefore the above rules do not apply. I therefore would argue that the article should be replaced, sourced, and moved to a seperate article 'Criticism of Chomsky's Linguistics'.

130.209.6.40 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is very much a biographical article. It was part of the the main Noam Chomsky page and was moved to it's own page due only to size considerations. Otherwise, it is still effectively a section of the original page. Everything must be sourced as per guidelines. The fact that it is called "criticisms of.." makes no difference - policy continues across all Wikipedia pages concerning living persons. --Oakhouse 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Well if that's how everyone feels. It's just slightly weird that the article now gives the impression that Chomsky's politics are terribly controversial and his linguistic theories are not, which is certainly not the case. But, whatever. 130.209.6.40 16:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Heading for each paragraph"

I agree with Hecht, there doesn't necessarily need to be a heading for each paragraph. However, the headings will likely be back later because both of the issues dealt with in those paragraphs will need more than one paragraph.

As they are, they don't even describe their respective events accurately. The first one only states that "so and so" claimed Chomsky was misrepresenting his view. The second one only states that Oliver Kamm doesn't think Chomsky read the book of some guy he was quoting from.

Neither one, even before they were trimmed to the size they are now, dealt with:

1.) What Chomsky actually said (from the original source). (I.E., what his actual point, etc..)

-or-

2.) What the specific nature of the criticism. For instance, we know that Oliver Kamm doesn't think that Chomsky read the book he was quoting from, but why not?

We can do better than this, and it would be easy. Go to the original sources. Find what Chomsky said, what the critic(s) said, then list both of them.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Chomsky regarding 9/11

Why was this paragraph removed? It was legitimate and well sourced:

Recently, Chomsky has come under severe criticism from the 9/11 Truth Movement regarding the issue of 9/11. Several members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have critisized his noncommital attitude and voiced concern that there might be some ulterior motive behind his behavior.

On Saturday, August 12, 2006, on RBN Live, Webster G. Tarpley interviewed Canadian author and media critic Barrie Zwicker about his book on 9/11, Towers of Deception. During the 2nd hour of the interview, Tarpley encouraged Zwicker to express his views about Chomsky’s reluctance to engage in skepticism of the official 9/11 narrative:


“ Noam Chomsky...this does appear to be one of the most fascinating parts of the book for a lot of people and I’m frankly even a little surprised myself at how well this is being received. I think that a whole lot of people had intuited that there’s something wrong with Chomsky. That there’s something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it’s a Litmus test, I swear it’s a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?

And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, “There’s gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky.” And apparently I’ve articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter.

And I do believe, that he is, an “agent of disinformation”. Now, I don’t say “disinformation agent”, which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an “agent of disinformation”. And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures...dismissiveness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He’ll say things like, ‘Oh well, we don’t know who did 9/11, but it really doesn’t matter,’ and then he’ll just go on!

And that is a point where in a just, in an intellectually honest world, someone would say, “Hold it right there, Noam. Just hold it right there. WHY does it not matter, who did 9/11?”

But of course when he’s speaking before an adulatory crowd, they just accept this, he throws out these great dismissive phrases, and just continues on. And one of the tricks of his trade, is of course that he’s written this immense number of books, he’s incredibly prolific, I have 16 of his books myself, and in each of those books if you look toward the end, you’ll find these massive numbers of footnotes, and he’s renowned for tracking down these obscure facts from obscure journals and documents, and so people assume, when he’s doing public speaking, that everything he says is equally well-researched, equally well-footnoted, equally valid… and it’s not. He makes all sorts of just vague, sweeping generalizations, dismissive statements, complete mis-weighting of things, where something is very important he’ll dismiss as unimportant and vice-versa.

He throws up a smokescreen by way of always talking, and I don’t disagree with him on this...it’s an effective one, in any of his talks he’ll talk about Granada, he’ll talk about El Salvador, he’ll talk about East Timor...no question, he was blowing the whistle on those for a long time, he harks back to them, but you know what?

We don’t need Noam Chomsky anymore to tell us about the death squads in El Salvador, we don’t need Noam Chomsky to tell us about East Timor. We need Noam Chomsky to be on board, telling us about 9/11, and how it was done from the White House.

And because he consistently steers away from the toxic core of what the oligarchy does by way of massive fraud, and therefore manipulation of the public for their Neocon agenda of global domination and resource theft, he in essence is working for them.

I cannot come to any other conclusion.

I’ll just read you the last paragraph of this chapter;

“Chomsky’s recommendation that people practice intellectual self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you’ll need to defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order, he is worth 50 armored divisions.”

 ”

Source:

Anon2 13:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The wikipedia official guideline regarding external links is that there should only be a few, and that where possible they should point well recognized sources, such as established print media or journals, and, if possible, mostly point to neutral points of view pages about the subject, as close to wikipedia policy as possible. Furthermore, references should be in a separate section from external links.

Except under special circumstances, particular domains should not be linked more than once. Personal blogs should only be linked once, and only if they deal directly with the page's contents, under an appropriate title designating them as such. Thanks for your time, i kan reed 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The links should be restored. It's true that links shouldn't be more than necessary, but there are plenty of examples of good articles containing a great many external links, quite usefully and properly. Similarly, blogs need to be treated with caution, but can also be very useful, even in the case of Kamm (whom I think a fool, but it is better to include the links to him, so that people can work that out for themselves).
In this case, there are very good reasons for having an extensive set of links. Many people will come to this article wanting to scutinise closely the criticisms of Chomsky, and it is impossible to do so without an extensive set of external links, both to the criticisms and their rebuttals.
--NSH001 11:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
the problem is, that's way too many links for "illustrating examples". an additional problem is sites were being linked more than once, which is pushing it for spam reasons. In newspapers there's a case for linking more than one article, but with sites focusing on criticising chomsky, the topmost url should be linked, and the reader can explore further at will. The main problem with the section before(and I had reduced the total number of links without killing the last time I edited) is that the external links section was about 50% of the article. I'd not be opposed to restoring some external links, but the formatting as it stood was all wrong. As an example of good external link formatting can be found at Intelligent Design. I am aware that getting rid of all links was a bit too far, but it would generate more discussion on the talk page, and less complete unexplained reversion. i kan reed 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no spam involved here (none whatsoever, as far as I can see). The idea that this is a spam clear-up is a red herring. Nor is the length of the external links section, in itself, a problem. Chomsky has been writing challenging books and articles for over 40 years, so it is no surprise that he will have generated lots of critics. It's something we just have to accept and live with. Unforunately he also generates a huge number of nutters, liars and fraudsters who attempt to criticise him, which is why most of their material deserves to be relegated to links, and not included in the main body of the article, another reason why the links section is always going to be long relative to the article.
I can see no difference in the formatting of the external links section of Intelligent Design, except for one aspect in which it is worse, namely the absence of indented links. Indented links are needed here so that rebuttals can be included. I suspect, however, that you are referring to the formatting of footnotes (generated from <ref> ... </ref> tags) as opposed to external links. Adding <ref> tags is worth doing, but it needs to be done carefully, taking care to add author and title as well as the link within the tags. Once that is done, it would be appropriate to delete links mentioned in the footnotes from the external links section (most of them, anyway).
I've also had a look back through the last few months' changes, and can see very little change or "unexplained reversion", other than your own, to the external links section.
If no-one else has any comments, I will restore all the links.
--NSH001 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
links now restored
--NSH001 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Chomsky has been criticized in print by some of the most prominent intellectuals in the 20th century. It's absurd that there should even be one link to a blog by Kamm in this article, let alone more. Cadr 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Chomsky has also been praised and defended by some of the most prominent intellectuals of the 20th century. I think the treatment that Chomsky gets at wikipedia is exemplary for its inclusion of "critical" views (including a plethora of insubstantial sub-critical sound bites that is the common currency of reactionaries), as well as the suppression of defences or even references to defences, by himself and other notable writers. I challenge anyone to come up with an example of a figure in the same category (say, a right-wing intellectual icon) that is afforded a similar treatment. Wiki editors, even those who adopt poses of "impartiality", "neutrality" and "objectivity" when policing Chomsky-related pages for "NPOV", are quite hypocritical in that they do not extend the same tolerance of character assassination, distortion and smearing to other pages on wikipedia, while tolerating blatant hagiography on numerous pages. This can be seen as a remarkable compliment insofar that it is a testament to the importance, and threat to oppressive power structures, that the ideas in Chomsky's writings exemplify. Chomsky is easily the most smeared and the most obsessively, and disenguously demonized intellectual since Marx.BernardL 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the relative merits of Kamm, but I believe it is actually more effective to leave the links to him in, so that people can see his foolishness for themselves. I see you've left more than enough links for that purpose ...
--NSH001 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Requests for Sections 1.1 & 1.2 (Commentary on the Vietnam War & commentary on Kosovo & East Timor.)

Firstly, the Kosovo & East Timor sub-section probably isn't titled correctly. What is the exact direct subject of the essay Chomsky wrote in which he quotes Moynihan?

Mainly though, it is ridiculous to let these sub-sections remain so incomplete. Here is why they need to be expanded.

1.) Huntington accuses Chomsky of misrepresenting his views on Vietnam War but we don't list WHAT Chomsky said when he did so?

2.) It's one thing for Kamm to say that Chomsky "doesn’t appear to have read the book he claims to be quoting from". But it's nonsense in the absence of the obvious relevant context: WHAT Chomsky said that makes it appear that he didn't read the book...... etc., etc..

This should be text book for all of us. These things NEED to be listed. Or these sub-sections should be deleted, because they are unsubstantiated. Then later re-added when they are complete.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is if the standards reflected here were applied consistently across wikipedia it would be a total mess. We could, for example, on the Hayek page, insert the reasonably well-known accusation that Hayek vocally advocated totalitarianism in Chile, without any supporting evidence. It's so easy to smear, which is why it is the last refuge of the reactionary (scoundrel). BernardL 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the Wikipedian policy, WP:NOTE helps keep everything and the kitchen sink from being added.
Secondly, what I am essentially speaking out against is the *smearing* that easily happens when criticisms of a subject are submitted, minus an accurate rendering of what is actually being criticized. It slants the content when we submit the criticism, absent it's own context (i.e., the very subject of the criticism).
I'm not saying add everything and the kitchen sink. I'm saying add it right and accurately.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Request for "Analysis of the motives of policy-makers"

This section is bereft proper context. The criticism doesn't make sense; the statements by Chomsky being made are not even referenced in any way.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an edited version of a previous contribution, with references. Russil Wvong 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attribution of motives
Chomsky's attribution of evil motives to policymakers is often criticized as being "maddeningly simple-minded."
In a 1969 exchange of letters, Stanley Hoffmann, a fellow opponent of the Vietnam War, described the nature of his disagreement with Chomsky [5]:
We do disagree on the subject of American objectives in Vietnam. Professor Chomsky believes that they were wicked; I do not. I believe that they were, in a way, far worse; for often the greatest threat to moderation and peace, and certainly the most insidious, comes from objectives that are couched in terms of fine principles in which the policy-maker fervently believes, yet that turn out to have no relation to political realities and can therefore be applied only by tortuous or brutal methods which broaden ad infinitum the gap between motives and effects. ...
I detect in Professor Chomsky's approach, in his uncomplicated attribution of evil objectives to his foes, in his fondness for abstract principles, in his moral impatience, the mirror image of the very features that both he and I dislike in American foreign policy.
Writing in the New York Times Book Review in 1979, Paul Robinson described Chomsky as presenting a "maddeningly simple-minded" view of the world.
In 1989, fellow radical historian Carolyn Eisenberg noted that Chomsky's description of US foreign policy during the early Cold War as motivated by economics rather than fear of the Soviet Union did not agree with the documentary evidence. In the 1950 document NSC 68 [6], for example, which assessed the Cold War and made recommendations for US foreign policy, it is clear that US officials were sincere in their belief that the Soviet Union was a threat. [7]

[edit] FYI

In an article in the Walrus Magazine (25 Sept 06) Ben Kiernan, director of the Cambodia Genocide Project, and Taylor Owen argued that recent evidence reveals that Cambodia was bombed by the U.S. far more heavily than previously believed. They conclude that "the impact of this bombing, the subject of much debate for the past three decades, is now clearer than ever. Civilian casualties in Cambodia drove an enraged populace into the arms of an insurgency that had enjoyed relatively little support until the bombing began, setting in motion the expansion of the Vietnam War deeper into Cambodia, a coup d’état in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide." [[8]]


continued..."The last phase of the bombing, from February to August 1973, was designed to stop the Khmer Rouge’s advance on the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. The United States, fearing that the first Southeast Asian domino was about to fall, began a massive escalation of the air war — an unprecedented B-52 bombardment that focused on the heavily populated area around Phnom Penh but left few regions of the country untouched. The extent of this bombardment has only now come to light.

The data released by Clinton shows the total payload dropped during these years to be nearly five times greater than the generally accepted figure. To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during allof  World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history."[[9]] BernardL 00:01, September 30, 2006


Just to be specific, these are all important, notable and interesting things to know about, but this article is about "Criticism of Chomsky." As such, the criteria for inclusion in this article is the following:
1.) The content regards criticism of something Chomsky said or did.
2.) The content regards portrayal of what Chomsky actually said or did, that is being criticized.
Anything else, is original research being compiled to prop up or support Chomsky and does not belong.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Antelope, the above was submitted - on this page - as relevant and up-to-date background information for those interested in the issues. If I felt it belonged in the main article I would have put it there in the first place.BernardL 12:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is, this article is specifically about Chomsky and criticism being leveled at him. This is not an article where we defend Chomsky against criticism or showcase and compile debates and information about the Vietnam War, etc..
What's more, we don't need extra dressing to defend Chomsky. If we show exactly what he said, alongside exactly what was said by critics, it should be obvious whether or not there is merit to the criticism without bloating this article into a clearinghouse for the subject of the Vietnam War.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens

Antelope, if I'm not mistaken you've removed reference to Hitchens's Chorus and Cassandra. An interesting exploration and response on Chomsky's behalf to the Khmer Rouge allegations. I think this should be restored, it's an important piece.--Oakhouse 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to mention this, this article is called "Criticism of Noam Chomsky". That means the content HAS to be regarding criticism of the man. Now to balance that out, we provide the context for that criticism, which is the actual WORDS or essays of Chomsky that are being criticized. I think it is interesting to note that much of the criticism here doesn't stand up well, when it is placed in it's proper contect.
That is, if we portray what Chomsky ACTUALLY said, next to the criticism being leveled against him, we are doing all we need to, and indeed, all that we should be.
This article is not titled, "Criticism of Chomsky and other people who defend him".
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that alot of the "criticisms" here are not referring to anything specific Chomsky wrote. Many such "criticisms" are of the form of off-the-cuff soundbites. For example Horowitz spouting that everything that Chomsky has ever written is a lie can't be provided with the context of everything Chomsky ever wrote! As it turns out you are allowing this page to be a soapbox for anyone who has a grudge against Chomsky while muzzling some notable authors who have written detailed defences. Chomsky himself does not have the time or inclination to answer every charge made against him in every publication or blog.BernardL 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that an article on criticism of Chomsky should also contain responses to the criticism. Maybe it would be better titled "Commentary on Noam Chomsky", including both positive and negative reviews. Cadr 15:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As it turns out you are allowing this page to be a soapbox for anyone who has a grudge against Chomsky while muzzling some notable authors who have written detailed defences.
But the thing is, if the criticism is vague/non-specific and doesn't provide a reason for the conclusion reached (in this case, "everything that Chomsky wrote is a lie"), then our portrayal of that criticism will show that and the man will look ridiculous on his own.
I thought we were only including *notable* critics, I don't see how that turns into EVERYone. This article is not titled, Criticism of Chomsky and his Defense. His own statements provide defense against many who have baseless criticism and the rest, if it has merit, should be allowed to stand.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Although as Cadr put it, having an article titled, "Commentary on Noam Chomsky," might address this.....
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of the claims on this page are poorly structured vague/non-specific soundbites. That's largely because such claims are in fact exactly that : poorly structured, vague/non-specific soundbites. Let them live or die on their merits or lack of. Chomsky doesn't need over closeting here. But I still think we need the Chorus and Cassandra extracts - they are essential to the story, and have haunted both Chomsky and Hitchen's relationship ever since. To remove them is to miss a great opportunity to explore that area. --Oakhouse 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with including Hitchen's "Chorus & Cassandra" extracts, is that this is article is about criticism of Noam Chomsky. That means the content here is Chomsky's, or that of critics commenting on Chomsky or his actions/words/etc..

End of story. Hitchen's "Chorus & Cassandra" extracts belong in Hitchen's article, not this one. Or even better, on an article that covers *discussion of the Khmer Rouge issue*.

Unless you are going to claim that the content constitutes criticism of Chomsky?

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky's denial of Serbian atrocities

http://oceanclub.blogspot.com/2005/11/chomsky-massacre-revisionist.html I'm not experienced enough with wikipedia to start a new section for this, and Chomsky's "apologism" for Serbia seems to come closest to his apologism for Khmer Rouge, so I plopped it here, after the Hitchen/Khmer Rouge article is discussed -- but at least I've provided a source. :-) Hopefully someone here will read the hyperlink above and be interested enough to add a section for this?

[edit] External links, again

Yes, this is probably a very controversial topic with lots of articles which are probably really good. Problem is: I don't care (and neither do the good people at Wikipedia:External links. Just because Chomsky's criticizers are more vocal and eloquent than other writers' doesn't mean links to their articles can take up over half the size of the article. Also, most of these criticisms don't look nearly as notable as they claim to be, considering that many of the people listed are red-linked. If you insist on their inclusion, work it into the prose and reference them using the documentation found here. Axem Titanium 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have to say that the external links section is out of control. I've tried eleminating everything but the most credible of sources, but I get the picture that people are defending their own blogs, and every article linked on them, to death. I'm considering making a critical blogs section, where each blog is linked once regardless of topic. Does that sound better or worse? i kan reed 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that if people are defending their own blogs, their links can be removed immediately because that would constitute advertising, which Wikipedia is not. I'm tempted to say that if the criticizer isn't notable enough to have his/her own Wikipedia article, they're not notable enough to be mentioned here either. Axem Titanium 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, no one who has reverted said changes has replied here once. It's been several weeks and article editing is going on. It might just be time for one more edit with a RfC on revert. I hate having to use processes to get a simple dialog going. If you support the current link format and read this, please at least give some reply. i kan reed 07:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just got rid of them with the admonition to integrate or cite the links, rather than just dumping them in the external links section. People who care can debate it here. Axem Titanium 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existance of This Article

I have a copy of the Encyclopedia Britanica (EB) in paper (old school!), anyway i`m not a regular to Wikipedia but I do seem to remember that it has the goal of greater scale, depth and acuracy than the EB but the same style. My point is, I have never read an article in the EB purely about criticism leveled against a given individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.109.125 (talk • contribs).

This article probably arose from a spill-over rule from the noam chomsky article. The basic idea is that if a section of an article gets too long, and in depth, a summary is placed in the original article, and an appropriate new article is created. This is more or less due to technical concerns, not the particular appropriateness of this article. This whole article is slightly questionable for different reasons, like WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV, but with sufficient carefulness in editing, those shouldn't be a problem. i kan reed 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that this page exists highlights the inherent biases that rule wikipedia. You all disgrace yourselves, you reactionary morons.

[edit] The Lies of Werner Cohn

I removed the following sentences because this article falls under the rubric of biographies of Living Persons, charges that reflect on the living person's character need to be concrete and not merely slurs or a matter of creative interpretations. The Cohn quote is included as evidence of Chomsky's alleged "anti-semitism". It fails as concrete evidence of anti-semitism on both logical and empirical grounds.

'Critic Werner Cohn states that Chomsky's book The Fateful Triangle "...contains twelve references to Hitler. In each case some Jewish action is said to be like Hitler's or some attribute of the state of Israel or the Zionist movement reminds Chomsky of Hitler."'

Anti-semitism involves hatred or prejudice against an ethnic or cultural group based on the attributes that distinguish them as jewish. An investigation into the content that Cohn cites for the "Fateful Triangle" does not evidence any suggestion of criticism or disparagement of Jews as a culture; nor does Cohn's analysis provide such evidence in any one case, let alone in all twelve cases. On logical grounds it does not follow that if one compares Israeli state policy to the policy of Hitler's regime related to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, that it amounts to anti-semitism. For example, a couple of the references in "The Fateful Triangle" discuss the apologetic, provided by supporters of Israel, that Israel had to invade Lebanon in 1982 because arab nationalists in Lebanon were a perceived threat. Chomsky points out that these apologetics were comparable to Hitler's apologetics for invading Czechoslovakia- namely that little Czechoslovakia, with its disciplined military, was perceived by Hitler as a dagger pointed at Nazi Germany's throat. In terms of the comparison, the themes are clearly geo-political not racial. An imperialist power faces a weaker enemy and over-exagerrates the threat of the weaker group so as to justify preemptive aggression. The targets of Chomsky's criticims are clearly not jews in general but the executives of Israeli foreign policy and the elites that apologize for it. One can check every one of the 12 references that Cohn cites and find that there is no suggestion of disparagement of Jews as a race, and moreover in many cases it is not Chomsky but other Jews, scholars, reporters and activists, both apologists and dissidents, bringing up comparisons of Hitler in different ways. Once again I would like to emphasize that if you are going to accuse someone of anti-semitism your claims should be concrete. Otherwise you are engaging in scurrilous slander. I am willing to take these issues to wikipedia administration for arbitration. BernardL 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bernard, you don't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's fundamental content policies, No Original Research and verifiability. Your arguments and opinions about whether or not Chomsky is anti-semitic cannot be placed in the article, as they violate WP:NOR: Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. Nor can you simply delete a sourced statement simply because you disagree with it; as WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cohn's opinion about Chomsky is verifiable, whether or not you think it is true. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before further editing. Also, please be aware of WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, judging by your contributions you are hardly impartial enough to be judging on this matter without conflict of interest. Cohn's opinion about Chomsky may be verifiable in the sense that it appeared in print and can be sourced, but as a statement it not even close to being true, which a quick check of the source material reveals without any need for creative interpretation. Moreover the reference to Cohn does not provide evidence for anti-semitism, only for scattered references comparing Israeli foreign policy to Hitler, therefore it is irrelevant to a section discussing Chomsky's alleged anti-semitism. In any case in your moral bankruptcy you have now set a wikipedia wide standard- the "threshold," even for biographies of living persons is verifiability not truth. You have now given carte blanche for the pollution of wikipedia with "verifiable" lies, rumours and half-truths rather than the truth. So now I think I will mosey on over to the page of Jimmy's idol, that of Friedrich Hayek, throw up a new section called Hayek's anti-semitism, quote Melvin W. Reder's claims from "History of Political Economy 32", and then fully expect your protection when it is perfunctorally deleted. Of course the standards you have set go well beyond half-baked but "verifiable" claims of anti-semitism, one can feel free to introduce any half-truth into any article, as long as it's verifiable and tenuously notable. Congratulations! This all shows current policies of living persons biographies combined with verifiability are ineffectual against those bent on character assassination, in fact they are protective of such initiatives, neutral posturing by administrators notwithstanding. By the way, don't bother threatening me about 3RR violation when I have not even come close to violating it. BernardL 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
BernardL, please use the Talk: page to discuss article content, rather than making policy-violating personal attacks and uncivil judgements claiming that other editors are "hardly impartial" or have a "conflict of interest" or have "moral bankruptcy". I'm not sure why you're discussing "Jimmy's idol" or Hayek or Reder; we are discussing this article. Can you try to discuss content in terms of Wikipedia policy? Do you think the information you removed violates Wikipedia's content policies, or the arguments you entered accorded with Wikipedia policy? If so, please explain why. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't see things the same way at all. For one, I don't think that invocations of "policy violation" should be used to muzzle people's participation on talk pages. Yes talk pages should pertain to the subject, but behaviour should not be so restricted that there is no scope for informal, exploratory discussions. My point had to do with whether you realize the wider implications of giving primacy to "verifiability" over standards of truth and standards of protection against character assassination. What would wikipedia look like if everyone acted the same way as the contributors of content to this article? We would have special pages of critical slurs, systematically limiting opportunities for reasoned defence, for every controversial biographical figure, including all the right wing and liberal icons, and the encyclopedia would end up even more of a mess than it currently is. It's a sure sign that current policies are flawed if their generalization would result in a dung heap. But these are finer points whose implications you choose to ignore.BernardL 05:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we all realize the implications of stressing verifiability over truth, but the fact remains that verifiability, not truth is Wikipedia policy. I don't necessarily think it's the best policy (and it can be a very bad policy in certain circumstances), but it's policy and that's that. If you disagree with the policy itself, I think the WP:V Talk page would be the best place to start. Wyatt Riot 09:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Bernard, you need to understand that the policies all work together, and in the end do not produce unreasonable results. The fact is that there is a persistent and honest belief among many that Chomsky should be characterized as "self-hating", "anti-semitic", etc., though defenders of Chomsky react with outrage to this claim. This is not unlike those who would, for example, make WP:POINT edits and use dubious sources in order to vilify Israel as racist, even though many others would find these claims outrageous on many grounds, and would be tempted to insert their own original research defending Israel. Rather than reacting with outrage, and trying to remove from Wikipedia verifiable statements regarding notable opinions about Chomsky, or defend him using original research, one should simply make sure the information is presented in a reasonably accurate and neutral way. Also, if an editor were truly concerned about WP:BLP, they would hardly start a Talk: page section with the title of "The Lies of Werner Cohn", would they? I'd recommend changing that. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, the policies clearly are not working together. WP:V clearly trumps WP:BLP to the extent that it nullifies protection against character assassination. Afterall, lying sources are clearly acceptable "as long as sources are verifiable". If the belief you outlined above about Chomsky really was "honest" then direct and concrete evidence could be presented that he was "self-hating" , "anti-semitic," etc. Instead the evidence presented is either guilt by the loosest of association which is subsequently transmuted into the indeterminate weasel word "support", or the fact that he relentlessly criticizes the elites that direct and apologize for brutal and yes, racist, Israel and U.S. foreign policy, criticism which does not constitute anti-semitism. I removed a Werner Cohn quote to talk that claims that Chomsky compares "jewish action" (in reality it's comparison not to action of jews as a race, just those that happen to be in positions of power) or Israeli state policy, to Hitler. My removal of such a quote does not itself constitute original research. Even taking Cohn's quote at face value, his conclusions may not follow from his premises. For example the comparisons to Hitler may not have any anti-semitic theme, they may be simply about geo-politics, thus would not qualify as an instance of anti-semitism. The problem with Cohn's quote is that it is being presented as evidence of anti-semitism even though to make such a conclusion based on the premises one would have to accept the deeply totalitarian notion that any criticism of the Israeli state is totalitarian, or the ridiculous claim that any comparison to any aspect of Hitler's regime was by definition anti-semitic. This violates WP:BLP because it is not concrete- it is a case of dishonest smearing. I submit that it should be deleted on the face of it without even requiring the further research that exposes further falsities, because it is not a concrete allegation of anti-semitism or evidence for it. As for my "dubious" source "villifying" the policies of the Israel as racist, we have Stephen Zunes writing in a leading foreign policy journal noting that "The racist policies of the Israeli government have been well-documented by reputable human rights groups." He is not smearing all Jews and the accompanying article makes that clear, he is criticizing the policies of the Israeli government, just like Chomsky does. It's a far superior claim in terms of honesty, form and content, than the Werner Cohn that you are protecting. Do you dispute that reputable human rights groups have documented racism pertaining to Israeli gov't policy? Finally, yes I was a little nasty in describing Werner Cohn truthfully. Since he does not hesitate to make demagogic and morally shameful claims I did not hesitate to tell it like it is. Of course this is an informal forum; it's not nearly the same as posting smears in a public encyclopedia article that can be quoted and used as a reference. I will leave you now to reflect on the difference.BernardL 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem awfully upset with Cohn, but who is Richard Wall, what is "the libertarian webjournal Lew Rockwell.com", and what makes either a reliable source? As for Cohn's arguments, I'm not going to get into a debating match about the veracity of the contents of sources, but let's just say that strongly objecting to someone making 12 comparisons of Jewish, Israeli, or Zionist actions to Hitler in one book is nothing like insisting that any criticism of "the Israeli state" is "totalitarian". The fact is, when you start doing that, you've crossed over the line of legitimate criticism into another territory. Jayjg (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I've met Chomsky, and he is anti-Semitic, possibly because he's mistaken (or lying) about what constitutes Judaism. But the important thing about Wikipedia articles, is verifiability, not truth. Cohn's statement seems adquate sourced for listing in this article. It should also be pointed out that the #Allegations of anti-Semitism section has lost its references, leaving only the unlinked [11]. I'm afraid I must recuse myself from editing the article, so could someone else take care of this? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Kamm's "source" claims debunked

Oliver Kamm asserts that Chomsky has taken retired UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan's quote out of context and begs the question as to whether Chomsky has read Moynihan's book. I refute this assertion and repeat Moynihan's quote below for reference which for ease of illustration I have identified as two consecutive parts.

Part #1 "In both instances the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook." Part #2 "This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

I repeat below Chomsky's text which ostensibly paraphrases Part #1 of the Moynihan quote above:

"Referring to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, [Moynihan] says that the United States wanted things to turn out as they did and that he had the assignment of making sure that the United Nations could not act in any constructive way to terminate or reverse the Indonesian aggression."

Chomsky immediately continues with his own observation of Moynihan that: "He carried out that task with remarkable success." Note: This sentence is Chomsky's observation not/not Moynihan's and is clear from Chomsky's writing.

Chomsky, referring again to Moynihan follows with: "He then in the next sentence goes on to say that he’s aware of the nature of that success." When Chomsky writes "next sentence" he is obviously referring to the one represented as Part #2 above i.e. Part #2 is the "next sentence" following on from Part #1 of Moynihan's quote.

Essentially then, Chomsky is observing Moynihan's success and reinforcing this with Moynihan's own observation of his success as if to say not only do I (Chomsky) think he was successful but here is Moynihan affirming it in his own words.

Based on the clarification above I contend that the criticism by Oliver Kamm that Chomsky is (in the text referred to) "misrepresenting former UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan by "omission and fabrication" completely erroneous and unsupported. I recommend the reference be removed permanently.

However, as a pedant I do note that Chomsky's original quote of Moynihan does commence incorrectly as "The United States" when one correct option was to have commenced "...the United States" No need to include this as criticism however :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildframe (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

That's a nice argument, but unfortunately it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, which requires reliable and verifiable sources. Now if you can find such a source debunking Kamm's position, feel free to add it to the article. Wyatt Riot 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wyatt, it is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Essentially, the "source" as you put it lies directly in Kamm, Moynihan and Chomsky's words--their words which I have directly quoted above. I guess if their own words are not considered "reliable" proof of what they said I'm not sure what is. In that sense I have made no "argument" except to reiterate the correct reading of Chomsky's own words in their original order--it's not rocket science :) Wildframe 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have missed the point: the fact that you may have produced a counter-argument is, however accurate, not appropriate for the article because it's an argument you have produced based on your analysis of the sources. This makes it your "Original research". If you can get your argument printed by a reliable source, then it can be included (preferably by someone else).
Sam, I am not presenting a "counter-argument" for inclusion in this article. I am presenting the correct context of Chomsky's words as proof positive that Oliver Kamm is misquoting Chomsky which he then uses to leverage his charge that Chomsky "doesn’t appear to have read the book he claims to be quoting from". Wildframe 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting, but the point of the talk page is to debate the way to improve the article. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It may not be relevant, but I don't see your refutation. The criticism made by Oliver Kamm is that Chomsky portrays Moynihan as endorsing mass-murder by Indonesia in East Timor, when in fact Moynihan was referring to the defeat of Chinese communist-aligned forces. Moynihan at no point mentioned mass murder. Sam Blacketer 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You say that "Moynihan at no point mentioned mass murder." My point is that with regards to the disputed text neither does Chomsky! In order for Kamm to levy his argument he must selectively read into Chomsky's words. Ultimately, the "relevance" is such that Kamm's methodology of selectively reading into Chomsky's words to critique Chomsky's alleged selective reading into of Moynihan's words sees Kamm guilty of the same offense he charges Chomsky--Kamm falls on his own sword. Wildframe 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Chomsky does quote Moynihan mentioning mass murder - he quotes him passing on the estimates of the number of deaths: "Success was indeed considerable. Moynihan cites reports that within two months some 60,000 people had been killed, '10 per cent of the population, almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War.'" (A New Generation Draws the line). Kamm's point, which I don't see your refutation touching, is that when Moynihan passes on this estimate, he was on page 247, while the quote about "no considerable success" is on page 252-3, and that by running the second statement immediately after the first (and by not giving page numbers), Chomsky is giving readers the misleading impression that Moynihan was measuring the success in terms of the high death rate. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Chomsky is giving readers the misleading impression that Moynihan was measuring the success in terms of the high death rate." I don't agree. Chomsky is clearly making his own cynical observation not/not implying that this was how Moynihan measured his success. I have posted my rebuttal Oliver Kamm's Chomsky "source" claim dismantled in the public domain. Wildframe 14:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not you put your rebuttal in the public domain, it's still original research and therefore not appropriate on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if you can find a notable article with the same sentiments, by all means add it. Wyatt Riot 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zerzan is a nut

I find it odd the page is protected. There is even a mispelling on Chomsky's name for Christ's sake! Under Criticism of Chomsky's Political Views it says:

"Zerzan views Chomsky's focus on U.S. foreign policy as being representative of a certain conservative "narrowness" for "being motivated by 'his duty as a citizen'". Zerzan also points out that Chosmky is "completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two)"."

This is obviously skewed. Not only is there no clarification that no, Chomsky doesn't ignore the issues of woman's rights or the environment, it even says "points out." This is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.43.186.49 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

No one will even correct the misspelled name? Wow. I heard you can't trust anything on wikipedia but I am really surprised.

[edit] Removal of unsourced claim that is also refuted by verifiable sources

I removed the following content from the "Allegations of anti-semitism" section...

"(Chomsky's) alleged advocacy - until the Geneva Accord - of the dismantling of Israel in favor of a bi-national state is often cited as evidence of anti-Semitism."

reason: 1. There is no source for the claims that Chomsky did not advocate a 2 state solution until the Geneva Accords. 2. In fact it is clear from his corpus that he had advocated a 2 state solution long before the Geneva Accords, at least since 1975. In "Radical Priorities", copyright 1981, there is an article which originally appeared in the anti-war newspaper NAM, dated from September 1975, in which Chomsky argues that after the 1973 war the only realistic possibilities for peace existed through a Two-state political process and settlement:

"In fact, a realistic alternative to the politics of suicide and destruction does exist. It requires that we focus on the underlying conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, who claim national rights in the same teritory, rather than military conflict between Israel and Egypt (and secondarily Israel and Syria). Israel's only hope for a decent survival lies in a political accomodation. This fact, not to speak of elementary considerations of justice and humanity, demands that Palestinian national rights be satisfied in some manner.
Prior to the October war, various possibilities existed. Now there remains only one. Israel must return (essentially) to its pre-June 1967 borders. A Palestinian state, which will of course be organized by the PLO, will then be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The other occupied areas must be returned to Egypt and Syria, with some form of demilitarization, international supervision (on both sides of the border, as distnct from the pre-1967 period, when observers were permitted only on the Arab side), and efforts to reduce the level of armaments in the entire region. Jerusalem might become an open city, perhaps joint capital of both states. (p.116, "Radical Priorities", chapter 9: On the Middle East, Black Rose Books, Second Edition,1981, original article published in NAM Newspaper, Sept. 1975)

Conclusion: Notice that Chomsky espouses the right to national self-determination of both the Palestinian and the Israeli populations in the former Palestine. This general position was reiterated, even more clearly, in Chapter 3 of his major work on the topic, The Fateful Triangle (1999, p. 39-42, Black Rose Books), and several places elsewhere. The notion that Chomsky rejected a two-state solution until Geneva was not sourced, and moreover is refuted by straightforward reference to Chomsky's published output. Draw your own conclusions about what this says about the character of those who have contributed to this page and those who are protecting such outright falsehood.BernardL 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECriticism_of_Noam_Chomsky_97bd.html"