Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 7

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.

Contents

Picture of Chomsky & Castro

See Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 6. Resume discussion here if you must. -- Pinktulip 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for reviving the issue, but since the picture has reappeared, I would like to know the rationale for including it. I have reread the earlier contributions (see Archive 6), but have not found any convincing argument as to why the picture is relevant for "Views on Socialism". My stand is that the picture is at best uninformative, and — given Wikipedia's purpose of being informative — ought not be included. PJ 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I expanded on the caption, for clarity. We can take the picture out or further expand with a Chomsky disclaimer or use it to assert that Chomsky is sometimes the victim of manipulation. Whatever. I'm easy. -- Pinktulip 21:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Although the caption does add clarity, I don't think it ought to settle the dispute. Further, I don't think that a disclaimer is the right way to go, since it might make the article appear amateurish. Rather, I am hoping that the disagreement can be settled by argumention. Personally, since I believe the "principle of simplicity" is a good basic rule, it ought to be up to those who favor the inclusion of the picture to present their case. In absence of a positive and sound argument, the picture ought to be discarded. My suggestion is therefore to set up a dead-line, and if no such argument has been presented by that given date, the picture ought to go. PJ 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously more informative than the BBC4 picture that just shows his face. If the section title bothers you, no one is stopping you from putting the picture in another section, or creating a new section, or modifying the sections. Tcsh 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For the following reason, I don't think the Castro-pic is more informative than the BBC4-pic: Whereas the BBC4-pic is at worst uninformative (at best, informative), the Castro-pic is at worst misleading (at best, uninformative). Furthermore, since I know of no appropriate section for the Castro-pic, I won't move it. To create a new section to suit the pic seems quite disingenuous, so I will not do this either. Removing the pic is only a short term solution, since it will most likely reappear. Thus, rather than a tug-of-war, I would like to see a discussion. An agreement may flow from a discussion, which can serve as a precedence to avoid future disputes. PJ 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You haven't even offered any arguments, i.e. why is it supposed to be misleading in your mind? Let me guess... That evil man Castro has raped your young sister and therefore you don't want him to be seen with a nice guy like Chomsky? Or, that evil man Chomsky has raped your young sister and therefore you don't want him to be seen with a nice guy like Castro?:) Chomsky had no problems with meeting Castro, so the personal opinions of people who want to censor the picture aren't significant for a Chomsky article. You also assert without giving anything that resembles an argument that this picture is uninformative at best. Others did find it to be informative it appears, e.g. the AP people who took it, and the Wikipedia people who included it in the first place. As long as the caption for the picture is accurate (the current one drifts to irrelevant stuff), there's nothing misleading about it as far as normal people are concerned, the demons inside your mind notwithstanding. End of story. Tcsh
Besides being crude you also have a bad memory, Tcsh. I have already argued for my position; and you should know since you partook in the discussion (see Archive 6). First of all, given the "principle of simplicity", the burden-of-proof lies with those who wish to include the pic. I have argued that the pic is uninformative since it fails to add to our understanding of Chomsky's view on Socialism. (Remember, Chomsky met Castro in the capacity of being a scholar.) When the pic actually does add to the readers perception of Chomsky's view on Socialism, it will most likely add confusion. Mind you, Castro a controversial political figure seen in the Western world as a nationalist and a dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro). The further fact that Castro is sometimes seen as a socialist may mislead the reader into believing that Chomsky share Castro's notorious political views. (Whether Chomsky did or did not have a problem with meeting Castro is completely irrelevant to the issue in question; so is whether the AP found the pic "informative" in their context, for their purpose. And whether the person who first added the pic was right is precisely the burning question.) PJ 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it to be misleading in the "views on socialism" section, as long as there's an accurate caption that mentions the type of conference that it was. If having it in this particular section bothers you (and you seem to be the only one), then stop being lazy and edit the sections of the article. Note that the picture was originally in another section, and someone moved it into this section and claimed that it's more appropriate in this section. Tcsh
Dear Tcsh, first of all, I would appreciate if you left out your silly ad hominem comments. Had I been lazy, then I would have simply removed the pic. Instead, I instigated a discussion in order to hear the opposition; because if you actually took the time to read the discussion in Archive 6 you would see that the majority of contributors agree with my position. Yes, the pic was originally under the section "Criticism of United States Government", which seems to me completely out-of-place. Further, even if you don't find the pic misleading, it may very well be; and until you have addressed the issue concerning the informative value of the pic, the pic cannot be justified. (Lastly, as I have already said, to create a new section merely to suit the pic seems quite disingenuous to me, and I will not endorse that.)PJ 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the picture itself, then that's your problem, because Chomsky didn't have a problem with the event. If you have a problem with the section being misleading in your opinion, as far as I'm aware of you're the only one who doesn't like it in this section, but you could edit the sections of the article if you wish. Wikipedia is editing-driven, so generally you won't get results by just using the talk page, e.g. in this case one of the right-wing loonies was so excited with this picture that he uploaded it twice without noticing, so your censorship crusade is hopeless on arrival, even if you did have arguments for it. I thought that I address your 'informative value' issue by saying that it's obviously more informative than the close-up picture on his face, unless you operate under some new bizarre meaning for the word informative. Tcsh
You should read the previous entries before you comment, Tcsh; explaining things over and over hampers the discussion. First, I do not have a problem with the picture per se (which I made clear in Archive 6). Second, a fast count shows that twice as many contributors believe that the picture is unappropriate under the current section as those who think it is (see Archive 6). Furthermore, I explained to you yesterday (see above) why your argument regarding the infomative value of the Castro-picture is flawed; you never addressed my comment. Furthermore, whether Chomsky had a problem or not with meeting Castro, is completely besides the point. Just because Chomsky didn't have a problem with meeting someone, and a picture was taken of the two, does not automatically qualify that picture for this article. Finally, I believe this discussion has degenerated; I therefore I call on other contributors to take a vote on the issue. Is the Castro picture appropriate under Views on Socialism? A simple Yes or No will do. PJ 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that I think that it's appropriate under 'views on socialism', I said that I don't have a problem with it being there, and that as far as I know you're the only one who do. You've explained nothing above, you just declared that it's "uninformative at best", even though any kid could see that it's more informative than e.g. the close-up picture, which you don't want to delete I assume. Perhaps you have problems expressing yourself, and you chose the word 'informative' by mistake. Anyway, since you don't have a problem with the picture per se, stop being lazy and start editing the article if this section bothers you so much. If you agree that in theory there could be a version of the article in which the picture would fit in your opinion, and you're unwilling to create that version, then that's not an excuse to delete it. Tcsh 14:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the First Pillar of Wikipedia, a picture requires a encyclopedic context (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). Wikipedia has defined its aim as an encyclopedia as, to convey relevant knowledge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is). Thus, "encyclopedic context" entails relevancy in context. Conclusion: To argue that the picture ought to be kept while agreeing that it is inappropriate, is to flout the First Pillar of Wikipedia! Moreover: To modify the section or article simply in order to "legitimize" the picture is to flout the Second Pillar of Wikipedia - Assume NPOV (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). Furthermore: You have completely disregarded the fact that all your remaining comments have already been dealt with in previous entries. Please be aware that to disregard the remarks of your opponent in order to prolong the discussion is to flout Wikiquette (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette) PJ 16:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're prolonging the discussion by falsely attributing to me the stance of "agreeing that it is inappropriate", i.e. if we remove your ability to make stuff up, this discussion would have ended much earlier. Tcsh 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
On Feb 10 you stated: "I [Tcsh] didn't say that I [Tcsh] think that it's appropriate". Either you meant to convey some meaning with this statement or you did not. If you did, then you must have meant that you do not find it appropriate, since "inappropriate" simply means "not appropriate" (see e.g. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" or "Oxford English Dictionary") and there is a binary relationship between these two concepts, by deduction you must have meant that you find it inappropriate. Then the argumentation in my last entry holds. If you on the other hand did not mean to convey any meaning with that statement, then you have automatically flouted Wikiquette by being misleading. Now, if you against this, do find the picture appropriate, then you have to argue why this is so. Given the First Pillar of Wikipedia, the picture has to be informative for our understanding of Chomsky's views on Socialism — i.e. the picture must add to our understanding of Chomsky's views on Socialism in order to be relevant. Given the "principle of simplicity" — which is the common guideline for all rational discourses (see Ockham's Razor) — it is up to he who advocates for the inclusion of the picture to point out how it meets the criterion of relevancy. Again, N.B., your ad hominem remarks are in violation of Wikiquette. PJ 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
By pointing out that "I didn't say that X is true", it doesn't follow that I'm saying that X is false. You cannot even comprehend simple English. Anyone who does comprehend English is invited to read all of your assertions above and see all the stuff that you made up. Tcsh 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You are in violation of Wikiquette, and I have placed a notification concerning it on the Wikiquette Alert page. I also see that you have been reprimanded for similar violations before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moral_responsibility). PJ 10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I also didn't say that you're sane. What follows from that according to your understanding of the English language? Now you lied again on my talk page and said that I "believe that it is appropriate". If you keep lying I'll request to ban your account. Tcsh
You play a high stake game, Tcsh! It is obvious that you have no interest in contributing to this discussion, which precisely is about whether picture is appropriate or not. PJ 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this dispute up on the Wikiquette alerts page and would like to offer a view from the sidelines, after reviewing the discussion on this section (not archive 6).

First, it appears that Tcsh is violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV by repeatedly accusing PJ of being "lazy", that he "cannot even comprehend simple English", by accusing PJ of "lying", by accusing PJ of being on a "censorship crusade", by describing a fantasy in which PJ's "young sister" is raped, by accusing PJ of having "demons inside [his] mind", by suggesting that PJ is insane ("I also didn't say that you're sane"), and threatening to "request a ban on [PJ's] account".

Second, PJ also appears to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIV by accusing Tcsh of "being crude" and having "a bad memory".

Third, it appears that Tcsh is violating WP:FAITH by assuming that the editors who do not think the picture is relevant "want to censor the picture", and that PJ is on a "censorship crusade".

So, first I would recommend that the parties involved refrain from further violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so that work on the encyclopedia can proceed without devolving in to a flame war. If Wikipedia policies continue to be violated I recommend considering some more formal mediation.

Next, on the subject of the inclusion of the picture in the article, if Tcsh "[doesn't] find it to be misleading in the 'views on socialism' section," it would help to achieve consensus on this issue if he could state his reasons. How would the picture inform the reader of the article regarding Chomsky's views on socialism? If, after all, there is no justification for keeping it in that section, and if no justification is given for why it is relevant to another specific section then, in my opinion, it should be removed.

Also, for the record, I believe that PJ has given his reasons for why he thinks the picture is misleading, namely, it could "mislead the reader into believing that Chomsky share Castro's notorious political views". It does not look like Tcsh has addressed this central point that PJ made regarding this issue. To achieve consensus I believe Tcsh should address this point directly, in a civil manner.

On the other hand, if Tcsh's only point is he "[doesn't] have a problem with [the picture] being [in the section 'views on socialism]", then it sounds like he has no objection to having the picture removed. If he does have an objection after all, then he should state what that objection is and the reasons for it. Is his objection that the picture is relevant? If so, he should explain precisely why it's relevant. Saying that "it's informative" is too vague. How is it informative? How specifically does it inform the reader of the article? And why does that information belong in that particular section?

Finally, I want to say that I am just another Wikipedia editor, and am not acting in any official capacity. This is just my own view on this dispute. If other editors are interested in this issue, I suggest that they contribute to this discussion in a civil manner with the aim of helping to achieve consensus. noosphere 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to prove a negative. I said that if the caption is accurate, I don't see anything misleading, but either way I don't care in which section it is. Again, PJ does agree that in theory there could be a version of the article in which the picture would fit in his opinion, and he's unwilling to create that version, so that's not an excuse to delete it. Tcsh
I appreciate your comments, Noosphere. In my opinion, you are absolutely right (including what you had to say about me). At this stage, there is not much reason to keep harping on this issue, I think. My intention had been from the start to ascertain whether the picture is appropriate or inappropriate. Thus, in my opinion, there are only two mutually-exclusive positions that one could take. (I am still not quite sure what Tcsh's position is.) Needless to say, my position is that the picture is inappropriate since it fails to satisfy the need for relevancy — given the context, the picture is uninformative. Obviously, from that conclusion, there is an additional question to be answered, viz. if the picture is inappropriate, what should be do? There seems to be three alternatives: add a new section, modify the present section, or (by default) delete the picture. To add a section simply in order to satisfy the criterion of relevancy, seems to me to be POV. We have to remember that also the added section needs meet the requirement of Wikipeida; e.g. being relevant, non-superfluous, and NPOV. As it is, I can think of no such additional section that would meet all of these criteria. Thus, such a line of action is inappropriate, in my opinion. Likewise, to modify the section in order to validate the picture seems equally forced and inappropriate. (To answer Tchs' comment: Although I have no problem with the picture per se, I can think of no version of the present section that would meet the Wikipedia principles, and for that reason such modification would be inappropriate.) Thus, by default, I believe that we ought to remove the picture. And going back to the old discussion in Archive 6, that is at present the majority view. At this stage, I would however like to see other contributors state their views on this issue. If this does not happen, then I suggest we take a 'vote'. And if nobody 'votes', then I will simply set up a dead-line and remove the picture if no one has objected and the dead-line has passed. PJ 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can think of no such section etc., then you'll have to wait and hope that someone who can will. Tcsh 05:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid you are missing the point. Until such section has been thought out, the picture is inappropriate. And it is not up me or anyone to conjure up a section, simply to justify the picture. PJ 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The picture is inappropriate. On an article named "Chomsky's political views" it appears misleading to have a picture of him with a man whom he doesn't share political views. The picture sets a precendent in the encyclopedia and should be removed. Zleitzen 1 March 2006


Lack of criticism

I realize the criticisms were moved to a main article primarily for reasons of space, but is this "featured article" still comprehensive and NPOV without them? We have several printed pages' worth of Chomsky's views here. I think we need at least a brief summary of the criticisms. --Hoziron 16:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, and nor is the current length short enough with them just snipped. I'd say that sections 2-5 on his academic work etc, and section 6 on his politics also need to be outsourced, then summary styled back in... but that's a massive copy edit job, an really needs someone who knows what are the most relevant bits to pull back into the main article. No reason not to pull a few paragraphs of criticism on linguistics, Faurisson and Israel back in here now though. --zippedmartin 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Definately needs to be here.--Alabamaboy 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Maybe when this semester is done, I"ll try some research. Hopefully somebody will help me with this. Uhgreen 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone ever read an encyclopedia and found an article called "Criticism of X" Calvin Jones —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.109.125 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment pretyt much nails it. The fact that he has his own criticism page shows just how awful and biased this palce can be.

You know, this article used to contain quite a bit of information about criticism of his science. And now it's basically all gone. That's even-handed? The man is extremely unpopular among a significant subset of linguists. Greg 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing part of section

I'm a random user without much Chomsky knowledge, and I am finding the "Opinion on criticism of science culture" section difficult to parse. Where it says "Chomsky notes that critiques of 'white male science' ..." it doesn't define "white male science." On my first read, this made me believe that "white male science" was what was discussed in his first quote, and thus this second quote is a sort of continuation. But I do not understand how it follows.

So, my suggestion is for someone knowledgable on these matters to define "white male science" at some point in this section, and make it clear whether the second section follows from the first or if it is a separate quote on its own.

The second quote is indeed separate from the first. I've tried to make that clearer. However, I thought it was rather self-evident from Chomsky's quote what he meant by "white male science", so I've not explained that further. rob 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 --It's confusing all around, just corrected a french typo, and there are a plentitude of french transliterations in the whole article..

Subpage needed

I think that this page should delegate much of Chomsky's political opinions/philosophies to a separate page. It is fine to summarize the results of his research and opinions, but they are too bulky to be included in his biography. This article should focus on Chomsky's Importance and avoid the bulk of the details of his ideas. It seems to me that his political views can be easily delegated to a subpage. I added a link to his NNDB page so that you can easily see how much less space they give to his political views. I think in this case, NNDB has found a better balance about Importance in the facets of Chomsky's life and have approtioned space accordingly. Another way to put it: Despite his intellectual stature, how much of Chomsky's political activism made a difference. How much influence did he wield? How much of all his political talk amounts to more than just eurudite hot air? -- Pinktulip 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The subpage delegation is almost done. Now maybe we can get this main article to FA quality. I note that both articles are still over 32KB. -- Pinktulip 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not have a sense of mastery of either Chomsky's academic or political works. I would appreciate any help to ensure that the main article is still readable and worthy of another chance as becoming a Featured Article. -- Pinktulip 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I think that his contributions to political thought are far greater in importance than his contributions to linguistics. -- subterranean 12:19, 10 February 2006 (EST)
Absolutely not. Chomsky single-handedly revolutionized linguistics, and 50 years from now, that is what he'll be remembered for. --Ashenai 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect he will be known to posterity for his work in both fields, much like so many other figures of renown who applied their intellectual powers and moral spirit to widely varying subjects. In any case mere opinions based upon largely unpredictable future projections have negligible value.BernardL 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that everyone at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Noam Chomsky agreed that this article is a piece of shit. Tcsh

This demonstrates a major weakness with wikipedia, and it's failure as a research tool - partisans gain "ownership" of a subject and through fair or foul means (e.g. claiming an edit is "vandalism" and banning that editor from further editing) stop those with a desire to provide valid information objected to by the owners from further editing. Perhaps wikipedia is valid when examining non controversial subjects (e.g. the topography of tibet), but on matters like chomspky it is a failure.

Thanks for that constructive contribution. Cadr 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

links

Should Anarchist Federation (U.S.) be included somewhere? --Striver 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Too far removed from the subject--Zleitzen 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

HIS FATHER

I added the fact his father was a member of the IWW, which is obviously important in terms of his early influences.82.35.70.213

please provide evidence of this --Zleitzen 17:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He mentions it himself in an interview in the Anarcho Syndicalist Review a couple of years ago, but is this enough - http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605buhle.htm : The IWW was the “greatest thing on earth” according to its members and devotees. It averaged, in its best years, perhaps a hundred thousand members. Yet it brought together, for a time, the poorest and most downtrodden working people from every race and group, while its bards wrote some of the most moving and funniest songs mocking the rich exploiters and their willing slaves. Why would American poets, novelists, and radicals from John Dos Passos and Gary Snyder to Noam Chomsky (whose father was a Wobbly) continue to invoke the Wobblies when the memory of most unions is utterly gone from personal or family memory?

Fine for me. Though I think it might have more relevance in the Politics of Noam Chomsky page and worded as IWW - there's just something disconcerting about reading a passage that says Noam was the son of Wobbly William Chomsky :) --Zleitzen 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed External Link

I removed [ this link] from the external links section and it was brought back. For one thing, it uses WP:PEACOCK terms as "important commentary on Chomsky..." whilst if you actually look on the site it is an e-mail sent to ---- about a chapter he wrote on Chomsky. For one thing, Alexa has no date] on this site, so it is not notable and the writer can be anyone since it is a random e-mail. Second, it is not even directly about Chomsky but rather about a book with a chapter regarding Chomsky. With these facts I think the only reason to put that link up here would be to promote that website considering the traffic this page gets which is not a good excuse to keep that link on the external links section.--Jersey Devil 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This has happened before and was rejected some time ago. User Atomist appears persistent in getting this link onto this page, despite some negative feedback on his user talk page. --Zleitzen 14:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you see the user page of User:Atomist it appears that it is his site, thus it seems that by placing it in this article he is trying to promote the site. He himself likely wrote that e-mail.--Jersey Devil 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Atomist here. The link obviously does not need to be on the site. In this note here I will just explain why I've done what I've done... I put hte link back up yesterday (30th) because it was removed without justification--unless I missed the explanation of why it is to be done. Now I see there is an attempt to justify why it was removed. Before I comment, let me first respond to your claims. Of course if there is reason to remove the Chomsky--- link it should be removed. I put it on wiki becuase if you did not notice, there is massive bashing of CHomsky everywhere due to the first chapter of this best-selling book (even on natinoal tv), which is utterly riddled with inaccuracies of fact and logic. So it seems that getting this link on was relevant, but perhaps I am wrong. So it certainly seemed to me that if there was a terse way to publicize the the errors, it is worthwhile, but maybe you are thinking not so on wikipedia. As for the other claims here, I am not sure why you are saying I am trying to promote my site when that site is literally a one page site, which refers to the -- email. So there's nothing to promote. (I actually think I am going to take this site down, as I am not working on it at all, so there's no point. Anwyway...) But I could see your point regardless, and I think that could be reason to remove the link. I did admit trying to promote my own research in an entirely different unconnected area of reserach last year on wiki, but that is unconnected entirely to this -- email issue (Zleitzen appears to however draw a connection, not sure why), and the wiki-gods told me that that's not how Wiki works. AFter they told me this, of course there has been no such issue of self-promotion again, and I have only used the site for productive research contributions, none of which involve my research or any self-promotion (the only exception would be this -- page, and thus maybe you are right, and that's reason enough to remove the link here). Here are some side issues... JerseyDevil says the email is not about Chomsky, but is about -- book. But in my opinion, that seems a loose usage of language, and a big stretch of an opinion. Of course -- book is largely (!!) devoted to attack on Chomsky (just read the book jacket), as he states attacking Chomsky is a primary goal of his book (he says that's why it's chapter ONE). So it seems Jersey is not totally right about that--or he is at least giving an opinion that needs more justification. But I should also say that there is a part of me that thinks that I can see his point, I guess, and it seems enough to take the link down. BUt I am just not sure. Need to htink about it. Also, it seems that Jersey did not carefully read the page on my site that has the -- email, because Jersey says, "Atomist likely himself wrote the email..." But I explicitly refer to that page as an email I sent to him, even with my sigi at the bottom (go back and look at the page again). This is so obvious taht I can only conclude that this proves that Jersey is making a lot of claims and opinions about me when not having even read the page on my website carefully at all. My thesis is that obviously this link can be taken down. Its no big deal. I just put it up there after I had a number of direct email transactions in Feb. with Chomsky about the -- book, and it seemed relevant to put the link up since Chomsky was getting so much heat for the illogic in it. I disagree, but democracy rules on wiki. Also, if it appears to give self-promo, which I don't think it does, but it could appear that way, that's definately enough reason to remove the link. Lastly, obviously the other links up there need to be pureged by Jersey and others too, since they are also irrelvant in many cases, it seemed to me, but I am not sure. Anyway... thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. ~Atomist, March 31 06

One more thing... Forgot to say that this link is over at the -- page too. You might want to think about if it should be taken down there also. Take care. ~ Atomist, march 31

Hello. Continuing what was being discussed... I removed my name from the site, and removed mention of that site in the atomist page. So that assures that I am not trying to promote me, but I am only trying to promote information. Also, and to repeat, even despite this, people can still merely take down that link from teh -- page if they want. I also removed teh URL of the site from this dialogue here, so it is impossible for anybody to trace it to me adn thus conclude self-promo. Take care. ~Atomist, april 4

Link Page .. thingy ...

There's also a band called Chomsky. Should we make the search deal bring users to a page that provides links to the (as-yet uncreated) article on the band as well as the dude? I don't know anything about the band myself, except that they had a song that was in that movie Idle Hands. ... I'm so useless. :( :P Zanturaeon 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)