Talk:Criticism of Noam Chomsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Israel Portal
Criticism of Noam Chomsky is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Criticism of Noam Chomsky is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
To-do list for Criticism of Noam Chomsky: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Lead
    • Propaganda model section
    • Dennett's criticism of Chomsky in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
    • NPOV: Sort out NPOV dispute
    • Other:
    • Summarize in and harmonize with Noam Chomsky
Priority 4  
Archive
Archives
Up to July 2007


Contents

[edit] Allegations of Anti-Semitism

The title to the section "Allegations of Anti Semitism" needs to be changed simply to "Israel" or "Israel and Palestine", and the content of the section significantly revamped. There is no other section on Israel, so we can take that this isthe Israel section.Excepting the Faurisson Affair, the allegations relate to nothing other than his views on Israeli policy. Every other caption on his international positions refers merely to the country or area in question, and not the accusations that have followed on from Chomsky's ideas. The title also slants the argument in the direction of extremists, as most critics of Chomsky's disccussion of the middle-east are likely merely to accuse him of partisanship.Nwe 12:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The people who make these claims refer to antisemitism; you can't make them say what you wish they said, or re-interpret their claims to mean what you think they really mean. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That they refer to anti-semitism is not the point. They also refer to Israel, and the allegations of anti-semitism all relate to his views on Israel, with one exception that has a section of its own. The section is essentially the Israeli section, as there is no other section that refers to his view on Israel. Every other international controversy in the article is simply introduced with reference to the pre-eminent country or incident concerned. For example, the piece on East Timor is not titled "Alleged Misrepresentation of UN Ambassador", the piece on Cambodia is not called "Allegations of Tolerating the Khmer Rouge", Sudan is not "Over-exaggeration of 1998 Bombing", and so on. As I have said, the content with regards to Israel should also be considerably revamped. It is likely that much more people are likely to have merely criticised his views on Israel, without bringing the possibility of an anti-semitic Jew. These views should be further accomodated.Nwe 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As you have pointed out, all the criticisms relate to antisemitism, whereas only some relate to Israel. The accusations are that he is antisemitic, and you must represent that views of his accusers fairly, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have already dealt with this. As a matter of fact, all the content of bar one easily handled exception relates to Israel. His comments on Jewish influence on the US, for example, are made in reference to the influence on America's policy towards Israel. Dershowitz's criticisms also derive from disputes over Israel. Plaut's don't appear to be sourced. The change in title is intended as the first step in a a wider rewriting of the material contained within the section, to accomodate more moderate and far more abundant mere criticism of his views on Israel. The current version favours the opinions of extremists. Nwe 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you may think it's all about Israel, and Chomsky may, for all we know. But his accusers accuse him of antisemitism, regardless. If you want to create a section with criticism of his views of Israel, feel free to. Also, please remember, this article is about Chomsky, we don't need lengthy POV descriptions of every other person mentioned in it. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
They don't accuse him of anti-semitism regardless, they insinuate with respect to his criticism of Israel, and with respect to that only. No other title to sections of the article engages in detail over the precise criticism involved, but merely reference the country in question. The Israel section should be no different. I hope you can understand that another, separate piece on Israel would be entirely inappropriate, considering the amount of overlap involved.Nwe 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they actually accuse him of antisemitism; that's the term they'd prefer. The fact that you'd like to re-frame their accusation as something else is something that Chomsky himself does, but it doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As of yet, there is not much evidence for your claims Jayjg. There are no quotes directly from Werner Cohn or Dershowitz or whoever labelling Chomsky as an anti-semite while clearly spelling out the reasons why, that would require courage. Rather the chosen method is that of slurring and insinuation and of course, "guilt by association". Nor are there quotations showing concretely that Chomsky hates Jews, which is the essence of anti-semitism. Nor are his accusors particularly notable in the overall scheme of things, they are from partisan camps, which is commented upon in wp:blp. Cohn's text existed as a vulgar polemical pamphlet for years before it was published by a house funded by pro-Israeli partisan organizations. It is also worth remarking that you have not chosen to respond to issues raised about the ban you have placed on this page. tsk tsk. BernardL 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cohn actually addresses (and dispenses with) your argument:

Much nonsense is sometimes written about the alleged fallacy of "guilt by association." True, if Chomsky happened to be associated with Faurisson and Thion in a tennis club, that particular association would not make him a neo-Nazi. But in fact we saw that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon.

Regarding the rest, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in any event, please discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(1) "We saw that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial..."No "we" didn't. We saw him write an essay arguing that free speech applied to everybody, a position which Cohn disagreed strongly enough with that he libeled Chomsky in retaliation. (2) "We found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers..." Ahem. This is Cohn's cute way of saying that a translation of The Political Economy of Human Rights was put out by a French firm involving Pierre Guillaume and Serge Thion, a "partnership which operates through a number of publisher's imprints." (3) "We saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal..." Hmmm. Can't say I know what Cohn's talking about here. My guess is Chomsky wrote something and made it public domain, as is his usual practice, and some disreputable (or not, you never know with Cohn) publication picked it up. (4) "We saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels." OK, back to guilt-by-association in its most obvious form, a fallacy Jay weirdly thinks Cohn has dispensed with.--G-Dett 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


It's astonishing that anyone could take Cohn's amateurish, poorly referenced screeds seriously. As for your own unethical and dishonest conduct as an administrator you only had to read the section immediately below this.BernardL 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I was not actually discussing whether or not they accuse him of anti-semitism, please re-read my post. Although, now that you mention it, is there actually any source that shows an accusation of him being anti-semitic?Nwe 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You said They don't accuse him of anti-semitism. Those were the first words of your last post. And they accuse him of associating with Holocaust deniers etc. which has nothing to do with Israel, which was your other claim. Regarding antisemitism, he is accused of a "complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations". Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)0
Please make sure you have read the entire sentence, I said They don't accuse him of anti-semitism regardless, they insinuate with respect to his criticism of Israel, and with respect to that only. I was pointing out that all the criticism with one exception is made with respect to his views on Israel. I have already dealt with the issue of Holocaust deniers and the Faurisson affair: that is the one exception, and it can easily be resolved be converting it from sub-section to full section. The only sourced allegation of anti-Semitism in the entire section is made by Werner Cohn, and this accusation relates to the Faurisson Affair. All other criticism that even suggests that he might be anti-semitic relates to Israel.Nwe 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
And if that were true, so what? They're still accusing him of antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So re-read my previous post. The title is inconistent with the rest of the article, promotes extremism and is, besides, inaccurate, as there is only one single sourced allegation of anti-semitism.Nwe 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason titles need to follow some rigid naming pattern; they should reflect the contents of the section. I'm not sure what "promotes extremism" means; many would argue that it is Chomsky's own words that "promote extremism". And as far as I can tell they all allege antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the "contents of this section," and of the page more generally, they do not appear to have been scrutinized by conscientious editors with a strong understanding of WP:BLP.--G-Dett 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be some level of consistency, and the absense of consistency in this case has all the fingerprints of bias and POV pushing on it. A re-titling of the section simply to "Israel and Palestine", with some minor restructuring of material, would be far more reflective of content and of the views of Chomsky's critics. "Promotes extremism" means that the title headlines extremist views ahead of more moderate ones that might merely criticise Chomsky's views on Israel. Re-read the section, there is actually only one genuine allegation of anti-semiticism provided.Nwe 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is Chomsky responding to accusations of antisemitism if no-one has accused him of it? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say no-one was making the allegations, I said that they were very rarely made, and by extremists., and there is only one specific accusation given in the entire section. I am sure interviewers ask him about criticism of his views on Israel far more frequently. His response in the defense he gives is made with respect to Israel. Nwe 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

May I inquire why this page is blocked?--Grauniad63 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The page was blocked over 6 months ago by User:Jayjg who also happens to have administrator pivileges. If you look back into the editing history of the article, you will find that at the time of the block there was insufficient explanation given for the action and little actual reason for doing so. This article was relatively dormant for the subsequent 5 months while the main Chomsky page was vandalized almost daily; but nothing was done about that, and Jayjg had no inclination whatsoever to lift the partial ban that he had imposed here, despite the lack of activity. For my part I think it is a matter of Jayg abusing his administrator privileges in a hyper-paranoid attempt to suppress legitimate criticism of the Israeli state here on wikipedia. The whole story of this kind of administrator abuse here at wikipedia is long and wide-ranging.BernardL 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Does WP:BLP apply to Chomsky? If not, why not?--G-Dett 11:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a living person, so obviously it does apply. Cadr 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this page is in compliance with WP:BLP?
Do you think it isn't? Cadr 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that all you have to do is read WP:BLP and it will be readily apparent that this page is in gross violation of the biography of living person policy. For example I recently removed a paragraph relating to Chomsky's visit with Hezbollah leaders because the source for the paragraph was "On Campus" with no author listed, which was in turn quoting an Austrailian article. In other words it was a tertiary source while WP:BLP says "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources." Moreover as it was there was no real content to the criticism, rather simply an opinion suggesting that the act of of Chomsky having met Hezbollah (actually during a tour in which he met with organizations of various stripes) implied anti-semitism. Thus it violates the WP:BLP directive that "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." Guilt by association is not an appropriate form of criticism for a biography of a living person - which is why the Dershowitz derived insinuation that Chomsky's support of Finkelstein is evidence of anti-semitism was also removed. The article is replete with these sort of violations.BernardL 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are as good as secondary, it is primary that may be problemtic. The articlw was called "MIT Professor Noam Chomsky Champions Hezbollah", so it was about Chomsky. Guilt by assoication would be if Wikipedia editors themselves synthesized information in order to do OR. Published outside Wikipedia, it is a view which should be included as per NPOV.Ultramarine 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why should Zachary Hughes' quote of an Austrailian article that appeared in "On Campus" and elsewhere (partisan sources) be considered a notable source? Who is Zachary Hughes? Please quote the words in WP:BLP relevant to your interpretation that the policy is restricted to "editors synthesizing information."BernardL 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BernardL here. There's an incredible quantity of stuff written about Chomsky; the notability bar is consequentially somewhat higher than it is for many other people. Any old newspaper article isn't necessarily notable. Cadr 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
We can quote this article from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America instead.[1]Ultramarine 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of this (partisan) source. But that still does not answer the question as to who is Zachary Hughes? Remember that according to WP:BLP the criteria for sources and content is considerably more stringent.BernardL 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That is lack arguing that material from the New York Times should be excluded if not a very known journalist is writing the article.Ultramarine 15:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A pretty invalid comparison indeed. Whatever one may think of the overall editing policies of the NY Times, not just any half-informed part-time activist or blogger can write political articles, there is an internal regime that requires demonstrated knowledge of the subject, usually an academic degree and/or demonstrated practical experience. There is also an internal fact-checking apparatus and editorial review. Keeping in mind that according to WP:BLP the "burden of evidence" is now on you, and that "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all" you have a long way to go to demonstrate why an ostensible unknown, Zachary Hughes (is he a student activist?), writing a web article for what is essentially a pro-Israeli flak vehicle, should be considered a reliable source, and moreover why the content should be considered relevant.BernardL 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of unknown authors cited in Wikipedia, perfectaly acceptable, if they write for a good source. Your claims regarding "pro-Israeli flak vehicle" is unsourced. Regardless, if we can include the without question biased Z Magazine, then CAMERA is fine by comparison.Ultramarine 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That there are lots of unknown authors quoted on wikipedia is not a valid argument. You are arguing in circles refusing to demonstrate how your source transcends the relevant quotes from WP:BLP that I have been providing. If there are unknown authors sourced on wikipedia it is one thing, but if those sources are concerned with the derogatory labelling (ie: anti-semite) of a living person, as WP:BLP explains, the standards are much higher. Your obstinate proclivity for arguing in circles, ad nauseum, on talk pages is well-known; and this discussion is no longer constructive.BernardL 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What is important is the publication process. As a media organization, CAMERA can be assumed to have a fact checking process. That is doubtful for Z Mag, which this article cites 7 times.Ultramarine 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Ultramarine, I've taken the time to answer your questions about Zmag at length (below). Have you had a chance to read that? The CAMERA material raises BLP issues, as did the FrontPageMagazine material. The Zmag material does not. Sourcing policies are much more stringent when BLP issues (such as potential defamation) are at play.--G-Dett 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Zmag is a partisan source, far worse than CAMERA. I see nothing particularly defamatory in the statement, his anti-americanism has been criticized in numerous sources. His trip to Lebanon is a fact.Ultramarine 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, have you read my response? You continue to talk about Zmag; will you be specific which of the six Zmag cites you think raises BLP issues? Thanks.--G-Dett 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Zmag as a whole raises issues, both as support or for criticisms. Again, I see nothing derogatory in the statement cited to CAMERA.Ultramarine 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean, "as a whole"? If the Zmag material presents BLP issues, please state them. If it doesn't present BLP issues, please stop stymieing BLP discussions with irrelevant asides about Zmag.
What exactly is the statement you want to attribute to CAMERA?--G-Dett 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky has also been criticized for his alleged support for militant organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of whom use antisemitic rhetoric. "Philosophically, of course, anarcho-socialist Chomsky has almost nothing in common with Hezbollah, which seeks to establish an Iranian style theocracy dominated by coercive enforcement of sharia religious law," wrote Tzvi Fleischer in The Australian in 2006, "But as Chomsky ... [has] demonstrated many times ... anti-Americanism trumps everything else."[2]Ultramarine 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I think you're right, Ultramarine, that that quote doesn't raise BLP issues. It would perhaps be good if we could gloss what his "alleged support" consists of, and if possible give Chomsky's version. I know he met with Nasrallah and said something to the press afterwards about having heard sound arguments why Hezbollah shouldn't disarm like every other militia in Lebanon. I wonder what his "support" for Hamas consists of? Perhaps simply the argument that they ought to have been diplomatically recognized after winning an election? In any case, we should be clear.--G-Dett 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[3]Ultramarine 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, that's more or less what I was remembering. Do you know what the basis of the "support for Hamas" charge is?--G-Dett 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
He travelled there and expressed support for them keeping their arms, despite the opposition to this from for example the United Nations. Also other things like "the hope to meet in the future in the Shab'a Farms after their liberation".Ultramarine 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Shab'a farms is in Israel, according to some Israelis and Americans, or Syria, according to other Israelis and Americans, or Lebanon, according to Syria (I know, it's weird) and some Lebanese, especially those who want an "occupation" pretext to remain on a war footing with Israel. You're telling me, in short, about Hezbollah. I'm asking about Hamas.--G-Dett 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not read properly. I see no problem with removing Hamas.Ultramarine 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't actually insisting we remove the reference to Hamas, just that we get some clarification what the accusation is about.--G-Dett 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky stated that he was meeting with Hezbollah because they were a relevant force on the ground in the region. He believes Hezbollah shouldn't have to disarm if the other militias in Lebanon don't have to disarm (and maybe Israel, if I recall correctly) as that would leave them at the mercy of other Lebanese militias (and ISrael). I imagine his meetings with Hamas (?) are for similar reasons. MarkB2 Chat 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the other militias in Lebanon have disarmed, at least officially; only Hezbollah openly bears arms, and they are de facto responsible for security in the southern suburbs of Beirut and much of the Shia areas in the south of the country.
I don't know that Chomsky has ever met with Hamas, or made any very specific statement about them.
The difficulty with Chomsky and BLP issues is that in real life (as it were) he objects categorically to libel laws (on free-speech grounds). This has surely been noted by his most vociferous critics. If a libel suit initiated by Chomsky were even a remote possibility, for example, then surely the epigraph of chapter 16 of Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Peace would not consist of a "quotation" from Chomsky doctored by Dershowitz so as to reverse its meaning. In fact, much that is on this page would probably not have been published in the first place. In this connection, moreover, it's worth pointing out that admins known for extremely stringent interpretation and application of WP:BLP have been very lenient on this page.--G-Dett 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

While FrontPage Magazine is hardly a neutral source, the same applies to Z Magazine, which is quoted several times in this article. It seems to be a double standard to exclude only one of them.Ultramarine 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing standards are different where BLP issues are involved.--G-Dett 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Quote please.Ultramarine 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I already provided one in my edit summary. [4] --G-Dett 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That statement would also exclude Z Magazine.Ultramarine 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Are there potentially defamatory statements about Chomsky from Zmag? There are six items in this article sourced to Zmag. They break down as follows: (1) a link to a mid-80s piece by Christopher Hitchens, originally published in Grand Street Magazine. Our article cites the Hitchens piece as a source for criticisms originally levelled against Chomsky in the New Republic, as well as for Hitchens' defense of Chomsky. (2) The text of the essay in which Chomsky controversially argued that the principles of free speech applied even to Holocaust deniers or "revisionists" like Faurisson. (3) A stable link to an article by Chomsky originally published in The Nation, reprising his argument about free speech (#2 above). (4), (5), and (6) a series of articles and interviews in which Chomsky supports the Geneva Accords position on right of return, is criticized by pro-Palestinian activists for his "realism" on the issue, and then responds to his critics.
#1 and #3 can be cited to their original (and I trust, uncontroversially reliable) sources if you prefer, but a stable link is a courtesy to the reader. I take it you don't want to see #2 removed, as it is the basis for what is perhaps the setpiece of anti-Chomsky criticism. In any case, none of these three presents WP:BLP issues of any kind. #'s 4, 5, and 6 do involve criticism of Chomsky, and it is criticism published in a partisan source (Zmag), so one could perhaps make a BLP case against that material. Is this what you have in mind? I think removing it would be a mistake. For one thing, both the criticism and the response from Chomsky provide some of this article's most interesting, subtle, and surprising material, which it would be a shame to lose in a point-match. Secondly, it is a detailed, good-faith exchange with no name-calling and no trace of potential defamation, so objecting on BLP grounds seems a stretch. Lastly, though Zmag is undeniably a partisan source, it is a partisan source on the whole very supportive of Chomsky, indeed one which frequently publishes pieces by him. Zmag wouldn't be a good source for potentially defamatory statements made about David Horowitz or Alan Dershowitz, but for criticism of Chomsky I think it's fine. The equivalent would be if FrontPageMagazine published something critical of David Horowitz; I would have no BLP objection to including it in an article on Horowitz.
I hope this answers your questions. Do you still have BLP concerns about the Zmag material? If so, can you be specific?--G-Dett 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Zmag is not needed for any important criticisms, I have other sources. Zmag is a dubious partisan source, also when supporting Chomsky.Ultramarine 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing is unbiased. Everything is presented from a certain point of view. If you're honest, you make your point of view clear. If you're dishonest, you pretend you're objective. It's really up to you to decide what you think is [reasonable]. You really ought to be triangulating. You look at different things and see how the world looks from different points of view and then you make your own decisions." --Noam Chomsky, April 5, 2003

There is no such thing as a neutral source. Some sources are more neutral than others, but none are de facto neutral. Human objectivity is an oxymoron. Just quote both sources and let readers decide for themselves. FightCancer 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like a quote for that "tertiary sources" are disallowed by BLP as per this claim.[5]Ultramarine 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be discussed in "WP:BLP" above.Ultramarine 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

More information was removed due to claimed "Guilt by assoication". The BLP applies to a Wikipedia editor synthesizing information, which this is not.[6]Ultramarine 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:BLP supports the interpretation that the policy is restrcted to an editor "synthesizing information" whatever you mean by that. The policy says: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." etc...BernardL 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If an Wikipedia editor made this criticism, it would OR. Published outside Wikipedia, it it not.Ultramarine 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that "Z Magazine" is a print magazine, and Zmag.org is a website linked to the magazine, which republishes articles from newpapers and magazines including very well known and well respected magazines. To my knowledge it has never been found to have edited or altered the articles it publishes. Z Magazine is a reliable source for what the US far left has to say on a topic. Reprints of articles on Zmag.org have the reliability of whatever the original publisher was. Eleland 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Z Mag is very reliable. FightCancer 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Frontpagemag also has a print edition.Ultramarine 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So quote it and let readers decide for themselves. The problem comes when people start deciding what information we do and don't have access to. That's called censorship.FightCancer 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Ultramarine 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. So please explain below why you are against quoting Chomsky. FightCancer 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

I have removed this text as WP:OR,[7] Using an online web extract to draw conclusions is OR. Similarly, a wikipedia editor critical of Chomsky is not allowed to cite a Chomsky web extract and then himself state critical conclusions and condemn the text.Ultramarine 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR which refers to "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Posting Chomsky's own words from his published book is not OR. Furthermore, there was were no critical conclusions or condemning text in the material you deleted. You don't have the prerogative to omit what the author himself said. If you have want to rephrase, please do so, but please stop the censorship. FightCancer
Yes, but you are drawing you own conclusions which is not allowed. Using your methodology, I could start citing Chomsky's writings and making various claims and criticisms.Ultramarine 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No. Quoting the author (Chomsky) is NOT the same as drawing my own conclusions. It is a fact that Chomsky wrote the quotes that you deleted. Please stop deleting what the author himself wrote. FightCancer 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor," Not allowed as per OR.Ultramarine 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear before I get a moderator, are you saying that it violates the WP:OR rule to quote an author? All I did in the text you deleted was to quote Chomsky from the book in question. Adrian Hastings was saying that Chomsky neglected to mention certain information. All I did was to quote where Chomsky had repeatedly mentioned that information. I'm quoting from footnote #3 (not reference #3) which is a published book written by Noam Chomsky. FightCancer 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, quoting is allowed, but not doing so in a way that creates an original synthesis. You state "Chomsky repeatedly discussed the methods of Milosevic and his Serbian army" and then list some quotes from a web extract of the book. This is an OR synthesis. It would be the same if I wrote "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then myself collect a bunch of quotes as support.Ultramarine 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, and that would be OK as long as you supplied quotes. So you took issue with the single line "Chomsky repeatedly discussed the methods of Milosevic and his Serbian army" and you deleted all 3 paragraphs of quotes?? Why don't you fix the single line, or is that an unreasonable request? How about instead of the line above we say something like "Chomsky discussed Milosevic and his Serbian army including..."? FightCancer 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I also took issue with speulations such as "Further review of Chomsky's entire book (beyond the excerpt referenced above) may reveal more counterarguments to Hastings' criticisms of this book." However, this has been removed which is good. In the current text you also state "With regard to Hastings' claim that Chomsky ignored "the context of a decade of wars"," and then list a bunch of quotes. It would also be OR if I wrote "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then myself collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim. A neutral text would be "An extract of Chomsky's book can be found online at---" and then let the reader decide for himself.Ultramarine 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So you took issue with 2 lines and deleted 3 paragraphs?? Again, it seems like you're saying that quoting Chomsky violates WP. Are you sure you're OK with quotations? (I see no reason to ask users to read 4100+ words when we could quote a few dozen right here.) FightCancer 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
These two lines and the quotes you then list as support are your current text. I think a neutral text is "An extract of Chomsky's book can be found online at---" and then let the reader decide for himself. Regading length, I could argue the same regarding my alternative claims above. Ultramarine 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You could argue "the same" what? FightCancer 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this in order to further clarify: "An extract of Chomsky's book where he presents his view can be found online at---"?Ultramarine 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You wrote above that "quoting is allowed". So no, I don't agree to your proposed censorship. If we can quote Chomsky's critics, then we can quote Chomsky himself. Then readers can make up their own minds. In fact, I think we should quote his critics and then quote Chomsky just to show how false most of their claims are. (The Adrian Hastings critique of Chomsky is a perfect example!) What's wrong with that? FightCancer 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As per above, do you think Wikipedia policy allows us to state "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then we list a bunch of quotes as support? Or "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim? Ultramarine 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As per above, "Right, and that would be OK as long as you supplied quotes." We cannot achieve 100% neutrality and objectivity. All we can do--especially in an article dedicated to smearing Chomsky--is to post what his critics say and what Chomsky himself says. Then people can decide for themselves. As per above, "What's wrong with that?" (It appears that you're trying to block posting what Chomsky himself says since you deleted 3 paragraphs of Chomsky quotes when you didn't like 2 sentences.) FightCancer 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what your answer is? Do you think Wikipedia policy allows us to state what I wrote above? Regarding your other objections, they have been answered earlier above.Ultramarine 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think Wikipedia policy (for this thread) allows us to post "what his critics say and what Chomsky himself says." If his critics say "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US", then it's OK to quote them. It's also OK to quote Chomsky. That's what this entire article is about: quoting Chomsky's critics and quoting Chomsky. Would you please explain why you're against quoting Chomsky even though you say "quoting is allowed"? FightCancer 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you arguing for a double standard, where one can synthesize Chomsky quotes when stating supporting views, but not when stating opposing views?
We should quote both his critics and Chomsky. Would you please explain why you're against quoting Chomsky even though you say "quoting is allowed"? A second question you haven't answered from above: 'You could argue "the same" what?' FightCancer 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting is allowed within various limits, such as copyright and not for OR synthesis. I can argue that the same arguments you make apply to us to stating "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then we list a bunch of quotes as support? Or stating "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim.Ultramarine 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, and if those quotes existed, wouldn't you be shocked that they weren't spotlighted in this article? When you say "Quoting is allowed within various limits", that's a very general, unspecific statement. Would you please explain why you're against quoting Chomsky from the book The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo in this article (such as the 3 paragraphs you previously deleted)? FightCancer 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I stated that quoting is allowed within various limits, such as copyright and not for OR synthesis. I have already stated my argument against OR synthesis above.Ultramarine 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you please define "OR synthesis" as you are using it? I don't think it means what you think it means. Would you please explain how quoting Chomsky equates to "OR synthesis"? FightCancer 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. Regarding application in this case, see discussion above.Ultramarine 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, quoting source A to respond to criticisms from source B when source B is criticizing source A is in no way synthesizing an argument as defined by WP:SYN. If Source B says "Source A doesn't like chocolate", then it's perfectly legitimate and useful to quote Source A saying, "I like chocolate." Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with prefacing the quote to say "Source A likes chocolate. He said so here...." FightCancer 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So then you are arguing that think Wikipedia policy allows us to state "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then we list a bunch of quotes as support? Or "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim? Ultramarine 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm arguing! How many more times do you want me to confirm this statement?! I've already said yes 4 times on this talk page alone! I'm saying we should quote Chomsky's critics and quote Chomsky. You censored this article by deleting the 3 paragraphs of Chomsky quotes earlier today. Please stop. Please recall the Jefferson quote on your personal talk page, "Information is the currency of democracy." Please let both sides present information and let readers make up their own minds. Finally, please remove the WP:OR tags you put in the article yesterday. FightCancer 08:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So it would be ok for me to add "Within a single excerpt (the only one available online) from the book which Hastings criticized, Chomsky mentions a few human rights problem caused by Milosevecs regime but makes no mention of for example the Srebrenica massacre."Ultramarine 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As per usual user:Ultramarine is obtuse. It makes eminent sense to quote what Chomsky wrote when it is relevant to issues that critics raise, which was the case here. Ultramarine's complaints that this method constitutes WP:OR holds no water whatsoever.BernardL 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that it's relevant to quote both the accuser and defender. FightCancer 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I see everyone is suffering today. I am dealing with similar on another article. He is attempting to use a Wikipedia article to exclude all Chinese and Syrian media from Wikipedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Which article is that? FightCancer
Prefer not to say, not that it would be hard to find out, but I rather keep the redundant argument between me and him. From what I witnessed, people seem to get frustrated when dealing with him in regards to him asking for common sense to be proven, and his refusal to read sources. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds removed a sourced view here: [8] Please explain, no double standard please.Ultramarine 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do, just tell me who's view it is that the lack of mentioning of that massacre is important in Chomsky's writing. The sentence does not specify and the source was the article, so it does not seem like anyone is mentioning that the lack of the massacres inclusion is important. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The same argument applies to these two paragraphs that you removed the OR dispute tag from without consensus.[9] No double standard please.Ultramarine 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You put OR tags on quotes ... quotes can't be OR. WP:POINT --SevenOfDiamonds 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine's absurdities have no bounds. In the book being referred to (not excerpts on websites), Chomsky does in fact refer to Srebenica as a slaughter and a massacre.BernardL 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have dealt with this on other pages, he does not read sources unless he can Google them it seems, which becomes frustrating when he finds excerpts or incomplete pieces etc. There is no deadline, not sure why he doesn't just hit the library or something to verify them, or even Barnes & Nobles. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. Such an synthesis is OR. It is a double standard to include your arguments regarding this online webextract but not mine.Ultramarine 07:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a book, you just only found the extract, someone is telling you that your OR is incorrect, that the book does mention the event that you are claiming it does not. If you feel that person is lying, please get the book from the library and come back and state it does not, and a real discussion can take place. However based on your reading of a book extract, you are not in a position to say what the book does and does not mention. --SevenOfDiamonds 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
For instance the massacre you say does not exist, is mentioned on page 32 and 74. The book is over 200 pages, you cannot say whats in it, if you only read some paragraphs online. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My arguments refer to the web extract, as did these two paragraphs.[10] POV to only allow arguments from one side using this web extract.Ultramarine 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My main point is that the using the web extract and then gathering some quotes in support for a certain POV violates WP:OR as an original synthesis. So these two paragraphs should be removed.Ultramarine 10:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My point, you cannot argue whats missing from a book that you did not read, especially when its not missing from the book. I will look up the quotes today and change references to the webextract to be references to the book. That should resolve this. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That is still an original synthesis done by you, not allowed. Do you think Wikipedia policy allows us to state "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then we list a bunch of quotes as support? Or "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim?Ultramarine 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not write anything, so I certaintly did not engage in OR, holster that pistol if you do not know who you are shooting at. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You just added to these paragraphs, so now you are also responsible for them. Please answer my question.Ultramarine 10:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but that is silly. I added references, go bark up another tree. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have no objection to my argument, then the paragraphs will be removed.Ultramarine 10:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And readded. Ignoring the objections of FightCancer is surely not a way to work toward consensus. Further your objections seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the information presented, as you have admittedly not read any of the sources presented. After you have done so, please let me know, as you clearly cannot say something is original research, if you have not read the source for it. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
See below.

Your original objection:

I have removed this text as WP:OR,[27] Using an online web extract to draw conclusions is OR. Similarly, a wikipedia editor critical of Chomsky is not allowed to cite a Chomsky web extract and then himself state critical conclusions and condemn the text.Ultramarine 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First point is they were using an online web extract and drawing conclusions, this has now been sourced back to the book, if you have not read that book you clearly cannot state it is OR. Second point is seems to be based on your misunderstanding, we as editors are allowed prose to discuss what is being stated, a source is listed as stating something, Chomsky's not mentioning certain events, alternate sources are presented, directly from the text, showing he did. There is no "new idea" being presented here. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My objection as discussed here on talk is that using this kind of OR we can also state "Chomsky repeatedly justifies terrorism against the US" and then we list a bunch of quotes as support. Or "With regard to Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we collect a bunch of quotes as evidence against this claim.Ultramarine 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not see that happening luckily. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its also not OR to state the obvious, the obvious being that the massacre is in fact mentioned in the book, and citing the pages. There is no new idea being created that I can see. What idea do you see being created? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Picking a particular collection of quotes to advance a particular view is an OR synthesis. It is clear from the text that Chomsky attempts to minimize atrocities immediately before the bombing as compared to atrocities that be blames on the bombing. When he discusses earlier history, it is mainly to blame earlier NATO interventions. These selective quotations and OR has no relevance on Hastings arguments that "There is no discussion of the character, aims and methods of Milosevic, no attempt whatever to place the war in Kosovo in the context of a decade of wars - in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia - and very little attempt even to portray what had actually happened in Kosovo in the twenty years before 1999. If anyone suffers from the disease of seeing the world as so centered in Washington that nothing else really matters, that person is Chomsky. It is a little surprising to find that the names of Sarajevo, Vukovar and the like never appear. Where he does refer to previous events in ex-Yugoslavia he often gets them wrong, uncritically accepting Serbian propaganda or using any conceivable quote to hammer the West."Ultramarine 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, What idea do you see being created? Hastings is critiquing an article by Chomsky, stating XYZ is not in the book. All that is being put in the article is, XYZ is on page ABC of the book. I still do not see the idea being created. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hastings is criticizing the book, not an article. None of the selective quotations contradicts Hastings statements which the OR synthesis alleges.Ultramarine 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Which is why quotes and page numbers were presented from the book. I do not even follow you anymore. What is there is John says A, Bob says B --SevenOfDiamonds 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The text still states "Hastings claims that Chomsky ignored 'the context of a decade of wars.'" Followed by a bunch of selective citations allegedly and incorrectly disproving this. Does this mean that we can write "Chomsky's claim that he is not an anti-semite" and then we in Wikipedia cherry pick some citations to show that this is incorrect? Ultramarine 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
He did claim that ... Not sure what the problem is? If he did not claim that, we should remove it, let me know. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A few quotes does not prove that Hastings is wrong regarding the book in general, that is an OR conclusion.Ultramarine 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The section no longer says Hastings was wrong, if I am correct. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Hastings claims that Chomsky ignored "the context of a decade of wars." Chomsky wrote..." followed by opposing quotes.Ultramarine 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You really believe they are opposing quotes? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
They are selectively picked quotes used to advance an argument, ignoring that Chomsky is mainly interested in criticzing earlier US interventions.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of questions

Can I request that this talk page be archived off, it's huge. Obviously leave current discussions.

Second, can someone please link me to, or explain in detail what constitutes a reasonable criticism page.

Does something subjective like validity of a criticism matter? What level of validity is required?

On the low level, the Truman criticism which is exactly what was described by Chomsky. So the criticism has no validity. On the high level of absurdity, The Holocaust didn't happen.

So, does validity matter?

Next, I get the feeling that since blogs are not linkable that you must be popular, or famous to be able to express your opinion on the criticism page. If I want my voice heard, I either need to find someone else that is famous to quote, or act to become famous myself.

Could someone explain, or link me to what level of famous is required.

Thank you for clarifying these questions for me. q 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a follow up question. If the main article is intended to be NPOV, and there is an entire page based on critcism of a person, why should there not be a page dedicated to praise?

So there's a page on what he thinks, NPOV. There's a biography page, NPOV. There's a page full of accusations which isn't neutral. Should there not be a page on praise? I'm not saying I want one, I only want to hear the justification for the state of things. q 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the general questions, I suggest that you study the wikipedia policy pages such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. The whole Noam Chomsky page is mostly praise, as well as the other twenty or so Chomsky pages counting his books, so one page with criticisms and counter-critcisms is a minimum.Ultramarine 17:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Analysis of the page starting from the top

I intend to go through every statement on this article and create a group discussion on what exists. If anyone knows of a neutral moderator that could oversee this endeavor I think it would be beneficial.

The very first criticism is on the topic of his linguistic work, I will quote it here.

"Linguistic professors Paul M. Postal and Robert D. Levine argue that "Much of the lavish praise heaped on his work is, we believe, driven by uncritical acceptance (often by nonlinguists) of claims and promises made during the early years of his academic activity; the claims have by now largely proved wrong or without real content, and the promises have gone unfilled.""

This is stating that two Linguistic professors have argued the above quoted passage from the Anti-Chomsky Reader. There is obviously no NPOV, so I guess that quoting someone else allows you to escape that criteria?

There is no evidence for the claims listed, they are merely attacks. The quote comes from an essay that was republished in the Anti-Chomsky Reader called "A Corrupted Linguistics".

Since there is no actual evidence, there is nothing to counter or defend. It just states an opinion without case studies or evidence to be discussed.

So what is the justification for including it? It would seem to be against the "policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

A quote from a libelous book, with no evidence for the statement. Could someone for the keeping of this section please comment as well?

If someone would like to add evidence to the offending section to include claims as to why, and evidence to verify those claims that would improve the statement by leaps and bounds.

I feel that to follow the policies the rightful course would be to remove the offending section immediately ,and continue the discussion, but I will wait for further input.

There is detailed evidence in the book as well as other books published by these two linguistic professors. Exact page numbers are given. If you want praise, there is already much of that on the main Chomsky page.Ultramarine 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The evidence for what the above person is discussing wouldn't be presented by the book, it would be presented by the original author in the essay. I guess the problem is then finding the essay. Much of what is in this article probably would not pass the BLP standards. I think I will post there soon asking for someone to review. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The book is not difficult to find and has not "republished" anything. The authors also list several others more advanced books for those interested.Ultramarine 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you are talking about, the essay you quoted in the book may be hard to find, meaning the non-republished work, not sure who said the book was hard to find. My understanding is the Anti_Chomsky Reader is a collection of Anti-Chomsky essays. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a collection of writings written for the book, not republished works.Ultramarine 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. I would have looked it up myself, but I try not to read blatant propaganda. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What about evidence? There is no evidence, just a statement. That would seem to fit with "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", "is a conjectural interpretation of a source", "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.", "favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." (No scientific reason is quoted, if you would like to add one, please do so), "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." q 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You can read the book if you want the exact details.Ultramarine 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The book is irrelevant to it breaking these rules. What is the process to request an Administrator to look at this issue? q 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No rule has been broken. WP:V states that arguments must be verifiable, which this is if you read the book. There is no requirement that we should violate copyright by copying the book here.Ultramarine 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I will choose the easiest rule it's breaking, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions-but do not assert opinions themselves." Clearly this is broken, and is a violation. The quote is a quote from the book, so if stating evidence to pertain to the quote is a violation of copyright, then the quote is as well. And it breaks other rules quite clearly. q 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not. There is an entire chapter in the book on this. You can read it if you want all the details, thus verifiable. Copying the whole chapter here would be copyright violation and is not necessary. Quoting a few paragraphs is not copyright violation.Ultramarine 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is violating "Assert facts, including facts about opinions-but do not assert opinions themselves.". It asserts an opinion, it does not assert a fact. What is your response to this? q 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are several facts mentioned in the quotes.Ultramarine 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What is factual about this quote? "Much of the lavish praise heaped on his work is, we believe, driven by uncritical acceptance (often by nonlinguists) of claims and promises made during the early years of his academic activity; the claims have by now largely proved wrong or without real content, and the promises have gone unfilled." q 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are several more specific examples in the next quote. But again, the exact details are in an entire chapter in the book and cannot all be copied here.Ultramarine 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about other quotes. The next quote is separate as indicated by "They also". That section will need to be discussed on it's own accord, this particular quote does not serve any purpose but stating their opinion with no factual basis, and thus should be removed. It is also an "Exceptional claim" which requires "exceptional sources", and "multiple sources", of which neither is provided. The offending passage should be removed, or updated to remove opinion and state the factual claims. "Much of his lavish praise", unverifiable, entirely opinion. "often by nonlinguists", unverifiable, entirely opinion. That the claims are uncritical acceptance, unverifiable, entirely opinion. The entire thing is opinion. There is not one fact, and it should be removed, and replaced with a factual basis for these claims if they exist. q 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are sources for these statements in the book.Ultramarine 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Then those should replace this opinionated quote, as well as require multiple sources. I believe we need additional opinions because this seems very clear to me. q 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is verifiable, read the book. There are many sources listed. But again, we cannot and do not have to copy the entire chapter here. WP:V does not require that the source should be copied to wikipedia, only that it can be verified, which a commonly available book easily is.Ultramarine 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, Then the sources, or a summary of the actual factual statements instead of an opinionated quote that is unverifiable needs to be included. q 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This statement is from the introduction, they then discuss this in the rest of the chapter, so it is not possible to list all the sources they refer to.Ultramarine 23:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's not possible to keep an opinionated quote. If you want to summarize the sources, fine. I am all for you adding content to clear up this problem, however the current revision of the quote violates the rules for obvious reasons. q 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:V. The first sentence of the policy is very clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In this case the material has been published in reliable source, and is therefore verifiable. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually WP:BLP constrains and delimits WP:V to even more stringent standards.BernardL 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable", "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.", "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.", "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.", "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.". I could go on, this is a clear cut case, it should be removed immediately. q 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the offending section RE: BLP q 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain why. The material is well sourced to two respected linguistic professors who in turn refers to many other sources. See Jayjg's comment above.Ultramarine 09:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My comment was specifically regarding false claims made about WP:V. The material clearly satisfies WP:V. I'm not sure whether or not it satisfies the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP. Please explain specifically and explicitly why you think it does not. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote is libel in that it is impossible to verify and effects people's opinion of him, however there are other rules it breaks. I will repeat the quote,

"Much of the lavish praise heaped on his work is, we believe, driven by uncritical acceptance (often by nonlinguists) of claims and promises made during the early years of his academic activity; the claims have by now largely proved wrong or without real content, and the promises have gone unfilled."

Take a look at a college's linguistic curriculum, and you will find his books on the reading list. Thus, it's an extraordinary claim that his linguistic claims "have by now largely proved wrong, or without real content." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. That would involve more than one reference two this book. I would also argue that it should come from a scientific journal of study as opposed to a book that's goal is to discredit this man. This claim is clearly against "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." So if this is more than a "tiny minority view" which should have "no place in the article", then it should be easy to fulfill the requirements of "extraordinary claims." To fulfill the requirements multiple sources from books other than the "Anti-Chomsky Reader" would be cited, including a peer-reviewed journal if possible. That would completely cover WP:BLP and would be a welcome addition to the article if provided. q 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide who is right. We present different views without claiming to judge who is right and what the truth is. This is a sourced view by two prominent linguistic professors who in turn cite many other works. The text does not claim that they are right, it only mentions their view, but as such it should certainly be mentioned.Ultramarine 17:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please address my specific claims? Is it slander? If not, why not. Is it an extraordinary claim? If not why not. Does it have extraordinary references? If so, why so. Why is it not a "tiny minority view"? which wikipedia states should have "no place in the article." Address these claims that are per wikipedia policy. Thanks q 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, they list many other works in the book. On the other hand, you have given no sources at all for your many claims.Ultramarine 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not my responsibility, it's the person who wants to keep it in per WP:BLP. q 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They state their belief that the praise of his work came from uncritical acceptance, often by nonlinguists, which have since been largely proved wrong or without real content. How is that in any way related to libel or slander? Please review the meaning of those words. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But this article isn't a "Biography of a Living Person". The biography is at Noam Chomsky. This is an article about criticisms of him. It seems like an end-around, but it is entirely different context (especially if the article was renamed to something even more specific, like "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky's Work and Politics"), so the BLP policy doesn't apply, just the NOR, NPOV, and V. OracleDude 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Levine and Postal are at the extreme end of the scale, and the article ought to include a more balanced selection of critical views. However, Paul Postal is one of Chomsky's more prominent current critics, and (outside of the propaganda volume in question) has published peer-reviewed articles criticizing Chomsky's work. I see no reason to remove this from the article so long as it's neutrally presented. Cadr 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename as "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky's political positions" and displace the linguistic stuff

This article is titled "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky", yet it is for the most part about his political positions. Also, the first thing you see as you begin to scroll down the page is "Criticisms of linguistic writings", which is misleading. I think this article should state clearly that it's about politics, and the linguistic part should be moved to the main page or a page of its own. Just my 2 cents. Jules.LT 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather rename the article as "criticisms of Chomsky's politics." There is significant literature on criticism of Chomsky's linguistics from legitimate linguistic and other sources which would probably best be handled by people with appreciable knowledge of the subject.BernardL 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I do get the feeling that in the case of linguistics, some people here are just fishing around for any criticism they can find on the web without taking the time to understand any of the issues. Agree that this page should probably be renamed. Cadr 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Not against this in principle. A problem with the linguistic section in the main article is that there are very few sources. Myabe Cadr could fix this?Ultramarine 14:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - keep it together in one place. Linguistic and other academic criticisms (e.g. evolutionary beliefs) are appropriate in a criticism article. Richard001 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Description of the motives of United States policy-makers"

Could the Paul Robinson here be disambiguated to the correct one (even if redlink)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.138 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific removal

This however is a basic strawman argument. Al-Qaeda opposes the governments of coutries such as Saudi Arabia, not because they are undemocratic but because, in Al-Qaeda's eyes, they are un-Islamic. Thus Chomsky argues that 9/11 was a response to American support for un-Islamic governments rather than the support of undemocratic ones.

I've removed the above text for a second time. This qualifies as Original research on the grounds that it is drawing a conclusion about a complex matter without citing a source. Additionally it is heavily abusing weasel words to convey an opinion as broadly held. Neither of these are acceptable, especially when WP:BLP applies. This needs a source, and it needs a specific critic or subset of critics. i kan reed 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truman speech

I changed and expanded the section on the Truman speech controversy. The previous version was utterly wrong. It misstated both the participants and the issues. The participants were Schlesinger and Chomsky, not Kamm and Chomsky. The issues were these: Schlesinger accused Chomsky of deliberately misattributing several quotations to Truman and totally misrepresenting the point of the speech; Chomsky replied that it was an innocent mistake which he would correct and that in any case he had accurately described the message of the speech. Kamm was commenting on this exchange between Schlesinger and Chomsky. And if we're going to mention Chomsky's reply to Kamm, we must link to Kamm's rejoinders to Chomsky. Hecht 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs and self-published websites making exceptional claims are not premitted as per WP:BLP

I will be removing references sourcing blogs and websites from this page as per wp:blp.

According to wp:BLP..."Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material."

There is no question that the claims made are exceptional claims and thus require exceptional sources, not blogs, self-published websites or material funded by partisan organizations. BernardL (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good clean up efforts. Lets stick to only reliable sources here--and then only the best, since this is a living person we are dealing with. Under no circumstances should we include negative claims about a living person from blogs.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Describe exactly what material you object to here please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just did. See quotes policy on BLP, above.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is one of the deleted links. [11] It is from a published work, not a blog. Exactly what is the objection?Ultramarine (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That is his own personal website; it's self-published.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just an extract from a published work: [12] Also, BLP applies to biographic material about a person, not to claims the person make.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Good then use that book, not his personal website as the source. BLP does apply here.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, BLP applies to biographic material about a person, it does not prevent criticisms of the persons claims and writings. You have to cite some other policy for that, like WP:V. The published book is the source. It is not unsourced blog material.Ultramarine (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP applies. The charges are slanderous in nature, if untrue. Clearly personal attacks on Chomsky, mostly guilt by association. So looking into it, even the book is itself not reliable enough to be used for these rather disparaging, dubious, and derogatory claims. Also, avoid blogs per policy, esp. here.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the book not reliable? Ultramarine (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you say that calling someone's writing anti-semitic is not paramount to call the person an anti-semite. Where does WP:BLP make the distinction you are claiming? The contested reference is making an extremely exceptional claim in a biographical article- namely anti-semitism- therefore it requires an exceptional source. This source is not a serious, widely accepted and careful academic study. It was a pamphlet made possible by the funding of Zionist lobby groups for years, now it's claim to fame comes from it's presence in the anti-Chomsky reader, funded by another virulently anti-Chomsky partisan source. Fails verification per wp:BLP BernardL (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Source for your many claims please regarding the published book please.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-published pages, and blogs, are not considered reliable sources in biographies of living persons. Oliver Kamm is co-manager of a pan-European investment bank. His blogging work is frequently rebutted by other bloggers. Leaving that aside, he is temporarily guest contributor (not a regular columnist) for The Times of London, so if Ultramarine can find the same criticism published there, the offending material can be restored. smb (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See above, the source is a published book. Ad hominem attacks against of the author seem to be of little interest. Should we also exclude Chomsky since he is very rich (and uses a trust to avoid taxation)?Ultramarine (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to your edit timed at 15:36, February 19 (diff) smb (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So do you have any objection to the Oliver Kamm book not being an ad hominem attack against the author? Otherwise I will restore this materialUltramarine (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What book are you referring to? smb (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See above. This one: [13]. Extract from it here: [14]. No reason for deleting the material which had this book as source.Ultramarine (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That book was written by Werner Cohn, not Oliver Kamm. smb (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, However, the deleted text included material in two places referencing this book by Cohn. No reason for excluding that material.Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why then, did you not restore the subject matter relating only to Werner Cohn's published work? Why did you restore the dubious blog material? Please acknowledge your mistake. smb (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, some of the materia is from self-published sources. However, since Chomsky has replied to at least some of these criticisms in Prospect Magazine, that is a reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's resolve this Oliver Kamm issue first. As far as I am aware the material from Oliver Kamm that has been deleted has come from his blog, has it not? (as user:Smb's diff indicates) BernardL (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Read above. It is an extract from a published book.[15]. Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are conflating two sources. Pause for a moment to consider the issue with respect to blogs. They are not permitted here. I only mention this because you recently restored contentious material found on a blog, as shown in the diff provided by me above. With respect to Werner Cohn, one can find Noam Chomsky's response here. Read carefully what BLP says on this topic: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." I'm not familiar enough with this matter to determine whether Cohn's charges are fallacious or not. smb (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are not familiar with the material, how can you then object to it? That Chomsky has written a response is not a reason for excluding a view. However, we should certainly also include Chomsky's reply.Ultramarine (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My objection relates directly to your reliance on blogs only. Apart from expressing a single note of caution, I have no opinion of the Cohn affair. Please try and take the necessary time to read and understand what other editors are saying. smb (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

BernardL, why did you delee the sourced material? As explained, it is from a published book. Also, why did you restore unsourced material? Ultramarine (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine re-added the Cohn, etc. material without achieving consensus. There is no question that a claim of anti-semitism against an individual is an exceptional claim. The burden of proof is on Ultramarine to demonstrate that Cohn is a high quality reliable dource. Just the fact that someone published a book does not qualify them for reliability in an exceptional claim against a living person. As even Cohn admits on his website, that book first began as a pamphlet published by Americans for a Safe Israel, which is a hard right hawkish lobby group that rejected the peace process, supported extremist and outlawed Rabbi Meir Kahane on his U.S. speaking tour. I could say more about Americans for a Safe Israel (perhaps later)- but for now suffice to say that the burden of proof is on you to show that Cohn is a high quality source and not just a partisan viewpoint.BernardL (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The book is not published by Safe Israel. Cohn is a sociologist. Also, please read WP:NPOV. Claim of POV is not a an excuse for deletion. Why did you restore the unsourced material?Ultramarine (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The material was first published as a pamphlet by Americans for a Safe Israel, then slightly expanded and published by some of the same people as the first book on Avukah Press which is not a notable high quality publisher. Yes, Cohn is a sociologist, but he did not write that book within the discipline of sociology, did not use an academic press etc. Are there reliable non-partisan sources that refer to this book as serious and of high-quality?BernardL (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Now it is published by Wordsworth Editions. Wikpedida has separate articles on books by Chomsky published by non-academic publishers like Pluto Press and only being a collection of interviews.Ultramarine (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is non-responsive to the serious BLP issued raised by BernardL. In the absence of meeting even the minimum standards, this material can not stand, much less so without any consensus to add. Your additions are premature at best. Please find at least one quality source that substantiates these serious allegations about Chomsky. Until then I will remove per BLP.Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have responded. The source is a published book by a sociologist. It is not a "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" which BLP prohibits.Ultramarine (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a response that does not even come close to meeting the burden of proof which is on you for the addition of exceptional claims about a living person. Your comparison with Pluto Press is not valid. Chomsky is not making a highly personalized exceptional claim such as Cohn is in calling Chomsky an anti-semite. Cohn's book was not written within the discipline of sociology. If it was, you would have no problems quoting other sociologists who believe it is a quality work. You can meet the burden by showing that this book is regarded respectably by non-partisan peers.BernardL (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A published book by a sociologist. On the other hand, you have made many claims regarding the book but given few or no sources. I have posted this dispute on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.Ultramarine (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject of an article is considered an expert on themself so including their own statements, in context, is generally fine. As for WP:BLP, exceptional statements require exceptional sources. If an exceptional reliable source states his veiws are or are seen as anti-Semitic then attribute to that source if WP:CONSENSUS agrees that the source is a reliable one. "____ states that _____ is _____. This is held in tension with the fact that ____" Benjiboi 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the discussion so far:

1. We should link to Kamm's blog where it reproduces his anti-Chomsky pieces in notable journals such as Prospect.

2. We must surely link to Cohn's book which is by an academic sociologist whose expertise is political extremist groups. It was published as an extended chapter in a book issued by Shapolsky Publishers and republished by a collective including Nathan Glazer. Of course we must also link to Chomsky's reply and Cohn's rejoinder.

3. We must link to the Bogdanor page which has most of the published criticisms of Chomsky. The personal website objection doesn't apply as it's a repository of published articles by others.

There's no point having a Criticism of Noam Chomsky entry without links to the major published criticisms. I'm restoring Kamm and Bogdanor but in view of the controversy over Cohn's book will wait for consensus here.

P.S. to BernardL: you said that Americans for a Safe Israel "supported extremist and outlawed Rabbi Meir Kahane." Do you have a source for this claim because if true I'd like to include it on both Wikipedia entries. Thanks. Hecht (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored Kamm's criticisms in Prospect and Chomsky's reply. I also restored the Bogdanor page with published criticisms. Hecht (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Anarchist criticism of Chomsky's political views

"Chomsky wrote a highly influential article on anarchism in the early 1970s and also wrote a book on the subject.[citation needed]"

The book that the author is reffering to here is For Reasons of State -- Published in 1973 by Random House -- republished by The New Press in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.183.94 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] criticisms of Chomsky's style

I think there used to be some stuff here about it, but I do know there are a good number of people who criticize Chomskey on his overall style such as his tendency to make broad generalized statements which imply that to disagree is to be an idiot, etc. This is commonly criticized. I don't have any sources right now, but I'll dig some up later. I'm just posting this hoping someone else might be able to start things off. —Memotype::T 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have flagged a section of this article as NPOV. The marked section is clearly biased, does not reflect the formal tone of a reference work, needs cleanup, etc., etc. It either needs a complete rewrite and reincorporation into the fuller document or it needs to be excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhzeemandeeus (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, this entire article is in desperate need of someone who is an authority on the subject, and considering the number and specificity of volumes involved, I doubt a qualified editor is to be found among us. Considering its protected status and the various edit wars discussed above, I can only assume that the status quo will remain. Regardless, the section I've highlighted really could use some attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhzeemandeeus (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] the premise for the existence of this article?

i find it telling that there is an entire article devoted to the criticism of noam chomsky given harry truman's article (the only man to ever authorise the use of atomic weapons to destoy cities) doesn't even have a criticism section (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki barely mentions him). although this could be because no one has gotten around to compiling this critique yet, it seems more likely that there is an inherent tendency within wikipedia to ignore controversies surrounding 'the good guys' (i.e. our leaders -- in this case Truman), instead only discussing them within the context of controversies surrounding their detractors (in this case chomsky). 99.233.145.194 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)