Talk:Chomsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Anthroponymy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Anthroponymy, the study of people's names. This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the surnames, family names and nicknames of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I don't think so Wetman 02:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whatever the above comment may mean or refer to, I'd be interested in why some Pittsburgh guy I don't know allegedly says chomsky rather than vomit. I could think of lots of more appropriate "synonyms". Also, what kind of radio show is that where there is a need for synonyms of that word? --KF 22:16, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. Wetman 05:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This can't stay in the Wikipedia as it stands. The problem is the claim "chomsky is a synonym for vomit" is not a supportable claim about the English language. Rather, what may or may not be true is that some radio talk show host in Pittsburgh is so angry at Noam Chomsky that he is using his name as a synonym for vomit. Such an observation might conceivably fit into the Noam Chomsky article, under the "Criticisms" section (though it would be better, I think, to stick with substantive criticism, not name-calling). The present article is offensive and flies in the face of the NPOV concept.

Opus33 22:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this meant to be some kind of parody of santorum? --FOo 23:17, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding! Somebody gets it!

Now, I would like for somebody to explain to me how random, unmemorable political insults are appropriate Wikipedia material for some political or otherwise public figures but not others. This, Opus33, is what truly files in the face of the NPOV concept.

The santorum redirect to Dan Savage is inappropriate and should be deleted, or else Wikipedia runs the risk of degenerating very quickly into WikiPoliticalPissingContest. This is simple common sense.Thunderbunny 04:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fine, I will explain the difference between this "article" and santorum.

  Santorum chomsky
It is explained who this well-known media person is Yes, in an entire separate article no
It is explained in what context the slur is used Yes no
It is explained why anyone should give a damn Yes no
It at least gets a respectable number of Google hits in this context Yes no

Basically, if you want to compare "chomsky" with "santorum", you must reconcile yourself to the fact that a) you need to do a bit of rudimentary research on the subject of the article; b) you will have to put up with a weeks-long argument from people who disagree with the subject's appearance here, and c) you will have to reconcile yourself to the fact that the chomsky "article", per se, will never be more than a disambig or a redirect.

Hephaestos 04:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thunderbunny, can you please clarify your intention? That is, do you seriously want there to be a Wikipedia article comparing Noam Chomsky to vomit, or is this a kind of joke, intended only to make a point about the current Santorum debate?

Thanks, Opus33 18:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Opus, I do agree that, assuming that we intend for Wikipedia to be taken seriously, that pointing chomsky to Noam Chomsky is exactly how this page should remain. (Although, a disambiguation page to Chomsky normal form or Chomsky hierarchy might also be helpful). However, the point needs to be made that there is a massive, massive can of worms waiting to be opened if we let Wikipedia become a forum for random, vacuous political insults, which is what "santorum" is. "santorum" has not entered our lexicon, it does not make any insightful points about the remarks made by Rick Santorum, it simply takes a politician that somebody happened to disagree with and calls him a nasty name. This is not viable political debate. If "santorum" needs to be mentioned, it is on the Dan Savage page and nowhere else, and does not warrant a mention on a disambiguation page.

Now, I read Hephaestos's post.

It is explained who this well-known media person is -- Yes, in an entire separate article

There was no Dan Savage page before the "santorum" issue came along, which implies that there definitely is a chicken-and-egg question here. And, by the way, why the hell does it matter if the media figure is well-known or not? I heard this funny joke on Jay Leno one day about Dennis Kucinich, can I post that and put it on a Kucinich disambiguation page too? (In fact, I think I will!) Leno is much, much more well known than Dan Savage.

I read Savage Love, and it also needs to be mentioned that Savage himself is even getting sick of the term, largely because what used to be a relatively fresh, witty sex advice column had become "This Week in Santorum". There isn't a whole lot of non-internet evidence that "santorum" has become a widespread slang term. Most likely, it will be six months before pretty much everybody forgets about "santorum". Except on Wikipedia.

It is explained in what context the slur is used -- Yes

Yes, it is. Somebody takes offense at a politician's viewpoints, so they call them names. That doesn't merit inclusion on a disambiguation page.

It is explained why anyone should give a damn -- Yes

Not really. I read over the Dan Savage page, and I have yet to figure out why anybody should give a damn over a random insult from a C-list advice columnist.

It at least gets a respectable number of Google hits in this context -- Yes

This implies that there exists a proportional relationship between the number of Google hits something gets and its relevance to Wikipedia. Haven't you ever heard of "Google-bombing"? Searching for "I let an intern go down on me" gets a decent number of hits -- does we have to make a disambig for Bill Clinton now?

You're right about one thing: there will be a weeks-long argument about the subject before nothing gets resolved. Oh well, thanks for your time. Thunderbunny 19:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, what you fail to realize is -- again -- the fact that there are people living on this planet who are not American. Some of them are called Europeans, and most of them will never have heard either name (Quinn, Savage). They should be your target group. That's what an encyclopaedia is all about. Why not start by answering my two simple questions at the beginning of this talk page? --KF 23:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Thunderbunny. For what it's worth, I agree with you completely--the redirect page for Santorum is definitely not NPOV. As the NPOV article points out, you're not supposed to insult even Adolf Hitler--instead, you let the facts speak for themselves. I feel the same about Senator Santorum.
Thank you. Glad we're on the same page. Thunderbunny 04:34, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
KF: Sorry, didn't mean to be an American chauvinist. Dan Savage is a famous American sex advisor; you can read all about him in his Wikipedia article. I don't know any thing about Jim Quinn, but from his website: http://www.warroom.com/, he seems to be a member of the rapidly increasing band of American right-wing radio talk show hosts. He seems to have no Wikipedia discussion, at least not yet. I hope this helps. --Opus33 00:20, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! KF 00:33, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I could probably go on at length about how this article would be different from the santorum redirect; suffice it to say that when "vomit" comes up as the number four Google hit for "chomsky" perhaps this will have merit. - Hephaestos 02:52, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But having lots of Google hits does not make something NPOV.
Anyways, I've changed the Chomsky page again to another disambig, but this time to something non-controversial. This is what I wanted to do in the first place. Thunderbunny 04:34, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)