Talk:Noam Chomsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noam Chomsky article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Former featured article Noam Chomsky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2004.
To-do list for Noam Chomsky: edit · history · watch · refresh
List of objectives
  • Keep the article neutral. (Do not include irrelevant material that reflects disparagingly on Chomsky simply for the reason that it does so. In the same respect, do not delete relevant information that is disparaging simply because it is disparaging.)
  • Find "the last word" on some debates that have not been fully researched.
  • Try to include the above images in the article if possible.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Noam Chomsky as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian, French, Hebrew or Portuguese language Wikipedias.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives


Contents


[edit] Featured article status

Who would like to collaborate to achieve featured article status for this article? CyberAnth 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i will. 67.204.9.166 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) what are the criteria

[edit] WARNING SIGN

Someone needs to remove the warning signs. They are rude and a bad joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.115.67 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] TWIT

A mention came up that this article is slanted a it..... someone wanna take it with a fine tooth comb -- Tawker 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article reads like a press release

How about some critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.189.72 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Noam Chomsky article

This is rather curious. Someone who isn't logged in accused me of vandalizing the Noam Chomsky article. I check my edit, and it shows exactly what i did-- added the IWW category to the article, because Noam Chomsky is a member of that organization. It doesn't show any other changes.

But i look at the next edit, where the vandalism was apparently undone. That shows vandalism that *appears* to come from the previous edit (my edit.)

Is there a way that someone is able to edit, and hide what they've done?

I don't know who posted to my talk page without signing, but if you have any more information, please weigh in on this. Richard Myers 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard Myers -- I looked at it and sure enough it looks like you did the category & the random edit. I doubt that someone spoofed your address -- more likely, wikipedia was having a database sync hiccup of some sort. However, if this happens again on this article or to you, you should certainly let an admin know at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --lquilter 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have this article on my watchlist and yes I noticed that vandalism has been up a little lately, but this article has always been prone to vandalism and the recent vandalism hasn't reached levels where the article needs to be protected. If vandalism starts getting out of hand then I'll protect the article myself.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I added to your talk page because it looked like you had vandalized. You did not. I apologize. I do not choose to login for anything I do on wikipedia, and that will not change. I saw a lot of vandalism, and someone was named in the history after a few reverts I did that day and decided to tell them to stop. Little did I know, it must have been a database hiccup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.105.30.44 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Political views, connections to linguistics

My first edit. I'm surprised that there isn't much discussion on this page. I removed the following remark: "Chomsky has made connections between his linguistics research and more political topics. An example is a 1971 debate with French philosopher Michel Foucault on the question of human nature, where Chomsky used the idea of innate linguistic capacity to criticize the idea that all human values and knowledge are entirely conditioned by societal conditions."

Firstly, the characterization of that element of the debate is incorrect. In the Foucault debate, he used the idea that we have an innate capacity for sympathy (not language), to criticize the idea that human values, our sense of right and wrong, etc. are entirely conditioned by society. Secondly, this has nothing to do with politics. I left the subsequent sentence which gives a quote of Chomsky from 1969 describing the "tenuous" connection, although I don't think it's right to leave this in. There are a few instances where he has described a very tenuous or abstract connection, but there are hundreds of articles and interviews where he says that there is "absolutely no connection", or that the connection "is approximately zero". I'll let others decide if it should be removed. MJM72 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not entirely sure on the specific debate but I know that Chomsky frequently disavows any connections between politics and linguistics in various interviews he does. So I would tend to agree with you.--Jersey Devil 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The new wording is problematic: the phrase "regularly admits" seems to imply that he is "admitting" something that he's accused of. How about replacing that with "frequently states"? Cgingold 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call Cgingold. MJM72 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] faurisson misstatement replaced

Earlier, there was a long debate over the main article's grossly one sided treatment of the Faurisson affair which misrepresented the actual beliefs of Chomsky's critics. Someone has apparently both cleaned up/deleted that discussion from the discussion page and also reintroduced the same type of one sided exposition into the 'criticisms' section. It's a bit absurd that we can't even present criticisms of Chomsky in the section devoted to that topic, and instead show Chomsky trying to rebut arguments that aren't even allowed to be made. The article on the Faurisson affair gives a good overview of the topic, but the summary in the main article is horribly misleading.--Ryan Wise 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)--150.135.1.43 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is there to misrepresent? He was one of 500 people who signed a petition calling for free speech to be protected, the critics response was quite fantastic LamontCranston (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What languages does he speak?

It seems like a strange ommission, but I can't find in this article what languages Noam fluently speaks. Gronky 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

English only. He mentiones it in talks sometimes.--ChainSuck-Jimmy 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he's ever said he speaks only English- he was translating Hebrew texts by age 7: http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/LitMap/bios/Chomsky__Noam.html

Furthermore his debate with Foucalt seems to indicate that he speaks French as no translator could be heard. If I had to guess I'd say he speaks a few other languages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.46.221 (talk)

When you take a look at the video of this debate you will recognize that Chomsky spoke in English while Foucault spoke in French. In case Chomsky would speak French there would be no point to that. I do not know about Chomskys Hebrew, but I remember him saying in an interview that he would like to be able to speak foreign languages but did'nt manage to get into this.--ChainSuck-Jimmy 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that his standards for what constitutes fluency or 'competence' in a given language tends to be more stringent than that of most folks BernardL 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If he can speak Hebrew or French or whatever language, then there will surely be a record of him conversing, writing, debating, or otherwise using that language somewhere. And his level can be obvious from the complexity of his use, or can be judged by the comments of a third-party. His standards are not the issue here. Gronky 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In the first chapter of "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" (1965), he quotes French text without providing any translation. At the very least he can read it. Quite probably he can also understand it passively, just not speak it well enough to do so in a in public debate . Emile 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't prove he can read it, it just proves that he expects his readers not to be thrown by seeing it. Anyway, basic French is not difficult for English speakers. The languages are so similar that you can even get by in French speaking countries by speaking English with a French accent. Gronky 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Help, I just fell off my chair! LOL
"The languages are so similar that you can even get by in French speaking countries by speaking English with a French accent."
Thanks for the laugh! (really)
You, um, do realize, I hope, that just possibly the reason for this is that an awful lot of people in those countries have learned basic English. Cgingold 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
An awful lot have, and others haven't. A quarter of words in English are of French origin (that figure, IIRC, excludes medical and scientific terms). Take a look at fr.wikipedia.org, in the opening welcome sentence, even if you've never heard of French before, you'll understand "project" "encyclopedia" "distributable" and you might cop that "librement" has something to do with liberty. Then in the sentence that follows, you'll understand "articles" "French" "million" and you'll probably recognise "languages", and from the word "plus" you might take the right meaning, or if not, a meaning not too far wrong. The rest of the page is also full of examples of French that a monolingual anglophone can understand. You must have a special chair that ejects its occupant whenever the occupant encounters something they don't know much about - be careful on Wikipedia! :-p Gronky 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
These days, you can get by if you only speak English. (Note that "speaking with a French accent" is not going to help you in any way.) However, this has not always been the case. If you went to France 30 or 40 years ago, you would have had a very rough time if you didn't know basic French. Just the fact that some words are similar isn't going to help you a great deal. Same goes for Spanish and Italian. Them being able to understand basic English is actually only a very recent development. —msikma (user, talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
He can probably only understand French and German, but is not really fluent. In his C-SPAN interview that was relatively recent (it's on Youtube, you can find it), he was talking about how in graduate school (or perhaps when he was a fellow at Harvard) he was teaching some other grad students quick courses in French and German because these other grad students needed to pass such classes in order to fulfill some grad requirements. But from what Chomsky was saying, it seems that these were very cursory courses, and from the interview you don't get the feeling that he is really fluent in any meaningful sense in those languages (though he doesn't explicitly say he is not fluent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.4.156 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
There is a scene in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (which is also included in the book of the same name (Black Rose books) made from the documentary) where Chomsky is met at the airport in Europe (as I remember) by some minder for a lecture he is going to give and the minder asks "what would you like to read? I've bought a selection of papers." And Chomsky answers, "anything in a European language" which to me implies at least a reading knowledge of French, German, and Italian. 137.82.188.68 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This question was put to him by me a long time ago and the answer was added to the article: see here. — Chameleon 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems most likely that he can read quite a few languages but only speaks English fluently. Cadr 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jewish

if he is athiest, why is he listed as a jewish scientist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.83.66 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Because being "Jewish" means that one is a Jew, which is an ethnic term in this context rather than a religious one. Many Jews, like Chomsky, do not practice Judaism but they are still Jews. Merenta 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That is complete nonesense and was a reason Nazi Germany was able to pursue their genocidal campaign against jews. Truth is you aren't born a Jew, you choose to be one. It's a religion, not a race.
While the unsigned comment about the Nazis is well taken, I must add that, although I am also an atheist, I consider that I am a Jew because I am the child of a Jewish mother (who was herself an atheist). I do object, however, to the practice of always pointing out that someone is a Jew when it is not appropriate. Chomsky is obviously a name with a Slavic source; why then is it spelled out in Hebrew and Yiddish? His politics are not typical of most Jews. His scientific position was unique when first developed. Perhaps there is a subtle anti-semitic agenda? I have a mind to point out the ethnic and religious backgrounds of non-jews in similarly inappropriate situations so as to emphasize this point. Clinton? Rove? McCarthy? Mondale? Gore? Boss Tweed? Walter Reuther? Alberto Gonzales? Too Old 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky being Jewish is relevant to the article since Chomsky himself highlight's it as an important part of his life. You can see the Brian Lamb BookTv interview where he talks about how he grew up in a Jewish neighborhood split into "Hebrew" and "Yiddish" sides, how he grew up with an "irrational fear of catholics" because of being Jewish and his father's background as a Hebrew scholar. Chomsky considers himself a "true zionist" in that he associates the origins of Zionism with that of the kibbutz movement in early Israel.--Jersey Devil 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
To the above statement in regard to Naizism. You are a fool. I suggest that you delve further into your history books and read of the 'Jewish diaspora'. After the siege of Jerusalem, Jews fled from the 'Holy Land' and thus fled to Europe and so forth. Therefore, every European (or Slavic) Jew is a descendant of the Israelites.

[edit] Need to cite source

First quote in the Opinion on criticism of science culture does not have a source. The quote does not come from the Activism, Anarchism, and Power interview. --Fseth7 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fseth7 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unbalanced bit

Virtually the whole section entitled "generative grammar" consists of unsourced criticism, parts of which are masked as objective, supposedly uncontroversial statements. While many of them do sound "truthy" to me (I'm not particularly interested in the field), it is unclear where the "objective" part is supposed to end and where the overt criticism is supposed to start, as they form a single line of reasoning. It's obvious that Chomsky's own quote disputes the accuracy of the preceding generalizations (and was indeed written as an objection to them, as apparent from the wiki page cited as a source for the quote). Finally, a section entitled "Generative grammar" should begin with a neutral and clear explanation of the basics of generative grammar, and criticism and "advertisement" of competing trends should come afterwards. --91.148.159.4 14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist

Just as a matter of interest, has anyone e-mailed Chomsky and asked whether he prefers being labelled an atheist? I've always been under the impression that this is a slight controversy, in so far as people are not quite sure as to whether he is a atheist or agnostic, I have seen him described as both. The only time I have seen him comment on the subject was when he was actually asked whether he believed in God, and his response was something along the lines of "I can't answer that question, I don't know what it is exactly you're asking me to believe in", before stating that some people have to imagine some sort of creative intelligence behind the design of the universe, whereas he dosen't. He seems to have given the impression that he doesn't really mind being called an atheist or agnostic, curiously he seems to regard both labels as valid, but it might be handy if someone checked which he prefers, if either. --MarkB79 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? He's an atheist. 207.105.30.44 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does matter, as Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate. If you have a link were he defines himself as an atheist that would be helpful, otherwise it might be worth e-mailing the guy to check. I've seen him listed as an agnostic on websites and I think he was listed under agnostics on Wikipedia for a long while, seems that nobody really knows what he is. He clearly has no belief in God, but that in itself does not determine whether he is atheist or agnostic. Might be handy to ask the man himself and settle it once and for all. MarkB79 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
He might prefer not to share his personal religious views. I personally don't recall reading about them anywhere, but there's a lot I haven't read. I guess you'll find out if you write him. If I had to guess, I'd say he's an atheist or agnostic, depending on how you define the terms. Bertrand Russell, who influenced Chomsky quite a bit, wrote an essay on how he considered himself an agnostic because there was no way to prove absolutely that there is no god; but depending on who asked him, he might say he was an atheist because he didn't want to give the wrong impression -- he was equally skeptical about Homeric gods, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky had similar ideas. Of course ... I have no reference to refer you to. Sorry! Organ123 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that the problem may be defining the terms, and that he would probably hold similar views to Betrand Russell. I cannot find the interview I mentioned above, but I have found a source on chomskyinfo.com where he states something very similar, namely that he cannot answer the question as to whether he is an atheist or agnostic without defining what the terms mean and what he is expected not to believe in. For instance, he says he is not agnostic about Greek gods or ectoplasm, but gives no examples of what he might be agnostic about. Judging by this interview he seems quite uncomfortable about being labelled either in a more general sense and doesn't seem to like either term much, so it might be wise if Wikipedia refrains from putting him in either category. I'll try e-mailing him when I get the chance, he's very approachable, but if he doesn't want to talk about it then fine, I suspect if he objects to both terms he'll ask not to be labelled as either. Maybe its not such a big issue, but I don't think we should misrepresent people's views as such, plenty of intellectuals on here are not labelled atheist or agnostic, I don't see why Chomsky should be if he prefers not to be classed as either. MarkB79 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He has, however been more explicit at least once. I recall him stating in an interview that he had some kind of cosmic, mystical religious experience in his teens. It made clear that calling him an atheist wouldn't be exactly right; somekind of deist or agnostic with views similar to Einstein or Spinoza would probably be better. Unfortunately can't remember the exact reference. Might have been some recent interview in Skeptic or Free Inquiry or Humanist or some periodical like that.4.234.102.92 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That surprises me, though it's intriguing I guess. However I'm not sure if believing you may have had a spiritual experience (if that's what he said, as opposed to believing you've had what merely resembles a spiritual experience) does not mean you cannot be an atheist, I think it's possible to believe in the possibility of some spiritual or metaphysical whatever and still call yourself an atheist, provided you don't believe in a God, obviously most atheists are strictly materialists but not all are. It does suggest his beliefs are possibly a bit difficult to label though. My university does have subscriptions to those three journals so I'll see if I can find that interview in any case. MarkB79 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hope I am not sending you off on a wild goose chase, as I said I am very unsure as to where he said this. Usually he is much more guarded about such matters. But on thinking about this, I realized that a glaring omission in the article - equally absent when it was featured - is mention that Chomsky is "some kind of Kantian" (I believe these are his words) and that he said so on many occasions. Someone less lazy and Hegelian than me should figure out where to put it and write about it so I won't have to. Although Descartes' influence is at least obvious by mention of "Cartesian Linguistics", in general what Chomsky himself has seen as and written about his intellectual ancestors and inspirations has been given short shrift here, given far less importance than he has given it himself in many publications. At the very least, Descartes and Kant belong in the infobox influences line, and I put them there. Also his opposition to what he calls dialecticism (and the dialectical strands of Marxism stemming from Hegel) - which he sees as BS, close kin to po-mo-ism, should be in the section on his opinion of criticism of science. 4.234.102.221 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, it won't take me long to check out the contents in the front of each edition of these for the last couple of years and it dosen't matter if I can't find it. In any case, I won't get a chance to do it for a while anyway. When I get around to e-mailing Chomsky himself, I'll post about it. As for Descartes, I seem to remember reading an interview with Chomsky where he stated that Descartes was possibly his biggest influence, so he was rather a glaring omission from the list, well done for noticing and fixing it. MarkB79 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Scource on him with religion, or "faith" never specifically labeling himself atheist or agnostic http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5854018606313608966&q MonkeyBoy111 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
He has stated his religious beliefs and they are not what is being stated here. The information is located in Language and Politics if you care to find out what he says on the topic. q 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky antisemitism

Regarding this summary, critics base their beliefs on more than one or two issues, not just the Faurisson affair and a speech to a Palestinian group. Their reasons include Chomsky's support for Hezbollah retaining its weapons, support for Finkelstein, positions taken and things said in his debates with Dershowitz, etc. We shouldn't detail each of these in the article, of course, but an incomplete summary is easily misleading. That the accusations have been made is not, in any way, controversial. The accusations and debates are matters of established fact. The truth of those accusations is what are controversial and should be dealt with in a NPOV manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Ryan Wise 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your actions betray your mere pretense of commitment to NPOV. You have not only reinstated nebulous smearing allegations of “anti-semitism” emanating from dubious sources (see below), in deleting responses from the other side you have effectively refused any right of Chomsky to defend himself against such serious allegations. Balance requires that allegations of a serious (in fact potentially libelous) nature entail a more stringent burden of proof than normal claims as well as the opportunity of the target to defend oneself against such claims.
Let’s examine the “authority” that you are using to string together the perceived evidence and make the case for Chomsky’s so-called anti-semitism. Who exactly is Benjamin Kerstein? And why are his interpretations (his case hinges extensively upon highly subjective interpretations and extrapolations of some of Chomsky’s statements.) considered notable? In fact, Mr. Kerstein is an American student taking courses in Israel. He is also an unpublished novelist, and has for several years authored a blog, “Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite” characterized by overwrought ranting, Evidently, Kerstein’s qualifications are two-fold: 1) He has an obsessive loathing for Noam Chomsky and 2) David Horowitz and the functionaries of his lavishly funded propaganda outlets are naturally impressed by this kind of sensationalistic fodder. (That Kerstein’s criticisms are replete with misrepresentation and outright distortion is readily demonstrable.)
I have always wondered why there has been such a hasty insistency to thrust labels onto opponents in political discourse. The typical strategy of the accusers is to distort and misrepresent their subject so as to pretend that some stigmatizing label has justification. If the label is accepted by the reader at an early stage, so much the better; a rejectionist predisposition is thus internalized, further disinterested exploration becomes unnecessary. In fact a kind of psychological taboo is established against a sympathetic reading in an effort to understand what the subject really intends to say. The prejudice instilled by the labeling process renders any deeper exploration unworthy except as the target of predetermined denunciation and ridicule.
When Chomsky is associated with Finkelstein it is implied that is a self-evident fact that Finkelstein is anti-semitic, when in reality this is a highly controversial example of labeling not readily disassociated from the political motivations of Finkelstein’s accusers. The support of Finkelstein’s work, not just by Chomsky but also by notable figures such as Raul Hilberg (originator of Holocaust studies) and Oxford historian Avi Shlaim suggests that Finkelstein presents arguments that are well worth considering; however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. Instead they use labeling tactics to stigmatize a target in an attempt to impair any chance of informed deliberation.
Similar motives are at work when support of Hezbollah’s policy “retaining its arms”, unless certain conditions are met, is cited as some sort of self-evident example of anti-semitism. It certainly is a controversial issue, and notable arguments have been made from several different perspectives; but the hasty resort to "anti-semitic" labeling only undermines the posssibility of the kind of constructive discussion which is probably the only peaceful route out of an extremely complex dilemma. The appeal is to the simplistic black and white depiction in US/Israeli propaganda of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, ignoring the organic link between the organization and the constituency by which its enjoys broad support, particularly for its provision of an array of vital social services, and representation in Lebanese parliamentary and municipal political governance. All this must be ignored and of course, Hezbollah must be presented as a monolithic entity, with all actions ascribed to it emanating from the great satan Nasrallah. Also ignored are the legitimate apprehensions that shi’ and many other Lebanese feel concerning the possibility of Israeli military aggression (established by the precedent of repeated invasions,in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and most recently 2006, as well as awareness of joint US-Israel plans for a crushing attack on Hezbollah.) To this we might also note the incapacity of the Lebanese government, both because of its current sectional political structure and the fact that the Lebanon government has the highest per capita national debt in the world(largely due to successive Israeli military devstations) to provide effective security. Nor are the implications of an unconditional disarmament for the tangled of political balance in their national and wider geo-political contexts worth considering as legitimate reasons unassociated with anti-semitism. Nor yet again the fact that significant non-Shi’ elements, including large elements of the Christian community (ie: The Free Political Movement) also view the Hezbollah as a resistance movement and moreover the only viable military deterrent against Israeli aggression in the current situation. Does their support of Hezbollah’s current right to bear arms also imply antisemitism by definition or is it perhaps necessary to understand their reasons and listen to their qualifications? Finally as Chomsky notes, “The United States could provide a credible guarantee that Israel will not attack, undercutting the argument for retention of arms. But there are no signs of that.” (Chomsky-Achcar- Perilous Power- The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy.)BernardL 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore if, according to the way you present your criticism - a description of overwhelming privilege and power enjoyed by American Jews constitutes "proof" of anti-semitism shall we then conclude from the following similar remarks that historian Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) is anti-semite too?

"The American Jewish community is the wealthiest and most successful in the world. Already ten years ago there were 18 Jewish billionaires, now there are many more. One of them is Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and one of the main shareholders of Seagrams. These people could put an end to poverty among Holocaust survivors within one week." (interview: Berliner Zeitung , September 4, 2000)BernardL 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Be serious now. The criticisms exist. If you want to present Chomsky's counterarguments, do so. How have I kept Chomsky from "defending himself?" I haven't argued against the inclusion of any text. Censorship is your goal, not mine. The statements of his critics (who are also living) have not been acurately represented, and should be, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Apparently your view of "balance" and NPOV requires deletion of factual material that you don't agree with. That Chomsky's opponents have taken certain positions is fact. Whether you agree with those opinions is irrelevant. The precise nature of the criticisms, and how Chomsky responds is the matter for debate. It's bogus to say that we can only include criticisms that you personally agree with.
If you want to demonstrate that prominent critics misrepresent Chomsky, go right ahead. Create a separate page for it, if you need to go into detail. But what you're pushing for now is censorship of views you don't like, pure and simple, not the right to respond. Look, the criticisms do exist, and come from prominent sources. Right or wrong, they should be represented, and accurately. They aren't now, and have been regularly twisted or elimiated.
It is a fact that people have used certain lines of argument to make certain accusations. Would you like to argue that Horowitz has made a different argument than what has been presented? Go ahead. But who is right and who is wrong is not up to you to decide, as strong and unflagging as your opinion might be.
however, inviting readers to engage in a process leading to a comprehensive understanding of events and their relation to persisting and evolving institutional structures is exactly what the accusers wish to avoid. -- Great. We can further such an understanding of this issue using Chomsky's arguments counterposed with those of his critics, if that's really what you want. Somehow, though, I get the (rather ironic) feeling that you'd rather the issue not be discussed.

--Ryan Wise 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky spoke about this when the page was sent to him, he responded with what he thought about the criticisms that were outlandish like this one. I think if you'd look it up (it's in the archives on this talk page) it might be suggestive as to how to continue. q 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Dr. Chomsky

I changed "184th Class" to "184th in class". Later will look for the size of the class. One of the greatest problems for human progress is how would-be progessive elements become dispirited and even eventually reactionary. Noam Chomsky is an inspiration and much needed if not irreplaceable light is a generally dismal social scene. Lycurgus 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

184th Class does not refer to Chomsky's grade point average or class ranking, it refers to the year of his graduation. Please see Central High School (Philadelphia). Organ123 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Acknowledged, now that the text is a link to the schools numbering convention the situation will be clear. Lycurgus 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] libertarian socialist? anarcho-syndicalist?

doesn't he support speech codes in universities? and he is actually considered libertarian-anything or anarcho-anything? i haven't done much research on him (and don't plan to), but does he actually identify with these? limiting free speech anywhere doesn't seem very libertarian or anarcho- to me.

BTW, if i'm wrong about him supporting speech codes or about libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism being opposed to limiting freedom of speech, i will gladly eat my words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.138.123.95 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

doesn't he support speech codes in universities?
No, don't think so. Cadr 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
i remember on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! he said something like "my freedom of speech doesnt go that far". and the way this statement was presented it made it sound like in his opinion people should have unlimited freedom of speech except on college campuses because it is basically "extending into that person's home". but now that i think about it, it can be taken to mean the exact opposite of how P&T presented it (if i remember right i think they specifically included him in a group of photos of the "assholes" that support speech codes. (quoting P&T when i say assholes)
That interview completely misrepresented what he was saying. I have multiple articles on Chomsky discussing freedom of speech as it concerns colleges. It's much more intricate than anything listed there.
Ah, I knew it didn't sound like Chomsky. I wonder if they've been confronted about that interview. If any of the articles are online I'd like to see them. I don't doubt what you're saying is true, but before I eat my words I want to be 100% sure.
To my knowledge no one has "confronted" them, although there were articles on it. I believe Chomsky may have commented on the misrepresentation as well. Regardless, you can look up the information you are looking for by going through the record of his writing. I understand this is difficult at times because he has written so much, but it's a topic he's discussed more than once.

[edit] Deletion of material from sourced, peer-reviewed study

The editor Jersey Devil has removed[1] this sourced material. "A 2006 study finds that binding theory, a central element of Chomsky's theories, fails when emperirically tested.[2]" His only explanation is "no contex". I have asked him to then provide the context he claims is lacking, but his only response has been to repeat himself. Please explain what context is lacking.Ultramarine 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me first state that I understand that there are those within the field of linguistics whom disagree with some aspects of Chomsky's work and that such valid concerns should in fact be placed in this article. The problem is that from your edit history on various such pages (and the political advocacy on your userpage) I have honest concerns that material may be being used selectively to support a view point. As such, I would like context to explain the relevance of this material. Is it a view held by a significant portion of linguists? Is the journal cited a prominent journal within the field of linguistics? etc... Perhaps the best solution would be to confer with someone at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics about the relevance of these additions?--Jersey Devil 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem is not very interesting. I have cited a peer-reviewed study. You insinuate, without presenting any evidence, that the study is dubious. Using this argumentation, anything can be removed from Wikipedia by any editor who himself feels, without anything more needed, that the source may not be reliable. If you want to dispute the study, it is up to you to present such evidence.Ultramarine 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I know about your use of talk pages for extended debates. I will not follow through with that and this will be my last comment with regards to this topic on this page. You have a history of this kind of behavior in articles. Either confer with the linguistics wikiproject or I will continue to remove the material from the article. Good day.--Jersey Devil 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It is you who are disputing a peer-reviwed study, so the burden is on you to give evidence. However, I will allow some time for the linguists who frequent this page to comment. After this, I you continue to revert sourced peer-reviwed material, I will ask for the opinons of others regarding you actions on the Administrators' noticeboard.Ultramarine 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You've totally misinterpreted the study. It just casts doubt on the complementary distribution of pronouns and reflexives withing picture NPs. This isn't a refutation of the entire "binding theory", insofar as there is a single binding theory, and it's not particularly damaging to Chomsky's position. To describe it as a refutation of binding theory is totally inaccurate. I suggest you read it. Cadr 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, sorry for the tone of the previous comment. I'd just ask you not to reinsert this right now. If you want a more detailed explanation of the implications of the study you've cited, I'd be happy to give it. Jersey Devil: I'm in the linguistics wikiproject, FWIW. Cadr 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a pdf of the paper, if anyone wants to read it [3]. Cadr 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. He disagrees with Chomsky's political views and so then selectively uses material to discredit his academic credentials. This is precisely why I wanted members of the linguistics wikiproject to review it.--Jersey Devil 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Cadr, by all means if you can provide a detailed explanation of the impact of the study with regards to Chomsky's work on the article please add it on.--Jersey Devil 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's some context on binding theory and the paper.

Binding theory is a term coined in the late 1970s for a theory which was intended to explain certain facts about the distribution of pronouns, reflexives and reciprocals (e.g. "him", "her", "himself", "themselves", "each other", etc.) Many researchers have worked on binding theory, and Chomsky himself has revised his theory of binding a number of times, so the term "binding theory" no longer really refers to any single theory. For this reason, saying that something contradicts binding theory is pretty much meaningless unless a specific theory of binding is referenced.

In published work, Chomsky hasn't really said anything about binding theory for the past decade, so it's hard to know what he personally thinks about it these days (and even those who know his views won't be able to cite anything). In a recent paper he has vaguely endorsed some work by Eric Reuland on binding, which is actually pretty compatible with the results of the Runner-Sussman-Tanenhaus paper that Ultramarine has cited.

The specific issue relevant to the paper is the binding of reflexives such as "himself". Reflexives have to have a local antecedent:

Good: John saw himself
Bad: John knows that Mary saw himself

In most cases, reflexives and ordinary pronouns are in complementary distribution. That is, you can't use a pronoun in place of a reflexive or vice versa. So for example, "John saw him" can't mean the same thing as "John saw himself". As has been known for a long time now, reflexives in "picture NPs" don't obey all of the generalizations I've outlined above. They can have non-local antecedents:

OKish: John knows that Mary saw pictures of himself

And they are not in complementary distribution with pronouns:

Also OK: John knows that Mary saw pictures of him

Chomsky has taken a number of positions on these issues over the years. In some of the earliest formulations of the binding theory, it was assumed that reflexives in picture NPs didn't obey the conditions of binding theory. Then from 1981 to around 1992 it was pretty widely assumed that they did (with some rather complicated additions to binding theory to explain their behavior). From 1992 onwards, it's become more and more widely acknowledged that binding theory does not apply to reflexives in picture NPs. Chomsky hasn't commented specifically on this in his published work, so it is difficult to say what he thinks at the moment.

Two concluding points. First, the paper Ultramarine cited is only relevant to the behavior of reflexives within picture NPs, not to the entire binding theory. Second, in the 90s, binding theory started to become less important in the overall scheme of things than it was in the 1980s. Cadr 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Contributions to psychology"

This section is completely POV, uncritically proclaiming Chomsky as the creater of cognitive psychology, giving the impression that no one had considered genetics in psychology before him, as well as having almost no references.Ultramarine 09:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard view is that Chomsky was one of the main figures behind the development of cognitive psychology. The section seems adequately referenced. Most of it just outlines Chomsky's views, and says nothing about his influence. Where claims about his influence are made, there are citations. I don't know what you mean by "uncritical", there are references to dissenting views. Cadr 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, in this list of the most influential publications in cognitive science in the 20th century [4], Syntactic Structures is first and the review of verbal behavior is 19th. I'll add this link to the article. Cadr 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Many of the more basic principles of this theory (though not necessarily the stronger claims made by the principles and parameters approach described above) are now generally accepted in some circles." Very weasly, exactly which of his "basic principles" are claimed to be generally accepted? Nativism? Modularity? Universal Grammar? Ultramarine 18:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly a citation needed there, but remember that a lack of a citation doesn't necessarily indicate that the statement is biased or incorrect. I'll have a look for a suitable citation for that now. Cadr 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to confirm or deny any views on Chomsky, but I do also find this statement unnecessarily vague. It's unclear what 'basic principles' means, for instance. It's similarly hard to imagine how something 'generally accepted' can only be so by 'some circles'. Perhaps, Cadr, while you are looking for a citation, you could work on rephrasing this to fit with your citation and make a more definite claim? Heelan Coo 08:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "largely shunned by the mainstream media in the United States"

Really needs a strong citation, especially considering the claims of his role as a leading dissident.Ultramarine 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...from reliable, mainstream media, I suppose? --131.111.8.96 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding out of place commentary such as this [5] should be avoided.--Jersey Devil 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? Also the intro should be neutral and there are many criticisms.Ultramarine 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the introduction is currently sufficiently neutral. I do not see any statements praising Chomsky, or talking about how other people praise him, in the intro, so I don't think it's necessary to have statements criticizing him either. As far as I can tell, the intro deals almost entirely Chomsky's notability -- the fact that he is notable, and why he is notable. So I don't think there's a neutrality problem. Organ123 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Chomsky would disagree that he has been shunned by the mainstream media. I think he would agree that views that go against the business interests of the media are not discussed. He would also bring up "concision" and other topics he's discussed in length. Further research would lead you to a much better description. q 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

chomsky regularly says that he travels all over the world for interviews, but rarely any on MSM in the US. as for the source, i think it's in the manufacturing consent movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.94.227 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of intro

Much of the intro praises Chomsky's scholarly achievements and their influence, having no mention of opposing views. His political criticisms are also described as well as proclaiming him to be a "a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics." There is a great deal of controversy, especially regarding the accuracy of his political writings. In order for the intro to be NPOV, this controversy should be at least briefly mentioned.Ultramarine 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at a controversial right-wing writer, Ayn Rand, this controvesy is mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is much controversy that Chomsky is a key intellectual figure within the left-wing of US politics -- and I don't see that sentence as praise either. If you don't like left-wing politics, that sentence might lead you to make a negative association with Chomsky. To say George Bush is a key government figure in right-wing politics wouldn't be praise, it would just be an uncontroversial statement of fact. Can you please point to specific text in the intro that is praising Chomsky? I don't think Chomsky is praised. I think the intro is simply stating facts that explain Chomsky's notability. Organ123 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Positive statements: "considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology""a key intellectual figure""is widely known for his political activism" Again, completeness and npov requires at least a brief mention also of the controversy, not only positive statements. There is a great deal of controversy, especially regarding the accuracy of his political writings. Looking at a controversial right-wing writer, Ayn Rand, this controvesy is mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV doesn't require that. Regardless of what you think Chomsky is a largely important figure in the field of linguistics. Since you disagree with Chomsky politically you seem to be trying to add on commentary to discredit his academic credentials (see above issue on binding theory). You are making your own interpretation of policy so that you can add your views into articles. You have done this continuously on this and other articles. If you try and edit war in this article as you have done in various articles in the past I will seek community action against you. Good day.--Jersey Devil 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem is not very interesting. Please respond to the arguments in my post above. Ultramarine 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning against edit warring on this or any future articles. All edit warring you do in the future will be reported and the proper action will be taken. Good day.--Jersey Devil 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk page discussions are not edit warring. Again, please the arguments raised in my post above.Ultramarine 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your edit war on Flynn effect has already had to be protected by an administrator. You are a user whom has habitually edit warred on articles. I am just giving you a warning for all future articles that all such edit wars will be recorded and reported and the proper action will be taken. I am sure that you will now abide by Wikipedia policy and refrain from edit warring on articles. Good day.--Jersey Devil 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Returning to intro of this article. Is there any objections to adding a brief sentence mentioning this controversy? Ultramarine 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus for such a change, as such it will be reverted if changed. Use this talk page to discuss any possible change to the intro.--Jersey Devil 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your objections.Ultramarine 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS.--Jersey Devil 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Fundamental policies such as NOR or NPOV are the most important principles, as WP:CONSENSUS stress.Ultramarine 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Undent. The (non-living person) Ayn Rand article does not appear to have consensus on that part of the intro, as recent reversions of it have occurred. In any case, I do not think the items listed above constitute praise; rather, they state uncontroversial facts about Chomsky that explain his notability. Some of Chomsky's ideas have sparked controversy, but I like the intro as is because it doesn't get involved with the reaction to Chomsky's work, either positive or negative. It simply states why he is notable. He is not notable because he is controversial (like, say, Paris Hilton); he is notable for the reasons listed in the intro. I do not think the intro will be enhanced by stating that Chomsky is a controversial figure. Organ123 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'll add that someone made an argument relevant to this topic in Archive 6. Organ123 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He is primarily notable for his political writings. Few people have read his linguistic works. As for now, the intro only states positive things. The controversy surrounding his political writings is an integral part of this subject, and should therefore be mentioned if we have an intro of this length. An alternative would be a very short into. How about "Avram Noam Chomsky (Hebrew and Yiddish: אברם נועם חאמסקי) , Ph.D (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, theorist, and political activist" and leave the details to the body? Ultramarine 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is controversy surrounding Chomsky's political viewpoints. However, my main contribution to this discussion is I do not think that the current introduction states anything positive or negative, but only uncontroversial facts related to Chomsky's notability. I think that the current intro is neutral in accordance with WP policies and does not need to be modified for the sake of neutrality. I think that the neutrality tag should be removed. As I do not currently accept that the intro is biased, I do not support modifications for the sake of neutrality. Additionally, I am bringing to light comments by the editor in archive 6. He/she stated regarding use of the term "controversial" in the introduction: "it's extremely UNINFORMATIVE, essentially sensational, and seems intended to immediately discredit Chomsky as an entity upon whom the 'jury' is 'still out'." Organ123 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope this will clarify the issue. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."Ultramarine 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for including that quote. I still do not think that the current introduction suffers from a lack of neutrality, based my statements above, and I think the tag should be removed. If and how the intro should be appended to include mention of controversial information per Wikipedia:Lead section, that is really a second discussion to be had. Again, I am primarily stating that the intro section is currently neutral, and that the tag should be removed. Other editors may have more to say about how to go about including controversial material. If controversial material is included in a NPOV manner, I would not necessarily be opposed; however, I do not believe that the previous insertion of "His writings have in turn been widely criticized" accomplishes that goal. I hope editors will help arrive at a consensus-based solution. Organ123 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What is your alternative suggested text? Ultramarine 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

These articles should represent global perspectives. Based on the sources for the criticisms given, which are not primarily academic, predominantly from right-wing polemicists published by right-wing think tanks and foundations, and amateur web militants, I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves by concluding that such views are in fact widespread from a global perspective. It would be POV to give such a narrow strain of non-academic political opinion a significant platform for their views just because they insist on making a lot of noise. As an aside I should mention that user:Ultramarine has not yet shown any evidence of having grappled with Chomsky's political views seriously. His ignorance of Chomsky's works is readily obvious- he is approaching the editing of this article like an exercise in pushing his POV. BernardL 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, spare me the ad hominem. You incorrectly describe the critics, some of which are left-wing. For example Keith Windschuttle is a lecturer in history and social policy, while Chomsky is outside his academic field when he writes about politics and history. If there is a "narrow strain" of views that should be automatically excluded from Wikipedia, then the narrow Anarchist one looks like a possible candidate.Ultramarine 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop crying wolf when a little criticism of your editing practices is proffered- it really is POV pushing that you are doing. You do not demonstrate a serious attempt to understand Chomsky by reading his major works attentively. You are simply mining the net for critical material, often assuming it is a true representation. Windschuttle is one example of what might be called an academic critic, although his Chomsky criticism is not in an academic style. The fact that he writes for a New Right journal (The New Criterion) and was in included in The Anti-Chomsky Reader Chomsky puts him in the same narrow camp. BTW, Windschuttles historical works were not for an academic publisher and are not well regarded by academic historians. (that's a long story)BernardL 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet more ad hominem. Your personal unsourced views are not an allowed source in Wikipedia. Again, If there is a "narrow camp" of views that should be automatically excluded from Wikipedia, then the narrow Anarchist one looks like a possible candidate.Ultramarine 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my views. As per above, I don't believe that a wikipedia article should be a soapbox for a narrow right-wing perspective or that it should be pretended that such views are widely held and representative of the global range of opinion. The narrow right perspective has its place- particularly in the page dedicated to detailed criticisms of Chomsky- but not overwhelmingly so, and must also respect WP:BLP. BernardL 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are critics of many colors represented. Your claims regarding the global range of opinions are unsourced.Ultramarine 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: this issue is now also taking place at Politics of Noam Chomsky. I have requested that editors there participate at this discussion page to centralize the discussion. Organ123 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Either place is fine with me. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." So again, what is your proposed alternative text? Ultramarine 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of that question, as I have not claimed to have an alternative suggested text. I do not think that the current introduction suffers from a lack of neutrality. I am primarily stating that the intro section is currently neutral, and that the tag should be removed. Please see above for my other thoughts. Organ123 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But I you do not have an alternative text, then what is wrong with my proposal? Regarding NPOV, I quote. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.""One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."Ultramarine 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of criticisms section

Another problem is the criticism section of this article which does not fairly represent the criticisms. An attempt to make it neutral was made but reverted.[6] Strangely enough, the removal of criticisms by another editor was not reverted: [7]. Please explain.Ultramarine 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what the above user turned that section into:
Critics of Chomsky's political writings has accused them of misrepresentation and factual inaccuracy. He has also been accused of antisemitism as well as being a "Closet Capitalist". Chomsky has made various responses to the criticisms.
With language all taken from the article Criticism of Noam Chomsky which from the page history you can see he has made into his own editorial article. As such, it was correctly reverted per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV--Jersey Devil 11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain exactly how NPOV is violated in my proposed text. The current text violates NPOV by only mentioning anitsemitism and the Red Khmers and no other criticisms. Also, it only links to writings by Chomsky! Again, why did you not revert the removal of criticisms by another editor? [8].Ultramarine 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors should refrain from nearly blanking an entire subsection in a controversial page without first gaining consensus, even if the edit is done in good faith. Organ123 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So is there any concrete objections to my proposed text? The current text is clearly POV and incomplete.Ultramarine 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the current text does not list all of the types of criticisms against Chomsky. I would not object if other criticism and rebuttals were added in a very concise, NPOV, and well-cited fashion. However, I do not think that the current section has a neutrality problem. There is a link to the main criticisms page (and I'll note that I've never seen another "criticism" page of a living person, although they may exist), and from what I can tell, it's a brief summary in a point/counter-point fashion. There is a lack of citations for the criticisms in the "criticism" section, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations. Organ123 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, since it excludes many areas of criticisms is it not complete or NPOV. What is wrong with my proposed text? Ultramarine 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with the neutrality of original text, per above. The replacement text is less specific about living-person Chomsky's rebuttals to the criticism, less specific about the criticisms themselves, and also contains no citations or links. I see a problem with the neutrality of the replacement text, whereas I do not see a problem with the neutrality of the original text. Again, I agree that the current text does not list all of the types of criticisms against Chomsky. I would not object if other criticism and rebuttals were added in a very concise, NPOV, and well-cited fashion. Also, there is a lack of citations for the criticisms in the "criticism" section, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations. Organ123 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Explain exactly why you see a problem with neutrality in my proposed text. There is no need for detailed arguments in a summary. How can you not see a problem with neutrality in the current text when it only links to writings by Chomsky and completely ignores many criticisms? Ultramarine 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
At the moment I have nothing to add to what I have already stated to answer those questions. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations to the current section. Perhaps other editors have other comments. In theory, I suppose a super-brief NPOV section could say something like: "Chomsky has been criticized and he and others have responded to those criticisms", with no more text than that. But that might leave readers wanting more of a summary. Organ123 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That is acceptable to me. Anyone objecting to changing the current text to the above? Ultramarine 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think the new revised text (which I wrote above as an example) is neutral enough, I think it is inferior to the original text, which provided more of a summary and more information. At the moment, I think an ideal Chomsky article would make concise mention of criticisms of his politics in a point/counter-point fashion. To not do this is to deprive readers of notable information. I'm not going to revert it for now, but I'm just letting my stance be known. Organ123 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The original text only cited Chomsky's own writings and excluded many important areas of criticisms. If proposing a better and still NPOV text, please state it for discussion. However, there is a no need for details in a summary of another article.Ultramarine 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we remove the "dubious" tag in biography section?

There are now four reliable sources given for the statement. Organ123 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not call several of them reliable and some of the arguments are really strange: "Chomsky has never had an Op Ed column in the Washington Post"? But remove the tag for now.Ultramarine 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of section

The "Academic achievements, awards and honors" is just a long list. It should probably be placed next to the bibliography list at the end of the artilce. The criticisms section does not only concern his political writings but also linguistics and criticisms for being a "closet capitalist". It should be a separate section at the end of the main body of text, as is standard practice for all criticisms sections in other articles. Objections? Ultramarine 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this earlier, but... Yes, I object. "Criticism" sections in biographies strike me as absurd, as though a person has lived their life as an argument! Criticism of a person's ideas and/or actions are, of course, completely appropriate to add to any biography, but in the midst of description of those ideas/actions. A separate section polemicises a person's life - which makes no sense. again, it's not that people don't have controversial ideas, etc. but their lives (except when their status as real vs. fictional is uncertain, for example) can't properly be the subject of a separate criticism section. As for "Academic achievements, awards and honors", I think the article has changed some since your post, and the section seems fine where it is now. Pinkville (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag should be removed

No convincing arguments have been made for it. The main objections seem to be that Chomsky's tremendous impact on the field of linguistics and his prominence on the left are mentioned, without saying that some people disagree with him.

On the linguistics side, I have to assume this is just laziness and failure to research. The man practically invented the field! To NOT discuss his impact in nearly hyperbolic terms would be POV.

On the political side, it's a pretty shabby claim. Clearly if you say somebody's a leading figure on the left, it can be inferred that he's heavily criticized from the right. (And the comparison to a single throwaway line in Ayn Rand is silly. Anybody can dig up dozens of articles on any topic to "prove" a point of this kind.)

Unless somebody can pull up a source which shows that Chomsky is especially controversial, more than would be expected for a partisan political activist, there's no reason to mention it in the lede. And regardless it's not a serious enough problem to warrant slapping it with the NPOV tag. No article is without room for improvement, the tags are for serious problems.

Eleland 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I have looked at some controversial figures and this is not necessarily stated in the intro for many of them.Ultramarine 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with removing the tag per the arguments provided by Eleland.--Jersey Devil 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Also agree. Cadr 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Also agree. 72.208.38.164 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] underdetermine

I can't find this word in Merriam Webster or wikitionary. Can anyone else provide a reference to what this word means? There are a lot of places on the web where this "word" is used, but none of them make it clear what the actual meaning is. If this word is actually used in linguistics research, it would be very useful to have a link/reference to what it means considering how hard it is to find out what it means. 74.103.98.163 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a word you see everyday, is it? I think I've seen it a few times in mathematical contexts, and it generally means that a set of equations is not enough to solve for whatever it is you're solving for. That isn't a whole lot of help for the current use, which from context I gather to mean, broadly speaking, that linguistic experience does not begin to explain the rich linguistic knowledge that children have after a short time; therefore, some linguistic knowledge must be innate (hence, Universal Grammar). BrianTung 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Something that's always annoyed me: just because you have a separate article for a section that doesn't mean you can totally not include information on the subject in the main article. We need a summary of the criticisms, not just a link. 75.68.6.81 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How much criticism is needed? Let's take George W. Bush, How much criticism is listed on his main page? Is it just a link? q 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A summary of the most notable ones would be appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's ever acceptable to have a section that merely links to another article. Someone shouldn't have to go to another article just to get the full picture. All such sections should be summarized, with others cut back in size to make room if need be. It doesn't matter whether it is the history of a company or criticism of a political movement, they should always be summarized. Richard001 08:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and have done so. Larklight (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic titles

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html

Chomsky is an Institute Professor, not the Institute Professor, at MIT. Institute Professor is a title (like University Professor) that is conferred to several members of the MIT faculty. So using "the" would be misleading.

He would also be a professor emeritus of linguistics (since there are several of these also, and it is a job description not a title), none of which should be capitalized.

Minor things, but somebody has changed that several times in the intro.

[edit] Propaganda model

Chomsky clearly developed it, and it is clearly a notable idea. Why does somebody continue to delete my adding it to his Notable Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky's influence in other fields

shouldn't 'Chomsky's influence in other fields' go after his 'Political views'?? Uwaisis (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)---

Yes, I agree. And so I've switched the sections. Pinkville (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The article needs criticisms. Without criticisms it can't be considered neutral, seen as though he has critics. Leave out manic Dershowitz though. People like Oliver Kamm need mention in criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwaisis (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of his name

I noticed that the Hebrew spelling provided is אברם נועם חומסקי, which should render (in Standard Hebrew) IPA: [avram nɔʔam χɔmski]. Note that the first letter of his last name is Heth, which in Modern Hebrew is pronounced [χ] and transliterated ch. So does he pronounce it IPA: [χɔmski] or IPA: [ʧɔmski] (with an "English" ch)? How was it pronounced originally? Lockesdonkey (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Although that does not decide anything, but it is worth noting that the Russian transliteration of his name also starts with Х which is [χ]. Kope (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms, again

What do you mean, that isn't how they are formatted? That's how I've seen them done in every instance. It's clearly unacceptable to have no criticisms, they're sourced and aren't pretending to be direct facts. What more do you want? If you have any genuine reasons aginst this, please say so. Larklight (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No criticism? There's a whopping great page of them (a blatant violation of [{WP:NPOV]] as guidelines stand). There is no accepted precedent for the formatting you insist on trying here. One can summarise these things without resort to numerous level three headings. The brief introduction found on Politics of Noam Chomsky will suffice for now. smb (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think any "criticism" section should be removed altogether as nonsensical (and I would argue the same in any biographical article). There's a very nursery school disciplinary taint to such a notion. It is absurd to speak of "criticism" of a person, rather than criticism of her/his works, ideas, etc., though I know that many Wikipedia biographical articles include such sections... Nevertheless, they are inherently illogical, they are lightning rods for edit wars, and they run counter to intellectual sense. Opposition to Chomsky's politics, or his linguistics, or his ideas/actions generally should be considered in the relevant contexts (e.g. in the article on Manufacturing Consent...) or in relation to other matters, and not in isolation. I wouldn't, for example, expect a "Criticism" section in the articles on Antonio Gramsci, or John Kerry, or Adolf Hitler. And there is already an article dedicated to "criticism" of Chomsky, with at least two links to it in this article. There's no need for a summary of the contents of another article, the links are sufficient. Pinkville (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles aren't for promoting one's political views. Having seen the edits (which include clear WP:BLP violations ex. He has also been attacked for misrepresenting statistics, quotes, and asigning people false intentions.) and the userpage of the user who inserted these edits it is quite clear that the intent is to push a political POV and thus such edits will continue to be removed from this article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
@Smb; There is a criticism page, but not on the main article page, unlike on most other articles, for ideologies, projects and people. If you think that a criticism page is POV, you will have a lot of pages to remove.
You say there is no need to resort to three level headings. Do you really think headings are POV? And if headings really are POV, we should delete only them: not blank the whole thing.
And what do you mean when you say the summary on Politics of Noam Chomsky will suffice? Do you mean the criticism page? I was referring to this article, which is why I wrote it on this talk page. Also, please bear in mind I inserted summaries of the criticisms of his other work, which obviously cannot go there.
@Pinkville; presumably the reason there is no criticism section on Hitler is that he was some time ago, and it's hardly an issue that attracts contempory debate. Chomsky is current however, and warrants one, in a similar way that George W. Bush gets one (with sub-headings, one should note).
On the subject that there should not be any criticism sections, their existence is mentioned in WP:BLP, without any indication that they should not exist. It would seem silly to make rules for soemthing you did not intend to exist, and so we can infer that they are permissible, if not actually advisable.
@Jersey Devil; Can you explain how that was a WP:BLP violation? I didn't know how to format a complex cite, but there are examples of the criticism section, so I felt not citing it would be premissable.
I do not appreciate the idea that I am here to push a POV. I've added criticisms to things that I support and oppose, including adding section dividers. You have diagnosed my views on Chomsky without justification and, infact, inaccurately. Furthermore, the fact that an editor has a POV does not mean his edits do. If I wished to, I'm sure I could make some equally unsubstantiated claims about used, on the basis that Hegemony or survival is on your bookshelf. I would appreciate it if you make constructive comments rather than sweeping generalisations and attacks Larklight (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the agenda for this page should not be set by the criticisms page because that page is one of the worst cases of WP:BLP violation on wikipedia. It is replete with sources that include blogs, personal websites, fringe and partisan sources making very exceptional claims. In the case of a claim of anti-semitism, if a serious and notable independent scholar wrote a paper called (hypothetically) "anti-semitism in the work of Noam Chomsky" examining the work closely and without prejudice, it would be worthy of consideration. Even the criticism referencing Dennet is not substantial. If I remember correctly from my reading of that book several years ago, Dennet's objection against Chomsky is a passing one that occurs in a footnote. Dennet is, of course, a very notable philosopher but these particular comments are not based on a close reading and analysis of what Chomsky has written and said about the subject. And fwiw, having read pretty in-depth in various places Chomsky's views on the matter, I think Dennet's comments amount to misrepresentation and caricature.BernardL (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I fail to see how the criticisms section 'sets the agenda' for the page. In fact, I fail to see how a page has an agenda at all: only people can have agendas. If you have problems with individual sources, I suggest you raise them at the Criticism of Noam Chomsky, rather than attacking them en masse in a secondary location. It seems sensible for all discussion about particular criticisms to take place on that page, and for this page to simply summarise the contentious from over there.
As it seems the only remaining objections are over individual sources and not the whole thing, I'll re-insert. Larklight (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits yet again. Please read WP:Consensus regarding how we resolve disputes on wikipedia.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I gave you four days to come up with a reply to my arguments, and, after this, presumed none was forthcoming. Since manage to revert me so fats, I cannot understand how you couldn't make an argument in that time. The only response to my arguments had no objects to the existence of such a section per say, so I presumed that this was an acceptable agreement: since no-one disagreed. I would prefer if you actually said soemthing helpful, rather than merely providing me with a link to a page I have read, and does not support your position.
I would also prefer if you didn't revert my other edits in one big go!Larklight (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't discuss by myself: that's simply soliloquy. Until you actually respond, rather than relfexivily blanking all my contributions, I'll reinsert. Larklight (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Use the talk page to try bring about a consensus. Just because the other editors did not answer your last comments does not mean there was consensus. They probably did not regard your counter-arguments as worth responding to (I didn't). As for me, you gave counter-arguments to my objections and then re-inserted the criticisms just about five minutes after making them. What I meant above was that just because something is good enough for the extremely low standards of the "criticism" page does not mean it gets carte blanche to be inserted here. Your choice of the source for the antisemitism issue is a good example because it violates wp:BLP. Werner Cohn's Partners in Hate which existed for years as a little pamphlet funded by a Zionist lobby group, and then only made it to press under the auspices of David Horowitz, can hardly be said to qualify as a reliable source, especially for such an exceptional claim as antisemitism. Moreover, you have totally mis-characterized the Dennet criticism. Why don't you try reading up on these issues before pretending to know what they are about? It can hardly be described as an "attack", he was (and is) full of respect for Chomsky's intellectual achievements.BernardL (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does a criticism page have lower standards than this page?-why not try to improve that one? I haven't read the articles, but I presumed that, since no-one had said anytuing on the criticism page, they were suitible for wikipedia.
Additionally, how is it possible to gain a consensus if people do not reply? Surely it is sensible to give people who once commented and then ceased too the same treatment as everyone else who sin't contributing? How can we tell what opinion silent people hold?
Finally, you never gave any objections to the existance of such a section- I presumed you would seek to improve, rather than blank, it. Since criticism of Chompsky does exist, it seems more irrisponsible to have no section than a poor one, but better to try to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larklight (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It often takes time to formualte a careful and useful proposal for changes - particularly to an article on such a "controversial" subject. It isn't clear that it's better to work on an existing criticism section (whatever its quality) than to work towards carefully adding the criticism of Chomsky's ideas and writings within the pertinent sections of the article; i.e. rather than having a separate - and artificially separated - section for criticism. These are matters I'd like to return to, but I have lately been otherwise occupied - that doesn't mean I don't intend on joining in improving this article in the coming days. Pinkville (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it better to put the criticisms into the separate sections, rather than in one place? One place is easyer to find- why I want to research someone, I want the other POV quickly accessible- in it's own section, not buried under other things. Would you prefer sub-headings from individual sections for criticism? If I'm being hard to understand, I'll add it and revert, so you can see. Larklight (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On intellectual grounds, there are two main objections to a separate criticism that come immediately to mind. One is that criticism should be considered in proximity to the subject being criticised so that the two (or more) points of view can be fairly and coherently evaluated. Far from being buried, while describing and elaborating Chomsky's arguments, etc. criticisms can be brought to bear directly on them. And a separate criticism section represents a dualistic world-view that simply isn't accurate: ideas rarely divide neatly into pro- and con- categories. This leads to the second objection: that a separate section for criticism promotes a false uniformity of criticisms... Some disagreements with Chomsky's ideas accept his overall framework (in whatever field), others are fundamentally antagonistic to his positions; some criticisms (unworthy of the term) are unreasoned mud-slinging, and others are rational and guided by an intent to (collaboratively) discover truth. These differences - and their significance - are minimised (to nothing) by a separate section. The separate section tends to (falsely) suggest that criticisms are of equal value and importance. A third objection, to echo what I said somewhere above, is that it makes no sense to create a section of criticisms of a person... criticism is a response one has to an argument, a proposal, an action, etc. - something with a human agent - not to a human being herself, nor any other thing for that matter (try to imagine a "criticism" section in the article on bicycles, for example... but criticism of bicycle advocacy is an imagineable phenomenon). You suggest subheadings within each section, but again, that misses the point. The approach that I think makes more sense might read like: Chomsky points out various errors in Skinner's blah blah blah, but MacCorquodale disagrees, saying, blah blah blah.... Pinkville (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What about overall criticisms? People who say he cherry-picks data are quite common, but there's no obveous place to out that. Not all criticsim is a simple x says this, but y thinks x is wrong becuase z...
If you think the criticisms are of varying value, why not just write more on the more important ones, or put the petty ones under one heading? I added stub-criticisms, so I couldn't differentiate.
Addditonally, he is soemthing of a public interlectual: In the same was as Hitler was criticised as a person, so is Chompsky. To say all the criticisms are leveid at particular ideas is misleading: his entire world-view is attacked, and his manner of bearing himself. People attack 'Chompsky', not 'Chompsky theories on...'Larklight (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've found a source that for a general attack- "arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics" http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm If there was a separate criticism section, I'd put it there. As it is, None of the existing sections are really apropreot, so Either it's at the beginning or a new section. Larklight (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not criticism, that's name-calling. People attack 'Chompsky', not 'Chompsky theories on...' WP doesn't deal in attacks on the person. And, in fact, there are plenty of "attacks" on Chomsky's theories - though it might take some effort to cite them rather than mere name-calling. Pinkville (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Chomsky is attacked as a person, but such (ad hominem) attacks aren't worth considering, being mere slander. Similar attacks against Hitler aren't worth considering either, anyway, he can easily be dispatched by the use of elementary rational/moral criticism. Overall criticisms of Chomsky (or anyone else) are precisely what I reject - and what ought to be rejected by the WP community. Such attacks are inherently unanswerable (how does anyone respond to "Chomsky is a self-hating Jew"). As you say, it's not a "simple" case of x says this, but y thinks x is wrong... yet the latter is exactly how to deal with rational criticism. And if the criticism will not fit such a pattern of response it's probably not worthy of consideration. Take your example, the accusation that Chomsky "cherry-picks" data"... For one thing, that's just a slur - it's prima facie incorrect and the sort of accusation (I've seen it a number of times) that comes from non-academic, or politically-motivated, or mainstream media sources (who almost without exception do not cite any sources or evidence themselves). But let's pretend for a moment there's some merit in such an accusation. Chomsky provides voluminous references that can easily be checked - and that have been checked by many skeptics and fellow travellers alike. In my (extensive) reading it's usually Chomsky who points out the dismissed or neglected pertinent information that illuminates an issue (in contrast to the cherry-picked conventional wisdom). Take one example: Chomsky has pointed out in numerous articles and books that the Vietnam War was first of all a war of the United States against South Vietnam. This observation is amply backed up by the record and factually uncontroversial (the US did not begin regularly bombing North Vietnam until 1965, three years after it had started bombing the South; between 1962 and 1965 a couple of hundred thousand South Vietnamese were killed; in 1965, along with the bombing of the North, the US escalated its bombing of the South to three times the scale of North Vietnam), yet conventional mainstream history persists in supposing that the Vietnam War was between the allied US and South Vietnam against a North Vietnamese aggressor; the war was in fact between the US and its puppet regime in Saigon against a burgeoning revolutionary movement in South Vietnam, with North Vietnam as a later participant. Along the way, Chomsky relies on the writings of people like Arthur Schlesinger, historian and Kennedy advisor, and contemporary columnist Anthony Lewis, supposed liberals with whom Chomsky has little sympathy, and contemporary military historian Bernard Fall, whom Chomsky describes as a hawk... but who cared about the Vietnamese...[9] He uses publicly accessible government documents (e.g. National Security Council Reports, etc.), etc. That is, he keeps to mainstream or governmental sources for most of his evidence. If it's cherry-picking, anyone is able to show the context he neglected or removed to make his argument - yet few seem committed enough even to try, presumably knowing on a deeper level that's it's a mug's game. If demonising someone is acceptable in a WP article, then I see no problem with including overall criticisms, but if we want to create substantive and accurate biographies of people, then I think we should stick to criticisms that can be rationally evaluated. Pinkville (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would personally like to thank user: Larklight for informing all of us in his edit summary that Hugo Chavez is "no longer prez." That must be because he lost a referendum some months ago, right? Perhaps you should inform Hugo and the Venezuelan people that he is no longer prez too? [[10]]. More seriously... editors may want to keep in mind the long history of the Chomsky biographies at wikipedia. Originally it was one interminably long article; a site of constant edit-warring; ultimately it was at the initiative of the critics that the article was split into three parts, but it was basically a consensus manoeuver. The article was really way way way too long. Chomsky's thoughts exercises peoples minds in many particular ways and after the obvious core themes it can often be difficult and a matter of highly subjective opinion which themes should be addressed here on wikipedia.BernardL (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, got mixed up with CastroLarklight (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'See also' section has mind of it's own

Whenever I go to click on a wikilink section of the article, everything shifts, usually into two columns instead three. Is this just my computer, or is there some kind of bug? -- Reaper X 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a problem for you? What browser are you using? I'm not having any difficulties myself, so it's hard to respond. Pinkville (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Impetious Imperialist

this is fake, or a joke. i delete it 67.204.9.166 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View on Wikipedia

Hi there,

i am wondering what Mr Chomsky's view on Wikipedia might be. Is it known?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

he has a positive opinion of the internet in general, for its vast organizing potential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.62 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV editors, name-calling

User:Larklight cannot disguise his/her contempt for Noam Chomsky, and obviously has personal issues with the subject, repeatedly calling him "Chompsky". (diff) When emotions get in the way, it's a solid indication that one should move away, leaving disinterested editors to improve the page. smb (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a typo- that's how his name has always been pronounced to me. Nothing more, and please don't assume bad faith over one letter. I'll change it if you wish. Larklight (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
But the page you have edited repeatedly spells his name correctly: Noam Chomsky. And there are countless other instances here on Talk:Noam Chomsky for you not to have made such an error. More to the point, you yourself spelt his name correctly here here here here and here. Only recently, after your edits were reverted, did you begin calling him "Chompsky". smb (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"This is related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge, in that it is not due to experince." what is the problem with this line?

Or a factdate tag?

Or saying he opposed the western side- since he supported the (NFL)?

Can you please say soemthing constructive, rather than simply construing one letter into terrible POV? I messed up on the exprez bit, and will re-revert that. However, the others that Pinkville agrees are good I will readd, pending a real reason to delete. Larklight (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment on the rationalist ideas line (I don't consider myself qualified to judge). But I meant to remove the "western side" edit you made (in fact, I thought I had!) because it just doesn't make much sense. First, "western" is too vague - plenty of so-called western nations were not militarily involved, not otherwise involved or publicly opposed the US war on Vietnam, so which "western side" is Chomsky meant to have opposed? Further, he opposed his government's policies and not, for example, much US public opinion, which was also opposed to the war (illuminatingly, particularly working class, non-university educated Americans). He has often stated that as a US citizen his energies are best directed towards the policies and actions of his own country (he might well lament and disagree with the policies of, say, the Soviet Union, but there's nothing particularly noble or significant about criticising the crimes of official enemies - it's much more important to try to bring about positive change where one's actions might reasonably have some effect, i.e. in one's own country). Second, this Western vs. NLF is too simplistic. Chomsky supported the right of the Vietnamese to fight back against the US and other aggressors - the NLF was one organisation in that struggle and I doubt he would characterise his view as support for one political/military organisation rather than simply support for the Vietnamese people. Anyway, see if you can find an example of him saying he supports the NLF and opposes the "western side"... but I don't think you'll be successful. Pinkville (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I answered the "cherry-picking" issue above, so that was one reason for removing the sentence about Chomsky's and Herman's supposed 'selective' evidence. The second part of the sentence was simply a personal opinion (i.e. that "the media has been far harsher on the west") without foundation. The end of the sentence featured points about the Iraq war and Tibet that were not cited and that for separate reasons are irrelevant. Pinkville (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if this appears rude, but anyone who calls Chomsky-Chompsky to begin with must know very little about the man, as that person cannot have come into contact with their name often, and probably solely in a audio context, and secondnly must of not read this article before placing suggestions on this talk page, calling into question the usefullness of their edits.86.133.101.176 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Noam Chomsky's 9/11 should be on the 9/11 attacks page. Help get it on. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

[edit] Zionism

What are Chomsky's views on Israel? Can he be considered anti-Zionist?Comradesandalio (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is a bit of a non sequitur... views on Israel (i.e. its government's policies) and Zionism don't have anything particularly in common. Regardless, Chomsky has often spoken of his early attraction to certain left tendencies of Zionism, but has pointed out that those Zionist beliefs that then attracted him would - in today's climate - be considered anti-Zionist by many. So adding Chomsky to the category Jewish anti-Zionists wouldn't make much sense - the issue is too complicated to fit into such a limited/limiting formula. Pinkville (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali G

Should we mentions somewhere that sasha mashed him up once ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, I wouldn't say that Chomsky got mashed... Sasha seems to have been having a pretty slow day, and Chomsky didn't flinch... unlike many of Sasha's other targets. Either way, don't think it has any place in the article. Pinkville (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)