Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 2

Linguistics

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." This sentence was invented by Noam Chomsky as an example of a sentence whose grammar is correct but for which the semantics are nonsense.


Afair he invented it to shop sentence, which grammar was correct, but probablity of appearance of every word after its precedensor was almost zero, and it had nothing to do with semantics, but with criticizing some probablity-based theories of language.

Oh boy. I had remembered it as intending to show that the function of a word was dictated by its position in a sentence. For instance, that in English, adjectives come before nouns and adverbs come after verbs.

Wasn't the "word placement dictates function" sentence composed of nonsense words to emphasize the point? The one I learned was "The gostak distims the doshes". Despite the nonsense, an English speaker is able to determine that something called a gostak is currently performing an action called "distimming" to multiple instances of some other thing called a dosh. I'm pretty sure this predates Chomsky too. --PaulDrye

In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, it's used as an example of a sentence which is correct in terms of subcategorisation restrictions, but is incorrect in terms of selectional features (these are technical terms; no room to explain them here). The issue is complicated by the fact that Chomsky at the time (1965) regarded the sentence as syntactically incorrect, whereas he would now say that it is syntactically correct, but with meaningless semantics. So in modern terms, the sentence is an example of a grammatically correct, but completely meaningless utterance. -- Cadr

I don't know. My recollection of Chomsky and syntax was that Chomsky took it a step further with some complex formula (supposedly?) showing the universal syntax of language. Yes, universal, as in all languages. Reading it I quickly got over my head, but it seemed that that was no less than his claim. Probably a question for Jan Hidders, who knows about such things.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

You may be thinking of the Chomsky hierarchy. There's a link to it from the Noam Chomsky page. He proved mathematically that every partially decidable language has a type-0 grammar. That's pretty universal.

But, this uses a very mathematical definition of "language" and "grammar". It may not be relevant to human spoken languages. The set of valid sentences that can be spoken by a human with bounded lifespan and talking speed is just a "finite language". This can be generated by a very boring kind of type-3 grammar. That "grammar" is just a simple list of all valid sentences. That doesn't say anything about the structure of the language. -LC

Thanks. --KQ

Chomsky's linguistics ideas have resulted in the insult: "Chomsky is the Freud of linguistics". This insult derives from the notion that Chomsky and Freud both completely ignored the scientific method in creating their "theories".

I guess NPOV has changed in definition to mean "we completely ignore things". Well, that's peachy. GregLindahl

HJH: Well before qualifiying the linguistic theory of Chomsky it should be stated first. Then you might come up with other peoples views. And possibly give some evidence supporting the claim ...

I contributed what I have to contribute. I am not qualified to state the linguistic theory of Chomsky. And what evidence is required that people say that about Chomsky? The parallel is very striking, but it isn't necessary to support it in order to state that people say it. GregLindahl
So they message here is that people will delete my contributions. That makes me so so motivated to contribute to Wikipedia. That's OK, why bother mentioning that Chomsky (and Freud) have legions of detractors, that must not be very important in NPOV articles about Chomsky and Freud. GregLindahl
Now, Greg, don't get too upset. I personally regard Chomsky as a kook and a half on toast. I don't think this article should be uncritical, but I think even detractors have to work to write our criticisms in a way that will be acceptable to supporters. It's an iterative process. --Jimbo Wales

Jimbo, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to simply note that he has detractors. Since it was made too hard for me to make that simple statement, I've given up. From what I can tell, simply deleting someone's text is against Wikipedia policy, and that's what was done. Go look at the text, which is quoted above. Pretty straightforward: "Detractors say X". That doesn't mean I should have to justify X. You can iterate all you like, I don't like getting screwed. GregLindahl

It is worth noting that almost everything about Noam Chomsky's ideas are controversial, both in linguistics and politics. He has a great many detractors both in academia and the general public; he has a great number of supporters among radicals and anarchists.

I don't think that supporters of his linguistic ideas are mainly 'radicals and anarchists'. --Taw

I took that last to refer to his politics, not his linguistics. I'll reword. --Koyaanis Qatsi

KQ asked if Chomsky's linguistics ideas are considered radical by some. Yes, they are considered junk science by some, hence, the comment that "Chomsky is the Freud of linguistics". If you look around the web, it takes about 3 minutes to find critics of Chomsky. Too bad the article doesn't mention it anywhere... I attempted to add it, but someone simply removed my words. GregLindahl

Well yes, not to be difficult, Chomsky's linguistics are considered radical by some, since I am one and I consider them radical. What I meant was, regardless of what I personally think, what was the reaction among people qualified to debate the subject matter (I am not one of those people)? I'd love to hear about it; I didn't know he had faced allegations of "junk science" in his methodology; I just remember it started some "Chomskyan revolution" in linguistics. Personally I find his methodology in his political writings both sound and exhaustively documented, but I do not think wikipedia should be a collection of KQ's personal opinions, especially in areas I'm not an expert, so I didn't add that to the article. Why can't we address the controversy around his work the same as all the other controversies: present all the arguments, complete with citations of who says what? Sorry I haven't been plugged in lately; I've been swamped with schoolwork. Sorry also if we've gone over this elsewhere. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Greg, where does the quote "Chomsky the Freud of linguistics" come from? Google doesn't show it. --AxelBoldt

Dunno, Axel, I've hung out with a lot of people over the years. But you can look at this: http://www.lon.ac.uk/academic/philosophy/Psychology99BA.html, it's an exam in Philosophy which has questions about psychotherapy being a pseudo science, and a rather tough question about whether or not Chomsky's theory of universal grammar has any "grounds" or not. This makes it quite clear that both Freud and Chomsky get questioned. GregLindahl

And seeing your concurrent contribution about the critics... perhaps the problem is that "some" is too general? Who? Where? Why? I work in the academic field; you could as well put my opinion up and cite it as "some say".... You see? I'm not trying to be difficult, just I prefer precision when possible. Beau regards, --Koyaanis Qatsi

KQ, you are welcome to be as precise as you like. As I said, it took about 3 minutes to find numerous linguistic critics on the web. I'm aware of this through my interest in the history of science; I'd love a good article about this. What I don't like is that people deleted my words about a fairly well known argument. GregLindahl
Some academic detractors consider his "linguistic universals" theory to be pseudoscience, and call him "the Freud of linguistics".

You should provide some examples of (preferably well-known) scientists attacking TG for being pseudo-science (not merely false, that can happen to all good scientific theories) before writing this. Anyway I think that even undeleted statement exaggerates controversy around transformational grammar - It was basis of work of many linguists in 1960s and 1970s (well, I don't know what's going on in linguistics now too well), many of them no one would dare to call pseudoscientists. --Taw

Taw, as I said earlier, I don't believe that I have to do that before writing. This is extremely well known that Chomsky has critics, and it's all over the web. Pretty much ALL of the major criticisms have to do with the scientific proof of Chomsky's theories, and Chomsky's lack of interest in proving anything. If you'd like to write a nice document on this, go ahead. Just don't delete my mention of a well known situation. GregLindahl
Oh, I see that Taw did once again delete my statement. Well, I give up; I guess that Wikipedia's standards are so high that I can't meet them, even if anyone with a clue in the field would be aware of the situation. Better to excise my comment in the Freud article, too. GregLindahl
Of course Chomsky has critiques, but that's true with almost any other known scientist and any other theory. You didn't merely say that he has many critiques. You said that he is being criticized for being pseudoscientific, and that is almost the most serious accusation (probably only accusing of willfully falsifying evidence would be more serious) one could do to a scientist. So it should be much better documented than other claims. Of course if you can find some arguments from those who accuse him, please write them down. It's encyclopedia's work to present them in fair manner. Just please don't add serious baseless accusations, as this isn't fair and doesn't make article any better. --Taw

So I can't even mention that the argument exists? That isn't Wikipedia policy; you should not delete people's words for this reason. GregLindahl

This is Wikipedia policy and it's called NPOV. I'll try to give an example. Let's say that some cotributor added sentence like 'Some people accuse him of having killed his wife' to some article. Well, described person might have done it or not. Maybe some people really accuse him of having done so. But such a serious accusations has no place in an encyclopedia without some evidence, or, at minimum, a link to place where you could find it. And for a scientist killing a wife isn't any more serious than using pseudoscience ;) (sorry for some exaggeration). If you think that you don't have enough time to search for such arguments, you should write on a /Talk page that some people accuse him and that it should be noted in the article. It's likely that some Wikipedian will do the research, and if some people really do accuse the described, it will be written into article. --Taw

OK, Taw, I understand NPOV, and I disagree with you deleting my words. I'd happily bet you $10 that if you asked ANY professional linguist if anyone in the field feels Chomsky is pseudoscientific, they would say "yes". But if you find that so unbelievable, and feel so strongly about anything that YOU don't feel is sufficiently proven, then go ahead and delete my words. Hell, delete anything you want. It's an anarchy, and you're armed and dangerous. I'm not going to cooperate with someone who begins by deleting other people's words. You've appointed yourself King. Enjoy it. GregLindahl

How is his name pronounced? can someone add this? --Alan D (BTW, in "programming languages" in school, We had a textbook that proclaimed that his work on formal grammars were far more useful to computer languages, and of questionable use in natural language--tee hee!)

There's no question about that. Formal grammars are used in theoretical computer science, not in linguistics. --AxelBoldt
Not true - formal grammars certainly feature in linguistics, though they are considerably more complicated. -- Cadr

well, did chomsky, who was a linguist, create the notation we use, in like 1957 for natural languages or computer languages? --alan d

Primarily for natural languages;
References to check
N. Chomsky, Three models for the description of language, IRE Trans. Info. Theory 2 (3) (1956), 113-124.
N. Chomsky, On certain formal properties of grammars, Information and Control 2 (3) (1959), 137-167. -- HJH

I am not a linguist, and I am hardly qualified to write an article on this topic, but I remember studying transformational grammars in my college linguistic class years ago, and thinking to myself, my God, this seems like such a kludge. He creates this nice formal grammar, and when he finds out that it doesn't actually describe real world languages that humans actually speak, he does a little presto magic (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), and "transforms" the sentences to fit them into real world syntax. The whole process struck me as the linguistic version of pre-Copernican epicycles, where all sorts of magic had to be done to make the geocentric system work. Then again, I am not a linguist, so what do I know? Still, I have often wondered since then how other linguists react to his theories, since in my linguistics class it was basically just taught as a factual description of human language.

This is an extremely unfair criticism of Chomsky's work. Firstly, you were probably taught a fairly simplified version of his 1960-70s theories (sounds like it) which were a bit of a kludge. Secondly, you're forgetting his great historical importance - however much you dislike his theories, he did demonstrate that structuralist theories did not work, and propose a viable (maybe semi-viable at first) alternative. He also made a big contribution to the philosophy of linguistics. If you read any of his books, he is extremely critical of his own theories, and never tries to brush over their deficiencies. -- Cadr

Well, I got a degree in linguistics from a department noted as being anti-Chomskyist, and although I spent as little time as possible on theory, I can state that anti-Chomskyist linguists focus specifically on Chomsky's fondness for proof-by-vigorous-handwaving. This is pretty much the same as criticism of an abandonment of empiricism and an almost sensationalist approach to theory.

In my opinion, one of the reasons that Chomsky's theories are so attractive to many is that they have much wider implications than those of his opponents. Greenberg's theory of universals carefully confines itself to description of observable phenomena (i.e. "most relative clauses are head-initial"), and thus offers almost no insight into how the mind works. Chomsky's assertions about the innate nature of language, however, are something that the cognitive-studies crowd can grab and run with, no matter whether they're verifiable or not.

Caveat: I also consider most of Chomsky's political writings to be propaganda of the Big Lie variety. In my opinion, his reasoning appears sound until you check his sources. I might agree with some of his points, but don't trust him farther than I could spit him.

-Ben

Politics

What are some of the sources for the anti-Semitism paragraphs? I am dubious on several points but not firm enough to make corrections. I believe he never denied authorizing the essay, simply told him he could do whatever he wanted with it. Also I doubt Chomsky has supporters amoung anti-Semites, considering his background. - Eean

Many neo-Nazi websites hold up Chomsky as their poster boy for how evil Jews are, and why all Jews (except Chomsky, of course!) are evil liars. You really should investigate this topic. You will be unpleasantly surprised. [[[user:RK|RK]]]

Chomsky has worked to a small degree with with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers; see the below websites for documentation. He also has a temper: As Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz and other witnesses have seen in public, he even will physically assault people who confront him with his own words. (see Dershowitz's new article on this topc.)

Many journalists have proven that Chomsky does repeatedly work with neo-Nazi anti-Semites. Chomsky's only defense is that is of Jewish descent and therefore, he claims, he cannot be an anti-Semite. Obviously, however, that argument is ludicrous. There have historically been many Jewish anti-Semites; some self-hating Jews worked in the Nazi army during World War II, and a Ku Klux Klansman in the US committed suicide when it was discovered that he was actually a Jew. (A recent movie, "The Believer", was inspired this case.) Curiously, gentiles still accept the myth that no Jew can be an anti-Semite, but no one in the Jewish community believes it.

Here is some documentation of Chomsky's collusion with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/cohnpamph09-11-01.htm http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomskydocs.html

Is there a more unbiased source? Just taking a glance at the index of frontpagemag made its position on things like Israel pretty clear - they have reasons other then his supposed anti-semitism to dislike him. Its about as unbiased as my source, the biographical documentary and admittedly pro-Chomsky Manufactoring Consent, which is why I don't feel justified in making any corrective changes and was wanting another source. And since what we are dealing with here are differences in facts, not really opinions, the old "put everything in there" NPOV tactic can't really work, or at least not as well. So it would be easiest if there was an article somewhere without a point to prove summarizing the whole thing, though I would imagine such an article would be hard to come by.
Personally, I believe that Chomsky is not anti-Semitic, but certainly in many ways anti-Israel (though he does have good things to say about their media) and folks enjoy confusing the two. His comments are taken out of the context on his view of how the world works (one different then one commonly sees). Granted, Dershowitz's article shows Chomsky probably isn't free of this either. Certainly any ties he has with neo-Nazi groups are distribing, at least on any issues outside of freedom of speech (ironic that European neo-Nazi's are the ones often caught fighting for the latter), as this is his defense of that accusation.
I agree, a Jew can certainly be anti-Semitic and in general the notion you can't be prejudiced againist your own group is wrong. - Eean


Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites warmly embrace Noam Chomsky. The notorious crypto-nazi organization, CODOH, parades Chomsky as their house Jew. http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nros/nrosgobad.html

Other Nazi sites which embrace Chomsky include: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/062_jam.html

Just a note: I try to maintain NPOV in the main entry itself, but I don't worry about doing so in the "Talk" sections. If I understand correctly, we don't have to. Here's where we hash stuff out, so that the final results will be NPOV. Thus, I won't be adding my stuff straight from this section to the main encyclopaedia entry! And I am willing to have others evaluate what I added to the entry, and work on making sure it is NPOV. RK

The two websites cited above don't seem to say what the poster says they do. The first site has as many anti-Chomsky links as pro (I think, it is the devil to navigate). The second site complains, to paraphrase, that Chomsky is "too intelligent not to be one of us, but too chicken to admit it." It's obvious that the anti-Semites would love to claim Chomsky, but even they think there is something fishy about him, well, I think there's something fishy about him too, but these sites don't prove anything. Ortolan88

I agree that they don't prove he is (or isn't) anti-semitic. Rather, I am claiming that they prove anti-semites have a fondness for his works, and use them, when they can, to further their agenda. But this just couldn't be done unless Chomsky was at least extremely anti-Jewish.
Thats not true. The statement "anti-semites have a fondness for his works, and use them, when they can, to further their agenda" applies equally well to, say, Richard Wagner, but he wasn't an anti-semite. Or Friedrich Nietszche, who wasn't an anti-semite as much as a misanthrope. Never underestimate the ability of hate groups to (mis)interpret others for their own ends. -- User:GWO
No. It's not true at all. In fact, I suspect anti-semites like Chomsky because they're typically not astute, and mistake Chomsky's harsh views on many of Israel's actions for harsh views on Jewish people. Chomsky has equally harsh views on every country, typically regarding any act of oppression (from the Holocaust to suicide bombings to use of the death penalty) as abhorrent and dishonorable. The disregard for all government of course meshes well with his anarchism. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Also, the name of Chomsky's political views is anarcho-syndicalism, which he has called himself many times. Social anarchism, if it even exists, is something else. Whoever wrote that section doesn't seem to have read much about Chomsky. -- a different RK

Chomsky and Khmer Rouge:

After the Cataclysm, Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman

Not exactly an academic source, but the Amazon discussion of the book is long and interesting.

See also The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia, somebody's honors thesis including a whole chapter on Chomsky.

I just briefly looked at it and wow talk about hostility!! Sophal Ear has managed to integrate an impressive amount of insults into her arguments. I could take lessons from hir!

I really like Chomsky, because of his contributions to linguistics which have a bearing on natural language understanding and artificial intelligence. I've even met his son while I was studying at Harvard. However, I am distressed by his veering political views -- which I sharply disagree with.

Our task, nonetheless, is to present Chomsky from the NPOV not because neutrality is the position we all must take -- far from it! we all have sides -- but because the only way to for the Wikipedia to be free AND successful is to require NPOV articles. (I'm not too good at that, but I'm learning :-)

That said, how about someone talking about Time flies like an arrow and the ambiguity inherent in that sentence? Does time metaphorically fly? Or do flies of the "time" variety like arrows? Ed Poor, Friday, May 24, 2002

Why the beliefs of the American Jewish community are irrelevant;

[RK claimed that the conditions I imposed for proving Chomsky is an anti-semite were impossible to meet even for proven anti-semites]

Hardly. All you have to do is find a small group of people who do not a priori hate Chomsky and agree that he is an anti-Semite. Since Chomsky is an extreme left-winger, that excludes all right-wingers. Since his books viciously attack propaganda, this excludes both the American government and the American Jewish Congress. Since he attacks US foreign policy and US institutions, that excludes any "patriotic" American. Who do you have left? Only a few billion people. Take your pick.

You could easily support your argument by looking at what European Jewish populations think. But you won't because you have nothing to gain and everything to lose from it. Far better to grandstand and talk about the American Jewish community as if it were "the Jewish community". I'm betting that left-wing Israelis don't regard Chomsky as an anti-Semite (and by "left-wing", I don't mean members of the Israeli Labor party).

But let's look at why it's extremely unlikely that Chomsky is an anti-Semite (except in the twisted minds of a propagandized population). First, Chomsky is a scholar. And a damn good scholar. That means that his belief system is likely to be consistent. Second, Chomsky is an extreme left-winger. What does that mean? It means he's unlikely to support right-wing attitudes like racism, prejudice and bigotry. Third, he is an anarchist. What does that mean? It means he's unlikely to support human rights violations of any kind (whether committed by Israel or against it). Taken together, this means that it is extremely unlikely that Chomsky is an anti-Semite; it would contradict all the previous points. And needless to say, none of these arguments apply to David Duke.

Let's look even further. Chomsky has already given full explanations for his actions, beliefs and other people's misperceptions of him (especially people who haven't read a single thing he wrote but go on rumor and hearsay). Actually, he never explains his enemy's actions explicitly but they are easily understood if one understands his Propaganda Model for the USA. This propaganda model is itself supported by massive evidence inside and outside of Chomsky's books. So there exists an entirely reasonable explanation for the American Jewish community's hatred of Chomsky which has jack squat to do with any actual anti-Semitism on his part. You need extraordinary evidence because you have to 1) disprove the reasonable explanation (of vicious propaganda), and 2) prove the unreasonable explanation (of Chomsky as an inconsistent, unprincipled anti-Semite).

Until you've passed this test, you can't include "the American Jewish community thinks Chomsky is an anti-semite" while giving the impression that they're unbiased, knowledgeable observers. -- ark

Chomsky does not speak out against human rights abuses and terrorism comitted by these nations; Chomsky's critics point out that he almost always directs criticism only at democracies.

This is incorrect. Chomsky discusses (ad nauseum) US support for human rights violators. Necessarily, he has criticized human rights violators in non-democracies from (the former military dictators of) Argentina and Chile to Indonesia to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait etc. He also criticizes human rights violations by Israel, Turkey, and many others, some democracies, some not, some nominally so. The common thread has nothing to do with democracy; it is that he spends all his time condemning the official friends of the United States and very little condemning the official enemies. He does condemn, often only in passing, human rights abuses by groups like the PLO, the NVA, and the Soviet Union (actually, he spends a fair amount of time on Marxism-Leninism). The article now reflects this.

absolute opposition to the rights of Jews to have a state of their own

The phrase "opposition to the concept of a Jewish state" is more accurate. First, his opposition is not absolute; he very often talks favorably about two-state solutions which involve a Jewish state. So we're left with the difference between "the rights of Jews to have a state of their own" and "the concept of a Jewish state". The first phrase presupposes that Jews have a right to "a state of their own", but this is precisely what Chomsky is arguing against: the idea of a state designated specifically for one nationality. It's inappropriate to phrase Chomsky's opposition in a manner that prejudges him to be incorrect.

re:Horowitz

I have rewritten this portion to try to make it clear Horowitz is not typical of Chomsky's critics.

views classified variously as anarchist and libertarian socialist

On wikipedia, we've been referring to the anarchist views Noam Chomsky holds as "libertarian socialist" in order to disambiguate them from anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists, who also claim the word anarchism. Therefore, saying that chomsky's views have been classified "variously" as anarchist or libertarian socialist is inaccurate; the two are different names for the same thing. Also, it's important to retain the "broadly" becuase there are some anarchist orthodoxies and Chomsky doesn't always agree with them. (Or at least he doesn't go around making a show of agreeing with them...)

Sounds good to me, boss. I look forward to reading more about libertarian socialism (which sounds like an oxymoron to me).
Based on my understanding of communism, I associate "socialism" with the deprivation of liberty: confiscation of private property such as farms, factories and shops; incarceration or execution for criticizing the government. I know next to nothing about libertarianism beyond the impression that it wants less government, which would seem to being in precisely the opposite direction of the totalitariansim found in most socialist countries.
Um, does this have anything to do with Chomsky? Is Chomsky for, or against, freedom? Does he favor or oppose goverment confiscation of the means of production? Ed Poor
Ed, did you read the article? It says His political position is normally classified as "social anarchism" or libertarian socialism: he summarizes it as seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified. . I think that pretty much says it all: Chomsky devotes his life to trying to expand freedom. (You may disagree with his actions, but that's his stated goals at the very least...)
RE: means of production: this is the sort of abstract thing chomsky speaks about rarely. I would imagine he would take the changing circumstances of each situation into account, but i've never read him giving a general platform or anything besides the above maxim. He has spoken against the lack of freedom under the Bolsheviks and the North Vietnamese Army and a bunch of other marxists of all shades, if that's what you're asking. I'll try to fit his discussion of them into the article.
re: anarchism this is not the appropriate place to discuss that. Please read the article on libertarian socialism and if it's unclear, comment in the talk page. djk


Dan, thanks for adding the following:

Chomsky focuses his most intense criticism on official friends of the United States government while criticizing official enemies like the former Soviet Union and the North Vietnamese Army? only in passing. He explains this by the following principle: it is more important to evaluate actions which you have more possibility of affecting.

It explains something I always found bewildering. Ed Poor

OK, the contents of "Noam Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism" have been moved here. It looks like that article was originally taken from this one and moved to a spot of its own. Does anybody know why this was done? To me it seems strange that one would do that. --Camembert

Camembert: this is what I said on talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism
I'm quite unhappy with integrating this article into Noam Chomsky. The reason it got seperated was because there was such a large dispute going on that this subject was overwhelming the rest of the article and the talk page. Isolating it into its own article allows for us to address the subject in a thorough, NPOV way without overwhelming the article on Noam Chomsky. djk
IMO Noam Chomsky is the best place for this ( of course it should be integrated with the rest of the article ). Like said in the discussion at Talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism should we have articles on the subject "<insert someone here> and alleged <insert whatever here>"? I can think of a lot of things could be put in a article like that. And I am pretty sure that I don't want that. pty 14:04 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)
Maybe we could integrate the existing anti-semitism article into a broader "Chomsky and the Middle East" article which discusses Chomsky's role as a lecturer on Middle East issues, and the reaction to that role, and that would neither assume anti-semitism or be limited to charges and counter-charges. But in general, I would answer your question yes. If there's a lot to say about whether or not Henry Ford was a Nazi, then we should seperate it out into a seperate article Henry Ford's support for Naziism so that it doesn't overwhelm the Henry Ford page. This seems to me like a logical way to classify content. djk
Ah, thanks, I understand. The thing I still don't understand is why there has to be such a massive number of words about whether Chomsky is or is not an anti-Semite. I know it's an oft levelled criticism of him, but I don't think it's the place of an encyclopaedia to quote every example of such an allegation and then say "but Chomsky/Chomsky's supporters say this." To me that just turns an encyclopaedia into a place where enemies can carry on an argument. Unless there are good reasons not to, I'm going to try and brutally prune the old article down to one or two paragraphs and integrate it into this article (unless anyone gets there before me). --Camembert

Or, heck, maybe we could simply integrate this material into this page. The main thing I'm concerned about is that large chunks of that material will get simply deleted. That material is there mainly because it's what's necessary to represent all sides of the debate accurately. If for a while this article is heavy on charges of anti-semitism, et cetera, then I'll try to add some other stuff to it, biographical info or something. DanKeshet

Well, whoever did the integration here did a pretty good job, I think. I really do think that the article is better integrated here, rather than sectioned off on a page on its own. It doesn't seem like there are too many words on the subject any more (though perhaps a bit of bio would not go amiss). We'll see how things work out now. I'm off back to less controversial subjects (dead composers :) --Camembert
Er, that was me. Didn't mean to do it covertly, just started using a different browser. Thanks for the bio. I think the article is getting much better. DanKeshet

Should the link to http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/chomsky.html have a warning? It is a prety extreme group!

I think we should let readers decide for themselves which sources are credible, else we'll be arguing forever about how to label sources. DanKeshet

When I read Chomsky's books I got the impression that he was not anti-government, but wanted a government which represented the people rather than big business. This differs from what I associate with Libertarian socialism, and the Wikipedia definition. Does the link to Libertarian socialism imply beliefs that Chomsky does not hold? Chris Q

Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist; I don't know of a source for this, but I am certain of it. He is known as an anarchist (that being the same thing to most). But he differs from the majority of anarchists in that he believes that governments should be strengthened against the greater evil that is Neo-liberalism.


This is a dubious position for an anarchist to take, as most anarchists would say that all authority should be opposed, rather than taking one as a lesser evil. He has been criticised a lot for this, but he defends his views by saying that "goals" are different to "visions" (which implies his anarchist "vision"). -- Tzartzam
To clarify Chomsky's temporary support for certain aspects of the modern state are made on pragmatic grounds. From "Powers and Prospects" in the essay "Goals and Visions" : "In today's world, I think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while at the same time trying to pry them open to more meaningful public participation- and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the approriate circumstances can be achieved." He's talking about protecting and "prying open" certain ELEMENTS of the state corresponding to the extension of human rights and democracy as a provisional strategy. The essay by the way concerns the theme of tension between long-term future vision (anarchist society) and the choices and tasks that are within reach for activists at the moment. BernardL.
Hi Chris, follow some of the links at the bottom of the page on "Chomsky and Anarchism" particularly, "More on Chomsky and Anarchism". Quoting from the bottom of the page, there:
8. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What steps should we take?
Prospects for freedom and justice are limitless. The steps we should take depend on what we are trying to achieve. There are, and can be, no general answers. The questions are wrongly put. I am reminded of a nice slogan of the rural workers' movement in Brazil (from which I have just returned): they say that they must expand the floor of the cage, until the point when they can break the bars. At times, that even requires defense of the cage against even worse predators outside: defense of illegitimate state power against predatory private tyranny in the United States today, for example, a point that should be obvious to any person committed to justice and freedom...
The fact that he is an anarchist doesn't mean he always think the government is the worst evil. The fact that he doesn't always think the government is the worst evil doesn't mean he isn't an anarchist. DanKeshet

I think we got rid of the Making Fun of Brittanica page, so, I'll leave this bit here. The Columbia Encyclopedia article on Chomsky lists "Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (1982)" as one of Chomsky's political works. I immediately looked for the "edit" link so I could explain that that's a linguistic work with a seperate meaning of the word government. I couldn't find the edit link.  :) DanKeshet

Heh. We're also still making fun of Britannica though: m:Making fun of Britannica. AxelBoldt 04:47 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor added the sentence "This is consistent with anarchist ideals" to the end, but I can not understand from the phrasing and placement whether this was intended to mean "Chomsky's views are consistent with anarchist ideals," which I agree with, but seems irrelevant to me. (Indeed, the whole point of including Chomsky's dig at holocaust-exploiters seems to be to make cheap points, not to inform the reader.) The other way it could be interpreted would be that the central doctrine referred to in the previous sentence is consisten with anarchist ideals, which is inaccurate. DanKeshet 20:55 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed in all respects. To be honest, that whole "accusations of anti-semetism" section seems irrelavent to me. If we went around Wikipedia and consistantly added "accusions of..." sections to entires on famous figures, we would be here forever. I reckon me should nuke that bit - what do others think? AW
Hi. I'm the anonmyous poster. I added the bit about anarchism. I meant it to refer to Chompsky's support for the right of someone to print that the holocost did not happen. To a lot of people it is not apparent just how strongly anarchists support freedom of speech. Regarding "accusations of anti-semetism" there seems to be an argument going on between some zionists and anti zionists :) to the effect that all people who oppose the state of Israel are anti-semetic. see http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Anti-Semitism_vs_Anti-Zionism. Regarding removing the bit about Chompsky being Anti-Semitic - I also think it is a cheap shot, though clearly there are others who disagree. - Karl