User talk:Russil Wvong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hi Russil Wvong, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 16:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chomsky
I am most impressed with your contributions to Noam Chomsky. I hope you stick around; Wikipedia will be better off for it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I just dropped in on the Chomsky article for the first time in months. I'm blown away -- the work you've done is wonderful! -Ben 18:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hi!
I've ordered the Core Knowledge Sequence oversize paperback from Amazon after reading the material on your /education page. Ground 15:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chomsky and criticism page
I visited your web site and liked what I saw: you strike me as a very cool guy. I'm sure we'd disagree with each other politically, but no matter. (I'd like to take a closer look at what you've written about Chomsky. NOTE: I wouldn't personally recommend "Deterring Democracy" to a person first getting interested in Chomsky's work.)
I've corresponded back and forth with Chomsky for years, and he is a genuinely cool guy -- utterly sincere, humble in spite of the sarcasm you mentioned, and very generous with his time.
Most of Chomsky's books are not generally meant to be read as history; they rely on historical examples to construct a very specific critique of American policy. In fact, Chomsky is really interested in critiquing power, without respect to origin/country/etc. He often explains his reasons for choosing to focus on the actions of the US: because it's easy to criticize others when you should be looking in the mirror.
For that reason, his writing is often far more nuanced than his critics realize. Suffice it to say, I agree with Chomsky's interpretations, and haven't found any evidence that anything I've read was in any way inaccurate. There are a number of excellent books substantiating Chomsky's accusations, often written by highly respected academics and published by the University Press.
Unfortunately, much of the "mainstream" historical literature, such as the books you cited, were written by people directly involved with the events and/or institutions they describe (e.g., Arthur Schlesinger). Other books rely heavily on testimony by the people involved (i.e., former CIA agents) for their information. Needless to say, that is bound to skewer the conclusions, even when those conclusions are somewhat critical and scholarly. The only thing you can do is consult the primary sources.
I want to work with you to make a 'Chomsky criticism' page that is fair to all sides and fits within the NPOV guidelines. Basically, it would entail removing, in full, the entire 'criticism' section to another entry, and then briefly outlining that criticism on the Chomsky page in fair and concise way, and providing a link to the Chomsky entry.
I have no interest in "censorship." I am, after all, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. But this article is unncessarily long. I also don't think it's appropriate to quote Chomsky ad nauseum in the Chomsky article -- we can provide some quotes as well as links to Chomsky's articles, speeches, etc. Still, those quotes are more defensible than the criticism, because they have a direct bearing on Chomsky's beliefs and work.
[edit] Chomsky Criticism
Hey! Sorry for the delay -- I've been extremely busy lately, and just now logged into Wikipedia.
I admit that I just skimmed over your criticism of Chomsky, which I *do* want to read. I *thought* that you quoted George Kennan, but I could be mistaken -- I probably am.
The main point I was trying to make is that, if you're interested in investigating these kinds of issues, it's best to consult the primary source material, rather than relying exclusively on mainstream historical scholarship -- which should also be read.
For example, I have a longstanding interest in the 1953 coup in Iran and subsequent US-Iran relations. Descriptions provided by the radical left (e.g., William Blum) are often grossly simplistic. But there is a significant difference between the conclusions reached by many of the scholars, and the conclusions that a reasonable person would make from the documents themselves. This probably stems from the fact that many of the most important, early scholars on modern Iranian history were US diplomats. More recent scholars have been critical, but often they, too often have ties to their subject matter that skewers their interpretations. Mark Gasiorowski, for example, offers a wealth of new information that is extremely important. But he gets most of his information by conducting interviews with CIA officers who have experience in Iran, etc. He gets his information by contacting the participants. This yields extremely useful information, but it also produces an "Access Journalism" effect -- which Gasiorowski himself is probably unaware of.
So 'mainstream' historical scholarship should be approached with the degree of skepticism that you apply to Chomsky, or anyone else. If someone approached me and expressed an interest in Iranian history, I would point them to the mainstream scholarship, some of which is both extremely scholarly and extremely critical (e.g., Abrahamian, "Iran Between Two Revolutions," Princeton, 1982). But I would also recommend consulting other primary source archives.
Are you familiar with the National Security Archive? They publish a lot of good primary source material: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv The Federation of American Scientists also does some good work -- publishing government reports, testimony before Congress, papers on government expenditures, etc.: http://www.fas.org/
Also, if you're interested in some of Chomsky's evidence/ideas, I can recommend 'mainstream' historical scholarship that explores these kinds of issues with far greater depth -- all published by universities, etc.
The thing that must always be understood when reading Chomsky is that, probably 90% of the time, he is not attempting to produce a standard, historical chronology, and he's not writing for an academic audience (as he does when he writes about linguistics): he is an academic producing dissident critiques of American power.
I don't think that Chameleon will go for it.
Within the next couple of days (maybe tonight, if I have the time), I'm going to seriously revise the entire article, and then link to the revisions on the 'discussion page' so we can all hash out the details. I'm not interested in a hagiography, but there is no reason why, in an entry about a person's life and work, there should be five times as many links criticizing that person's work than there are links to the work itself: those links belong in another entry, and then we can include a representative subsample in the entry itself.
And I think we should work on reducing the length of the article (roughly four times the recommended size) without cutting out the important information / perspectives.
[edit] User Categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
