Jump to content

Talk:Noam Chomsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chamaeleon (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 18 January 2005 (→Citing sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

See also: Talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism, /Archive_1, /Archive_2, /Archive 3

Pronounciation

Can anyone say how exactly is the name pronounced? I'm aware of two variants, either with ch is in check or with ch as h in home. I.e., writing in German, that would be Tschomski and Chomski correspondingly.

Please, anyone to answer? I'm translating this articles to Russian. -- Paul Pogonyshev 20:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's usually pronounced with "ch" as in "check" and I've never known him to object to this pronunciation. It may have been pronounced differently in its language-of-origin. DanKeshet 21:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Googling shows that this pronounciation is used about three times as often in Russian, but I wasn't sure. -- Paul Pogonyshev 22:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have the impression it's Хомский in Russian. At least that's the way it's spelled in my Russian encyclopedia (Б.С.Е). There used to be a transliteration section in the Wikipedia article, now sadly gone, which also mentioned Хомский as the preferred way, IIRC. Since Google's Чомски-count is polluted with articles in other languages (as opposed to Хомский's, which is fixed by the Russian-specific suffix), I think you can safely assume the latter to be more frequent/standard in Russian. --Glimz ­  16:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

POV?

I've just been reading the article, and it seems to me (at least in the political section) that the writing is an insidiously clever job at making POV writing look like NPOV. Almost everything comes across as completely pro-Chomsky; his critics, though mentioned, are never taken seriously; etc. Thoughts? --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 17:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, since you ask for thoughts, have you considered the possibility that rather than some "insidiously clever job", the objective facts tend to support the fact that Chomsky simply is a more serious thinker than his critics? Or don't you like your preconceived notions to be challenged? Perhaps you have an actual concrete criticism of Chomsky to present? -- Dr. Jonathan Badger 13 Dec
You have no way (that I can think of) of knowing what my "preconceived notions" are, so I don't think your response is justified. For the record, I agree with some of what Chomsky says, and disagree with some other things he says. Your shift of focus to my supposed "preconceived notions" appears to be merely an attempt to distract from the question I asked. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it's fine. It shows Chomsky's opinions clearly and doesn't show the opinions of the authors of the article, which is what could lead you to believe that they agree with Chomsky. But wether they agree or not, we should not know and it would be a lot more POV if we felt that they disagreed with him and this objective presentation of his positions. MikeCapone 03:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's just my point. I don't agree that it "doesn't show the opinions of the authors"; if that were the case, I wouldn't have complained. The way I read it, unless there's been a major edit since then, it does show the authors' opinions, and it shows them as being strongly pro-Chomsky to the point where the don't give the criticism a fair shake. This is not NPOV. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 15:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Chomsky critique

Hehe, I see that the latest critique of Chomsky that has been added is almost as bad as the Windschuttle articles (I'm not asking for it to be removed). For example:

  • "Chomsky did most of his major work on linguistics years ago." Not really, his latest paper was 2001, he still participates in research (so far as I know, at least) and given that he's now in his mid 70s I think it's fair to say that MIT have got more original research out of him than they could have reasonably expected.
  • Quoting the New York Times reviewer saying "It is inconceivable, in Chomsky's view, that American power could be harnessed for good". This is pretty silly. As an anarchist, Chomsky is generally skeptical of the ability of any center of power to be harnessed for good, but he's certainly not denied that certain American actions have had beneficial consequences (e.g. he wasn't against fighting the Second World War).
  • "The massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Soviet regime, Communist China, North Korea's communist regime, the Cambodian communists or the Ethiopian communist regime, just to mention a few, are at best afterthoughts and irrelevant in the Chomsky paradigm". Yes, because Chomsky's analysing the United States, not writing some sort of international school report.
  • "...would have readers believe that the victims of American power have all been innocent peasants minding their own business tilling their fields." No he wouldn't; this is just made up.
  • "So, if we sell weapons to the Turkish government this means, according to Chomsky, that we support the oppression of Turkish Kurds. If we brought Suharto into power in Indonesia, we also are responsible for every action that his government later perpetrates." That's not Chomsky's actual line of argument, so no response is possible. Even if it was his line of argument, it wouldn't be unreasonable. The author of the article must presumably believe, for example, that people who supported the Nazi party before the Holocaust needn't feel in the least bit guilty.
  • It goes on in this way, often just stating Chomsky's views as if they are so inherently silly that no argument against them is required, as for example in the discussion of the reconstruction of Europe. Many people obviously believe this to be the case, but it doesn't make for very convincing criticism. Cadr 11:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations to you for responding to these criticisms here, rather than within the article. I've watched this page for two years now, and find it extremely disheartening than any citation of criticsm of Chomsky gets qualified into "here's a transparently incorrect opinion of some nitwit who disagrees with the Great Man, and more importantly, here's why they're obviously wrong". If criticisms cannot be original research, rebuttals to them shouldn't be either, and don't belong in the main article. There's no shortage of venters about Chomsky (both pro and con), and the article would improve if the venting were restricted to the talk pages. Ben 01:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) (For the record, I think Chomsky's a propagandist of the Big Lie variety, and would encourage any fans of his political writings to check his sources.)
The link I was responding to was put forward as a serious, credible criticism of Chomsky, but it isn't. For some reason many Chomsky criticis feel that instead of simply explaining why they disagree with his political views, they have to invent bizarre stories about misquotations, invented sources, psychological problems, etc., which virtually never have a grain of truth in them. I'm interested to know what you have found by "checking his sources". Regarding the article, I'm in favour of cutting out both the original criticisms (i.e. criticisms made by one of the article's authors without a cite) and original responses. Generallly, Chomsky has responded to most cricism, which is why an NPOV article usually makes most of Chomsky's critics look pretty silly (NPOV can only go so far in obscuring the facts). Cadr 12:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What do you propose to do about summaries of common criticism or defences? It seems to me like drawing the line between summaries of common points and Original Research is the fundamental problem here, where personal views really have the opportunity to cloud NPOV. We had a similar problem on Habiru several months back, and were only able to come to agreement (and, I think, an excellent article) by collecting almost all available sources on a subpage. This made the process of figuring out what majority and minority consensuses were much more transparent. Unfortunately, the Chomsky corpus is so much larger that I'm not sure the same thing is possible.
I'll respond to your question about my personal conclusions about Chomsky on your talk page (later), as it's so definitely OR that it doesn't even belong here. I just wanted to state my opinion for full disclosure. Ben 13:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page Ben 16:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm in favour of having a full article about Chomsky criticism (merging the Faurisson affair into it). It really deserves its own article, and it is a pretty complicated topic. The problem with most of the criticism is that it hasn't got much to do with Chomsky's work - often it consists of falsifications and/or misunderstanding/distortion of what he's talking about. The Moynihan thing JJ mentions above leads me to suspect that many Chomsky critics really don't understand him at all. Chomsky deals with and criticises the whole ideological framework within which US foreign policy decisions are made ; he doesn't allege that individuals make "moral mistakes", he doesn't try to prove that some people are sadistic mass-murderers, and he doesn't use selective quotes to prove such an allegation. The point he makes is that the people/institution/policies he criticises and condemns are completely rational within that ideological framework ; he attacks this ideological framework and wants it to be changed, given the consequences which he abhorrs. Many people just don't seem to be able to understand this. Much of the criticism seems to be similar to straw-man arguments.
For example the whole "he always criticises the US, he is anti-American"-type of criticism is just ludicrous and non-sensical. Chomsky has personally chosen to do this, for legitimate and rational reasons that he explains. Now, you may agree or disagree with him on whether his reasoning on this is useful or not, but to criticise his personal choice is as non-sensical as critcising him for being a linguist and not dealing with other subjects: "Why does he never write books about molecular biology? And not a single word about chemistry! He is so biased! He hates molecular biology and chemistry! What an awful man!"
The idea that he is a "propagandist" is weird as well. Propagandists work to help a political party or business interests, using dishonest appeals to people's emotions. It's obvious that he doesn't represent anybody else than himself and that he's not in the pay of some powerful group. His talks and books are normally quite unemotional, at least compared to real propagandists, and they deal with facts which are normally sourced and which are at the centre of what he says, rather than appeals to people's emotion. A propagandist's aim is to deceive, confuse and manipulate people through appeal to their emotion and hiding of facts - Chomsky's aim is (whatever you think of the validity of his views) to inform and enlighten people through drawing their attention to historical facts (which he cites and references) and making them question their assumptions, and he often stresses that people shouldn't take his word for it but question him too.
I'm sure there are substantial critiques to be made of Chomsky, critiques that deal with what he actually says, and I'd really like to get a better idea of what they are. This page doesn't help one bit. - pir 15:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, well said. Currently this page simply doesn't give a fair representation of Chomsky criticism, because most of the criticism sourced/summarised is at the lunatic fringe, trying to discredit Chomsky personally rather than dealing with his arguments. Where I have seen Chomsky in difficulty is on the rare occasions that people actually read what he writes, take the time to come to an understanding of it, and then make reasoned arguments against it. Chomsky is a full-blooded idealist in terms of politics (he believes, for example, that wage leabour is fundamentally wrong) and it is easy to make legitimate criticisms of such extreme positions. Cadr 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's the kind of criticism that this article should have (although opposition to wage slavery isn't Chomsky's idea, all anarchists (libertarian socialists) and many other socialists/communists oppose it). Cadr, do you have any sources? Maybe Understanding power would be one source, or at least a starting point, people ask him questions there all over, although the book is of course about his replies. Do people agree that it would be best to have a seperate page on Chomsky criticism (and only have a summary here)? - pir 12:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that opposition to wage slavery was Chomsky's own idea, just that it is something he is opposed to (although he is in many ways quite a pragmatist, for example when he suggested that people should vote for Kerry). Most people on the "mainstream" left (i.e. social democrats of one kind or another) would probably calim that wage labour is basically unavoidable, and that the role of the government is essentially to interfere when the market isn't working towards promoting the social good. Chomsky's views are (obviously) far more extreme than this. Cadr 16:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, two specific criticisms I would make of Chomsky is that he is often a bit .... let's say too preoccupied by worst-case scenarios in his thinking. For example, just take the title of his most recent book, "Hegemony or Survival", and especially the last chapter in that book which conjures up the image that a nuclear holocaust and complete US military control of planet Earth from space is just around the corner. Or one of the last chapters in The Fateful Triangle, which suggests the impending doom of Israel and the possibility/likelihood of a nuclear confrontation (i.e. WW3) between the USSR and the US starting quite spontaneously and unstoppably from minor events in the ME conflict. I think that Chomsky always responds to this kind of criticism by saying that, with any action a person or government takes, one has to evaluate the range of possible consequences, including the worst-case scenario, and the ultimate decision on whether or not to take the action in question should be based on this assessment. I think this is a very sensible and correct argument. However, in his analysis and thinking, Chomsky seems to be a bit obsessed with worst-case scenarios, his thinking seems to be driven by them, as if they were actually very likely -as opposed to possible and relevant but unlikely- outcomes.
A second criticism I would make of Fateful Triangle is that the starting point of his whole argument is the post-1967 situation. This choice seems quite arbitrary and based mainly on his pre-conceived proposal for a solution. oh well, just my €0.02 for what it's worth. - pir 12:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Must propaganda be dishonest? Just being a devil's advocate, but couldn't Chomsky turn out to be dishonest? Couldn't Chomsky secretly represent some organisation? Couldn't Chomsky invite people to question him, so that we are more likely to trust him, and hope that they don't find anything incriminating? Tim Ivorson 14:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes that's absolutely possible. He might be in the pay of the DPRK. Or he might actually -cunningly!- work for the the CIA, who make him say all those things while in the meantime paying other people to dscredit him. It might even be possible that he's been abducted and re-programmed by aliens who want him to prevent the Son-of-Stars program from being carried out. I mean, lots of things are possible or at least thinkable. But in the absence of any stronger evidence than pure speculation I don't think it's worth discussing them. I for one have read some of his books and seen some of his talks, and he comes across as a very honest person. In the end, the best way of evaluating him is by looking at the methods he uses: since he relies mainly on respected newspapers and other publications as sources, and since he references all his sources, he opens himself to public scrutiny. Since his critics appear to be unable to come up with better criticism than falsifications or the Moynhan thing which JJ quoted above, I think his material is pretty sound. Then you can look at the way he analyses things, and I think he does that in an honest and reasonable way too. - pir 14:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Our subjective judgements about whether someone "appears honest" are not relevant here. Chomsky never AFAIK states something to be a fact when it is patently not so, but his INTERPRETATION of events is opinion, and unless he is claiming to have an opinion which he secretly does not (ie if he was a closet Marxist or in the pay of the CIA to make the left look silly), then his "honesty" isn't an issue. Unlike, say, John Pilger, Chomsky doesn't have special knowledge or experience which makes his opinions more valid than any other commentator.

138.253.102.141 13:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Must we fill this article with non- sequiturs, ad hominems, and childish attacks on Chomsky's character? I say we remove all attacks on Chomsky that use the "he hates America" argument (which takes about 3 seconds to realize is intellectually bankrupt (as Chomsky ALWAYS asks his audience to separate the countries policies -- which he attacks -- from the land, people, etc). He does, however, feel the people are morally responsible (including himself) for what we do in the world and thus we must be accountable for our actions. This is why Chomsky evaluates our policies, because simply critiquing another country will not get them to DO anything. Such talk is worthless. Now, if we put pressure on other countries to change – presumably for the better -- then we are doing something worthwhile. The same goes for the U.S.: We must be responsible for our actions and be willing to look at ourselves – and thus not consider all of our immoral actions exempt. So many Americans are indoctrinated and see any U.S. committed atrocity exempt. This line of thought shows they are not acting in any moral framework that is worth considering.

Poststructuralism

"strong refutations" in Chomsky's critique of poststructuralism...

The two arguments presented in this article are actually quite weak... But either way, I think "refutation" is the wrong word to use here, since it assumes Chomsky has actually PROVEN this stuff wrong, which he certainly hasn't.

Agreed and changed. Is that better? DanKeshet 07:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Radical?

I thought about it and maybe it is the most accurate way to characterize his views. Disregard Is it accurate to use word "radical"? "radical left-wing political views"? I personally don't think theres much "radical" about them, his views are actually quite standard and tame within the left. I think "left-wing political views" would be a more just characterization. --Clngre 17:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, his views are quite standard within the radical left. ;-) This is why his positions are described by the standard term - "radical left-wing political views". --Lumidek 00:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Radical is a a term which is use to subtly (and of course, without evidence (see propaganda)) discredit him. Should you want to discredit Chomsky, feel free to link to your favorite criticism (that is scholarly, not lame attacks on patriotism and "Anti-Americanism"). I think the term radical tries to put him in the fringe, but if you read (or even listen to Chomsky) you can find many citations of nation wide polls that largely show the majority agreeing with his views. I urge you to read the source. (In fact, the Charlie Rose interview he cites those polls, for one).
Maybe I'm a right-wing looney, but I consider someone who says that all violence is terrorism a left-wing radical. --CanTheSpam


Can -- Chomsky agrees with the official U.S. military definition of terrorism (see his talk at MIT after September 11th). You are not a looney, but I would suggest you read his own work before forming an opinion.

silo 04:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He is a self described "libertarian socialist" IE: Anarchist. Anarchists are further left then Communists for God's sake, anarchism is as left wing as you can get. Hence, radical.

--CJWilly 16:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like you are calling him radical based soley on your own beliefs. This is not nPOV. Calling anyone radical is an attempt to discredit them, so if you have concrete evidence to discredit Chomsky please make it availible.
I have read a decent amount of Chomsky stuff and often agree with it. I don't see the problem with describing him as "radical". I think I remember reading an interview with him once where he said something to the effect that he probably was radical (though that exact word may not have been used) from the point of view of the commisars of the mainstream intellectual culture. My memory on this point should probably not be totally trusted though. AW 16:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a loaded term. I think it isn't necessary. However, it would be nice if you could find that interview. I imagine he would have made a plea for his views aligning with the "popular polls" as he always does. Let me know if you can recall/find it.

(BTW, whether or not the term goes in is not my major concern, if you feel it is needed, go for it.) 132.162.248.86 18:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wheen criticsm

Francis Wheen criticized Chomsky as a leading "intellectual quack" in his book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World arguing that Chomsky uses an "inexhaustible hoard of analogies and precedents" as distractions, allowing him to avoid addressing certain issues. Wheen accuses Chomsky of constantly bringing up certain "favorite" topics, such as Western support for the East Timor massacres of the 70's, to avoid having to take sides on more contemporary political issues.

By including this paragraph in the article, Wikipedia is not making any judgement as to Wheen's criticism, merely reporting it (I happen to think it's dubious). Any statement to the contrary is a misunderstanding of NPOV policy. As such, the only appropriate reason for removing it is if you have some reason to believe Wheen didn't write it. RadicalSubversiv E 02:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Counter-example of what? I'm not agreeing with the criticism, only claiming it should be reported on in the article? RadicalSubversiv E 02:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rad - This goes beyond the NPOV policy. The quote is garbage. It is superfluous, and dubious (as you said). By your logic, we should just add everything said about Chomsky. Well, I hope you have a lot of time because that is going to make for a long article. I know what you're thinking: Well where do we draw the line? Aren't we still treading npov issues? Well, this issue shouldn't even beg this question. Why? Well all this guy is doing is calling him an quake and saying what Chomsky should focus his attention on. Why in the world is this even worthy of a criticism? It is so weak. Not worth the readers attention. let me know - dorfeb (btw, don't accuse me of using other accounts unless you can back it up. You admitted to using another ip to revert in the comments (see "reverting again...).)

First off, as I pointed out on your talk page, you need to read diffs more carefully if you're planning on reverting and making accusations. My use of "reverting again" was a reference to this diff removing an obviously POV phrase which you then proceeded to inadvertently restore. And at no point did I accuse you of using other accounts.
Secondly, m:Wiki is not paper. We should absolutely include all notable, encyclopedic things that have been said about Chomsky. Wheen criticized Chomsky in a fairly popular book, so that should be mentioned. If you have information casting doubt on the validity of the criticism, that belongs there too. If the article gets too long, it can always be split into sections, i.e. Criticism of Noam Chomsky. RadicalSubversiv E 03:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dorfeb's reason for deleting this paragraph, which didn't just "pop up" but had been present in the article for over two months, was that the criticism is "unfounded" and "invalid". If that were justification for deleting paragraphs from this section, you could delete a lot more; certainly there are much more ridiculous criticisms still present (Chomsky is the "Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate" who has a "fundamental hatred of the United States"?). I don't see any other reason why Wheen's criticism shouldn't appear, though someone who has read the book may wish to check whether the paragraph accurately reflects what Wheen said. The accusation that Chomsky "avoids having to take sides on more contemporary political issues" may be false, but I think that if the article is going to contain common criticisms, they should be reported as accurately as possible. This allows people to see it for what it is and make their own judgement. 203.122.194.149 03:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the mini revert war, if I read you incorrectly (and left some garbage when I rved) I apologize. I suppose again, we disagree on how notable this guy and his book are. I have never heard of him, but that doesn't prove anything. So I went based on the intellectual content (i.e. none). We may as well add the criticisms of Chomsky which are based on attacks at his personality to, as you said, a Criticisms_of_Chomsky page. Because they are many (some more founded than others). But I do not think that that quote adds to nPOV, franky it sounds very opinionated and not based in any fact (as the npov article demands, thus I feel it violates nPOV).
As for 203's argument for "common criticisms" of Chomsky: Because we are dealing with the most cited (yes) and probably most important leftist intellectual alive, everyone who doesn't believe him calls him a quack. Because political debate is filled with worthless personal attacks (see point in question) we should strive to avoid such garbage (for NPOV) and attack him on the arguments he has put forth, not the ad hominem attacks.
let me know, dorfeb
You're completely misunderstanding NPOV policy. Please look over it, as well as the NPOV tutorial. It doesn't mean that we should write an article which deals only with matters of substance. It doesn't mean that we include only arguments which we think are valid. It means that we take verifiable information (emphatically including opinions) about matters of some note and present it in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible.
Now, you would have a case for removing if Wheen was totally obscure (he's apparently a well-known columnist in the UK, and the book being cited was a commercially successful one) and the claims being made were obvious nonsense (they're not -- Chomsky does refer back to East Timor and Cambodia rather frequently).
Right now, I don't think the criticism section is so long as to demand a separate article. But it obviously could become that long, given Chomsky's significance. If you'd like to split it off, it would have to be replaced with a shorter, NPOV summary of the criticisms, so I'd start by writing that here and seeing if you can get a consensus. But that's a completely separate matter from whether the Wheen criticism belongs in Wikipedia.
RadicalSubversiv E 04:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. The best way to sign your comments is by writing ~~~~


Rad - I cannot comment on his notability, as I said. I take your word for it. But I do think his points are obsurd. Yes, Chomsky refers back to those atrocities *in context*. If he is talking about atrocities being ignored, he surely cites them as examples. But does this count as avoiding an issue (see distractions). This is why I asked you to cite one source as to where this claim holds any weight. I think it is obsurd. It follows the same line of logic (although, less raunchy) of the "Chomsky Sex Scandal" link that was up. Surely not encyclopedic. Again, I feel like quoting name calling is an insult the people who read (and edit) wikipedia. We seem to have covered all of our points, if you have something new to add (with all due respect) let me know, otherwise we need outside input. silo 04:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

let me know, silo 04:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks, I forgot that command (haven't edited in over a year).

I won't cite a source demonstrating the validity of the claim, because I continue to maintain that the question is not its validity, but its notability. By your line of reasoning, Wikipedia should not have any articles on a variety of topics which amount to complete nonsense, such as Holocaust denial, Creationism, and Ann Coulter.
If you feel Wikipedia should not report on arguments that amount to name-calling, please suggest a change in policy (the Village Pump might be a good venue), because our current practices emphatically include it (see virtually any of our articles on the 2004 election if you don't believe me). Until then, it's not adequate justification to remove material from an article.
You're right that we need more input. Best way to get that is probably Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but it might be better to hold off until the article is no longer on the main page so that the edits aren't flying fast and furious.
RadicalSubversiv E 05:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rad - If notability is the only thing left in question, then I cannot comment. I trust your judgement. I hesistate to fully accept the parallel between a personal attack and an entire article on a person (who may have no credibility, but is, nonetheless, a best selling author, and the other examples you gave (which were all entire articles(so we could make one called "personal_attacks_on_noam_chomsky_that_seem_to_lack_factual_basis")).
It seems that if we were to use this line of reasoning, we should note all of the scientists who ridiculed Einstien before his theories were mainstream -- are those historically significant? Are all of the "Chomsky is a quack" comments factual (even if they are notable)?
Anyway, from the npov article "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions-- but don't assert opinions themselves.
And: "Obviously, false accusations are unfair and non-neutral, so if you suspect or know an accusation to be insincere, attempt to "neutralize" it."
Well, Chomsky sure does not avoid current political issues -- read any of his recent books. If Wheen offers an example we should look at it and perhaps put it up, otherwise this is just rubbish. We may as well say "So-and-so thinks Chomsky is insane and tells lies to manipulate the masses."
Does all of this make sense? It's late, I'm tired. I appreciate your time Rad; perhaps I missed something in the npov article -- if I did quote it or let me know. Otherwise, I think your right and this article needs a lot of review (for all of the personal attacks that, to me, seem highly opinionated, unfactual, and biased).
silo 06:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. An interesting aside, but Coulter's article has no slanderous attacks on her mental ability (i.e. a quack), or incompetance. Now she is definately in a totally different realm than Chomsky -- in that she doesn't cite sources or publishes in a scholarly manner -- and I would think she would get the the kind of criticisms that Chomsky gets. Well, she doesn't. Why does Chomsky? Coulter gets attacks on her bad research and shortcommings in her arguments, whereas Chomsky gets little or none.
Neutralizing false accusations doesn't mean removing them. It means providing necessary information to judge their accuracy. In this case, it would help if somebody actually had the book in question, so that we could more fully determine the substance of the accusation. (It might be that Chomsky has a habit of constantly, almost reflexively, referring to certain atrocities the American government has supported in the past when discussing current events. He does so to prove a point about a perceived pattern of imperialist behavior, but it could be argued that it's a cop-out which avoids discussing the complexities of current policy.)
As to Coulter, the article probably should include some of the more colorful language Al Franken uses to describe her. Also, you might want to be careful in referring to Chomsky "publishing in a scholarly manner" -- his political writings are not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
RadicalSubversiv E 11:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well then I feel we shouldn't add the accusation until we provide the necessary information. Otherwise, we are doing what was said in the other quote: "don't assert opinions themselves." He sure does have a habit of referring back, only as examples (which are rarely mentioned anywhere else). They are not the full impetus for his arguments, but historical precedents he has covered from his previous work. I've never seen him avoid a question in his many interviews, but he has a tendency to be very thorough and long-winded (which has upset many debaters/interviewers). I imagine this is what Wheen is referring to; as to where he has avoided anything or tried to obfuscate the issue at hand, we'll have to wait for someone to provide the information from Wheen.

Thanks again Rad, silo 16:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Horowitz as Stalinist

If Chomsky's major reply to Horowitz is to accuse him of being a former Stalinist (which surprises me -- there's plenty of more substantial responses he could offer) and Horowitz denies it, then independent sources referring to Horowitz in the same way are notable and should be included in the article. RadicalSubversiv E 02:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, Chomsky doesn't bother replying. I think you are missing the point. All someone has to do is read Chomsky to realize that Horowitz misquotes (out of context) and distorts everytihng he says. If Chomsky had to address every propagandist that comes his way he would never be able to do any real work -- e.g. defending ones thesis to people who clearly misread his work (I am not talking about clarifications, I am talking about clear misreadings) would take up way too much time. Don't agree? Well, check the only refutation I think he has made (he has, in fact, debated Horowitz -- see the OSU debate). at zmag: http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/refuting_horowitz_and_collier/ -dorfeb (I am still sticking to the philosophy that any attacks at someone personally (i.e. anything that doesn't address an argument put forth) is complete garbage and should not be of our concern. Whether it be against Chomsky or against the people who attack him. So I think the Horowitz section, as a whole, should go).

You're making far too many conclusions about what "should not be of our concern." Our policies are pretty clear: anything notable and encyclopedic (which tend to be interpreted very broadly) is our concern, so long as the information is presented in an NPOV manner. I agree that name-calling is a childish way to conduct political argument, but both Horowitz and Chomsky have done it, and both of them are extremely notable, so it should be reported on here. RadicalSubversiv E 03:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I stand at my previous point, any name-calling in the political realm isn't notable and encyclopedic. Both entries just take away from any substance any party may have.
Chomsky suggested Horowitz was once a Stalinist. Horowitz denied it. Does the ball really need to be returned again? Whether or not Horowitz was a Stalinist was not part of the question Chomsky was answering, and unless referring to Horowitz as a Stalinist is one of Chomsky's regular things, rather than a moment of weakness in which he returned serve after being described as "pathological" and the "ayatollah of anti-American hate", it's just not worth pursuing beyond that. Even if it were, the two cited articles are pitiful as evidence; all they contain is a couple of quotes in which Horowitz is called a Stalinist, and furthermore, neither quote is attributed to anyone. 203.122.194.149 08:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
funny how embarrassing this is for some people so they try to justify censoring this info... you wanted to add the horowitz drivel to wikipedia in the first place, so now face the music... it is relevant because horowitz claimed in his reply that calling him a stalinist proves that chomsky is a pathological liar - but if so, it also proves that the national review writers and his former ramparts colleagues are pathological liars... it's quite obvious why the national review prints this: they don't like the fact that while william f. buckley was debating chomsky on tv in 1967, horowitz was still praising stalin... anyway, unlike the way you're trying to present it, whether or not horowitz was a stalinist is not an open question: all you have to do is get the issues of ramparts and find out... need someone who actually care to do it... chomsky obviously doesn't really care... 62.219.182.226 09:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The comments from Horowitz are fine, in fact I think a reoccuring criticism of Chomsky. However, we should neutralize them (they assume he hasn't clarified this over and over) because Chomsky has responed indirectly to Horowitz and everyone else who has attacked him on these points: That we are only morally responsible for what we can directly influence. Therefore any criticisms (that serve the purpose of excluding our liability) of other govenments are useless when discussing our course of action. Chomsky usually brings up Soviet Russia and how it easy it was for us to ridicule them, but this is a virtually morally worthless route. We should focus on what we can actually change -- that is, ourselves.

silo 16:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Above are all the criticism links from the article. I suggest not to remove these links from the discussion page, so anyone could compare them to the current version of the article. Also, there's a right-wing only list of links here. Sams 06:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all, this is a excellent article, BUT in my view there are too many links about Chomsky criticism. Why not to abbreviate this link list? --ThomasK 16:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It is filled with obsurd accusations (i.e. no facts). We should stick to the more notable and factual ones.
silo 16:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree too. The list is too long. And some of them are frankly a bit mad. Nothing wrong with linking to mad article in principle, but those should probably be the first to go (though maybe keep one or two mad ones as a sample). AW 17:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just abbreviated the link list, someone who have objection should point it out. --ThomasK 18:36, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the list of links before ThomasK truncated it. I'd like to move at least the City Journal link back to the main article, and it's definitely useful to have a comprehensive list of sources around for any article as frequently disputed as this one. Perhaps this should move to a /Sources page? Ben 22:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put the Marixist criticism back into the article as it shows that Chomksy is disliked by both Communist and anti-communist ideologs. Hope this does not lead to a sort of link-creep! AW
Well, he IS an anarchist.

132.162.145.63 19:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and anarchism are two different ideologies. --ThomasK 04:42, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Again,too many crticsm links. Please to focus on the important.--ThomasK 14:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

You mean in the article, or here? Ben 21:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mean in the article. --ThomasK 08:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


Now there are more, once again please to focus on the important. --ThomasK 10:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Someone please narrow down the list. It makes an otherwise excellent article look unencyclopaedic. Sir Paul 22:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I abbreviated the link list again, once more time someone who have objection should point it out.--ThomasK 05:42, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

We need to prune this list of dead links. Chamaeleon 16:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Images

Good, but what about images of 2004? --ThomasK 19:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the the pictures in the Hugo Chavez article (Saddam and the referendum billboard) really capture the appropriate atmosphere, they're both informative and provocative, and thus contribute a lot to the article imho. Along the same lines, I'm trying to add 2 pictures here. One is Chomsky's handshake with Fidel Castro in 2003, that should raise the blood pressure of American right-wingers who visit the article. And the other is Chomsky spilling his anti-American garbage on a big crowd of poor innocent Indians 2 months after 9/11. I'll wait for feedback... Unlike what you said, I think that maybe we should find an interesting picture of Chomsky from the 1960s, perhaps in relation to Vietnam, because all the pictures in the article are recent. Why are you asking about 2004? Wikipedia is not Wikinews... Sams 11:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know, wikinews is another project. However, we need recent images as well as e.g of the 1960s, yes. --ThomasK 12:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

And yet I added 2 more pictures, after looking at what's available on google images... I was looking for relevant pictures to add to the linguistics sections, and google only came up with one such picture, showing Chomsky using speech recognition, so I added it. The other picture is from a peace rally in Colorado/USA, so I thought it would be nice to add it along with the rally in India, plus it's a relatively high quality picture. Still only recent pictures... I was looking for pictures of Chomsky talking to Students during the Vietnam War, or pictures of him lecturing a linguistics class at MIT etc., but google didn't have with anything good it seems. Perhaps someone who has the DVD of Manufacturing Consent could do some video captures for us? I only have it in divx format, and I don't want to add lower quality images if the DVD is available. Feedback? Sams 11:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV/Original Research Paragraph

I've moved the following paragraph from the David Horowitz section to the talk page. I think that this paragraph represents original research and is clearly POV, I'm also not sure whether it is particularly relevant here. For the record I'm not of fan of either Chomsky or Horowitz. GabrielF 07:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Horowitz has, however, edited The Anti-Chomsky Reader but it often seems to attack straw men rather than Chomsky's actual claims. In response to Chomsky's propaganda model, for example, it says: "Gannett, the single largest owner of newspapers in the United States, provides a good example of the one-dimensionality of Chomsky's critique. It's fair to say that at its core, this is a liberal company, requiring a vigorous affirmative action program in all its newsrooms." (p. 69) The book fails to explain what affirmative action has to do with the paper's contents, the propaganda model's target, or why a "liberal company" would not be subject to the model's filters.
Good call! - Ben 23:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kayne?

Who is Kayne? It's sort of jarring that someone inserted "Kayne" and one of his or her theories in the section on linguistics, without any other identifying information. Please elaborate. Moncrief 09:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I googled his first name, Richard, and added it. Moncrief 18:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist criticisms of Chomsky

Inevitably, most criticism of Chomsky reported in this article is from silly rightists whose claims are easily destroyed. However, I think there should be some valid criticisms too. Here are a couple:

  • Sudan. As far as I can tell, he was wrong to quote the German ambassador's claim about tens of thousands dying from lack of medicine, because this claim was exagerated. I bet it was only hundreds. This is currently mentioned in the article, but without any follow-up from Chomsky. We really need a comment from him saying either "yes, loads of people really did die; here's my additional source..." or "sorry, I screwed up on that one; I should have used a different example." Cleared up now.
    • It is rude to give a figure of hundreds without any evidence, and then mention that others exaggerate. The tens of thousands figure cited was given as the highest probability estimate, i.e. it could be more too, and very unlikely that it wasn't less than in the range of thousands. Anyway, it is not really contested by anyone, just ignored. What was contested is that HRW estimates were attached to this figure in the article. So to answer your question, yes, he does continue to mention these figures (e.g. in the Boston College video linked in the article iirc), although he mentions different examples too all the time (e.g. Chile [1]). See also [2] [3] [4] [5] The point that you maybe miss is that in these areas of the world, tens of thousands of people (particularly children) die every day from preventable diseases, so Clinton's attack didn't make that much of a difference, in a sense. Sams 19:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think you can say it's rude. It's just a very rough estimate, off the top of my head. I don't claim to have any evidence whatsoever. I was just being sceptical of a claim I hadn't seen proof of, not actually calling Werner Daum a liar or suchlike. As a matter of fact, I've just been exchanging e-mails with Chomsky, and he has pretty much convinced me that Daum's estimate is probably not far off. Yes, it had occurred to me that for that many people to die, they would have had to be ill in the first place, and so maybe a number of people would have died anyway. The number would have to be subtracted from the death-toll due to the attack. These are obviously very tricky calculations! We will probably never really know what the effect of the attacks was. Anyway, the important thing is that Chomsky has pointed me towards a few sources which I have been able to put in. This clears the matter up for me. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite rightists' constant "anti-American" slur, Chomsky is, from an anarchist perspective, an American patriot/nationalist. He shows a lack of "class analysis" when he constantly says "we", "us", etc, meaning America and its élite. An internationalist says "we" meaning the masses of the world. He has expressed guilt at what is done in his name as an America, while a true internationalist wouldn't care what name was used. He only writes about other countries when they are victims of American foreign policy. He loves America and wants it to become a peace-loving nation, as much for its own sake as for its victims. Chamaeleon 15:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The word "only" is too stong. Anyway, you didn't make any explicit criticism in the above, it sounds like you're talking to yourself. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate. Sams 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I did make explicit criticism: that Chomsky seems a little patriotic and sometimes lacks class analysis. This is bad from a revolutionary internationalist point of view. So it's a criticism: friendly criticism. As for talking to myself, I was indeed thinking aloud, hoping that someone might chip in. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Basically you raise the idea of adding a criticism that says the Chomsky is a pro-American patriot, in addition to the criticism that Chomsky is an anti-American fifth-column traitor. It's an interesting idea, but the substance of your argument seems a little ridiculous as it stands. If you have further information in this regard, it'd be interesting to hear. I don't think that Chomsky considers the US government in a friendly way - see e.g. the quote that I added in his wikiquote page about capturing enemy archives:)
          • Duh. Who said this anarchist was friendly to the government? Straw man. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • That is yours and Christiaan POV. Wikipeida is NPOV. In the US there are people who think that criticizing the government in a time of war is unpatriotic, and they also think that they're in a time of war. You brought up the idea of criticizing Chomsky for being a pro-American patriot, and asked for someone to chip in, so as I said, I'd be interested if you elaborate on the substance of this criticism. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Patriotism, by definition, is love of one's country, one's homeland, not of one's government. Look it up. People who think criticising governments in times of war is unpatriotic are not patriots, they're lovers of authoritarianism. --Christiaan 03:30, 16 Jan 2005
                  • Some people identify the government with the country, it's not my fault, honestly... What is my fault is that I brought it up, as the correct definition is clear from the pov that this criticism is made. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia is not unbiased; we just pretend to be so we can all get along. Christiaan and I are right, there is nothing wrong with our expressing our opinion here, and it's a bit dodgy to quote policy instead of making arguments. The criticism is as substantial as it needs to be. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, if the criticism is made from this POV, then the relevant definition of patriotism is assumed anyway, and my first comment on the US gov just confused things. Anyway, you'll have to find some anarchists (or, more probably, Marxists) to quote if you wish to add it to the article? Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Patriotism has nothing to do with one's government (institutions), it is has to do with one's country. Imagine for a second that such institutions were destroying your country; love for them would obviously show a great lack of patriotism.

Christiaan 14:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Chamaeleon, your writing style is sloppy. Where did Chomsky use the term terrorism to describe the attack on Sudan? "informal interview" is different from what Chomsky wrote ("informal comments"). And you are not "Wikipedia". Anyway, you didn't actually add any new information with these weird edits. If you have a letter from Chomsky with further information (not that I see why it would be needed), you can paste it on the talk page here first. Sams 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn he called it terrorism. He generally calls these things terrorism. I've made it more accurate now. Yes I am Wikipedia! And so are you! If I write to someone saying "I'm a contributor to Wikipedia, and I'd like you to clarify a couple of things for one of our articles" and that person does so, then they have given information to Wikipedia, just as Chomsky gave Salon.com information when he spoke to Suzy Hansen on the phone.
And I have added new information! Before, it looked like Chomsky invented his sources. Now, they are referenced. That's a huge difference. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon, you're editorializing too much. Chomsky didn't use Sudan as an explicit example for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument in the salon.com interview, nor anywhere else I think. All he said with regard to Sudan is that the death toll resulting from the crimes that took place on 9/11 is not unusual, and for example the crime of bombing Sudan (it is a crime according to Chomsky, because US intelligence knew that it is a pharmaceutical factory, regardless of whether or not it also produced chemical weapons) resulted in a much higher death toll probably. His favorite examples for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument seem to be Cuba and Nicaragua, also see this BBC interview where he confuses the interviewer by using the 'reductio ad absurdum' with regard to West Belfast and Boston. Maybe he doesn't like to use Sudan for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument because he prefers to take as an example countries where no one even pretends that they tried to attack the US, unlike Sudan where you might say that terrorists in Sudan have bombed a US embassy (yeah, whatever) and therefore the US needed to retaliate. Sams 02:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have my copy of Hegemony or Survival here, and on page 206 it says: "The principle of proportionality entails that Sudan had every right to carry out massive terror in retaliation". Chomsky doesn't really believe that Sudan had the right to do that. His argument is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument quoted on the previous page justifying US attacks on Afghanistan (and indeed Sudan). Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again, what you're saying is different from what Chomsky has said. The argument that you make is that if we accept as a given that a certain action was legit, then it follows that another action is legit by applying the same standards that were used to justify the former action. Chomsky likes to use this argument with regard to cases like Nicaragua, i.e. if the US is entitled to bomb Afghanistan because it "knows" that an attack by evil-doers originated from there, then Nicaragua is entitled to bomb the US because it knows that an attack by evil-doers originated from there (according to the World Court). The 'principle of proportionality' is a different argument, which says the means of war shouldn't exceed the objective that you're trying to achieve (so if Sudan wants revenge, it is entitled to bomb the US and kill not more than tens of thousands of people there - this is a standalone argument, regardless of whether a certain standard was applied to justify a previous action by the US). If you want to argue that the 'reductio ad absurdum' point applies to Sudan too, I agree, and I'm positive that Chomsky would also agree, but you would still need to argue with those "rightists" whose claims you believe to have "easily destroyed" above. Chomsky instead is being precise by applying the best argument for each case that he's making, while you are being sloppy as you cite Chomsky saying things that he didn't say, and certainly didn't say in the salon.com interview, which is the case in point. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He is applying his opponents' principle of proportionality to a case they don't like to apply it to. This is a reductio ad absurdum. He has no problem with my summary of his argument. "Thanks for sending. I checked the links. The ones on Daum and Al-Shifa seem to me fair, though frankly, I think the tone is remarkable. Would it even be conceivable to write in that manner about an al-Qaeda attack that killed probably tens of thousands of Americans (Israelis, etc.), maybe more, maybe less, but no one cares to count?"
As I explained above, the argument that you wrote in the article IS NOT the argument that chomsky made in the book, though as you say, both of them can be considered to be 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments. I said that I'm positive that Chomsky would agree with the argument, but still, this article is about Noam Chomsky, not about you, and he didn't make this argument with regard to Sudan. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes he did. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Where did he say that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then the Sudanese would have the right to bomb America for the attack in Khartoum? Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In Hegemony or Survival. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the book, could you quote what he wrote? If you mean the quote that you mentioned above, then it doesn't compare two different cases as you did. It says that if we agree with the principle of proportionality, then as a standalone case Sudan is entitled to kill tens of thousands of people in the US. Could you quote more? Sams 18:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The argument is made over a space of a page and a half. I'm not about to type it all out here. Look it up for yourself. I have told you that my summary of his argument is accurate, and that Chomsky has sent me an e-mail in which he describes articles that include my summary as "fair" . If you think I am lying about that, then why trust me to quote more without making stuff up? Chamaeleon 19:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word "lying" is too strong. When you wrote that "Noam" is a form of "Noah", does it mean that you were lying? Also, it's very different to make stuff up by paraphrasing, and to make stuff up by using direct quotes, which anyone who looks could easily expose if they're made up. Anyway, you gave the page number as your source, so the burden of proof is not on you anymore. Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's the relevant page. You're obviously correct. He applies the "aggression interfered with key values in the society attacked" interpretation of the 'principle of proportionality' from Oxford (about 9/11) to Sudan. Plus he mentions the principle of universality in the beginning of the paragraph on Sudan, and makes the comparison of responding to 9/11 in the end of the paragraph. I apologize for claiming that you made it up... Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. There seems to be a weird practice on wikipedia where people add Chomsky related information to other articles without a good reason really. It's somewhat ridiculous, for example could anyone explain why he is mentioned in Definitions of terrorism?! Even articles such as Vietnam War, citing Chomsky who cites the Kennedy admin. declaration that was published in the NY Times that they're bombing Vietnam in 1962, in order to say that the war didn't start in 1964, what's Chomsky got to do with this? With regard to you, Chamaeleon, additional accurate information to Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory should of course be appreciated, but adding Chomsky related info to that article is not appropriate imho, not to mention that this info is already mentioned here anyway. Sams 03:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is he quoted in those articles? Because of the NPOV policy. We are not allowed to counter government lies etc directly, so we have to attribute the opinions to someone. That someone is Chomsky. And articles on terrorism are just the sort of article where officially-propagated misconceptions need to be corrected. Chamaeleon 22:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would be wrong to report on the Al-Shifa attack without implying that it was wrong (our article on the September 11, 2001 attacks implies they were wrong). We can't say this directly because it is controversial, so it is necessary to attribute the opinion to someone. That someone is Chomsky. Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I looked briefly at the 9/11 article, can you quote for me where exactly does it imply that the attacks were wrong? Let me quote for you from the npov article: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over." What you added to the Al-Shifa is an argument that this attack was wrong because some other attack (9/11) was wrong - this may belong in an article about wars or terrorism, or in an article about the person who made the argument, and those articles would link to the Al-Shifa article that should just describe the facts, but imho it's unencyclopedic to add such an argument to the actual article that describes what happened. Not to mention that according what Chomsky himself says, there would have been much better articles (e.g. Nicaragua v. United States) to add this information to. Your reply is missing the point: you added info and then argued that you must cite someone like Chomsky because a source is needed, while I argue that adding this info was inappropriate in the first place. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it uses the word "terrorist", which is a common way of saying "the bad guys". If I put that word into the Al-Shifa article, it would be removed as POV. The burden of proof is higher because it is out of the mainstream. To get around this, I have to quote a prestigious person making the argument. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You didn't comment on the main point, as cited from the npov article, that saying that the attack was wrong doesn't belong in the Al-Shifa article in the first place. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have the word "terrorist" removed from September 11, 2001 attacks first and then come back to me. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems like you wish to further weaken the standards, even more than what you regard as a problem with the 9/11 article. Nice strategy... Though I must say that according to wikipedia's founder [6], the word terrorist shouldn't appear in the 9/11 article (I guess that he wasn't aware of the implications of what he wrote). Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like our standards to be more than a sham. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't agree with you that the word 'terrorism' shouldn't be used in the 9/11 article, and I don't think that it contradicts the NPOV standards. Anyway, Chamaeleon, I hope that you'll stick around here and redirect your energy in order to help us "destroy" rightists when they would attack these articles. If you're looking for some action right now, try to add this info to Bill Clinton's article instead of Chomsky's article:) Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two quick points: 1) individual Wikipedia editors' criticisms of Chomsky should not be included unless they are repeating published criticism of some notability, see Wikipedia:No original research 2) Chomsky is influential enough as a writer and critic that his views on some matters (terrorism is one of them I think) should be included in our coverage of them, though I agree that on balance we have too much of that. RadicalSubversiv E 03:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole "no original research" thing is only applied to politics. I have contributed original research in linguistic and technological articles and nobody has a problem with it. In any case, nobody has put original research into this article. Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It applies everywhere, as official policy. If you've gotten away with it elsewhere, that's a lapse, not a precedent to be repeated. Anyhow, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone had inserted original research into the article, only that some of the criticisms you make above don't belong in it without some external citation. RadicalSubversiv E 06:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is actually the de facto norm on uncontroversial issues. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Queued images

File:Chomsky interviewed by F Stock.jpg
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Francine Stock for BBC4
Noam Chomsky at World Social Forum 2003.


File:Chomsky surrounded by study material.jpg
Study
File:Some of Chomsky's files.jpg
Some of Chomsky's files


Queued images Chamaeleon 18:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the BBC4 image should be the first in the article, below the world social forum image. --ThomasK 19:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get exactly where you want each picture. Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon, what is the source for the 1971 picture? A capture from a TV broadcast of the debate? Or from the 'manufacturing consent' movie? Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I have just a video of the debate. It in turn is presumably taken from either TV or Manufacturing Consent. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you have the full debate? The movie only has an short excerpt. Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have 12 minutes and 50 seconds of debate. It starts off with Chomsky saying "Let me begin by referring to something I've already discussed..." (perhaps the beginning of the debate, after an initial question) and ends with Foucault making rather extreme judgements on the concept of justice, and the camera fades out. Chomsky speaks English, Foucault speaks French, and it's all subtitled into Dutch. I found the file on eMule. Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also have the same file (from emule), but I don't know French:( Its filename says that it's taken from the dvd extras of the movie. As I mentioned above, I could take screenshots from the movie, but I hoped that someone with the dvd could do it, in order to get the highest possible quality. From it we can take a picture of Chomsky when he was younger in front of a board, talking to Jean Piaget. Also a picture of him talking to students (including Michael Albert) outside at MIT during the Vietnam War. Maybe also a newspaper clip of him being arrested. There's a common old picture [7] that we could use for the Contributions to linguistics section, instead of a picture such as that with Jean Piaget, but it's only available online in low quality, it appears. Sams 12:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Chomsky

I bugged Chomsky into making some comments on this article.

I've posted his reply onto a separate page, so that it can be referred to, and not be lost in the page archives: Talk:Noam Chomsky/Comments from Chomsky Chamaeleon 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope this stimulus helps us further improve the article. Chamaeleon 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. The comments on the linguistics sections should be the most valuable.
Q: "Why cite someone who can be proved to be lying with 5 minutes of research?" A: because of the npov policy, example.
That's not really an answer. You're essentially saying "because we say so". That might suffice when talking to a Wikipedian (because one might say we all submit to policy by contributing), but it is no argument at all for an outsider. Chamaeleon 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you take the question one level further, to ask "why is the npov policy correct?" I agree with the saying that "if 50 million people believe in a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea". But still we include the wacko information, and we can add a proper response to it, it's a total anti-censorship approach (i.e. you don't censor liars, lunatics, retards, etc.) Ah well, as a result of npov, we now have a paragraph that describes the president of Harvard as a liar... Sams 00:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As for Horowitz, here's a book excerpt where Chomsky mentioned his name, among other more important authors. Chomsky actually cites all kind of totally crazy people all the time, when it helps to demonstrate a point. For example, I recently saw on tv Efraim Karsh, who is apparently some professor who is out of his mind, but Chomsky had no problem to quote him with regard to the question of whether Saddam Hussein intended to annex Kuwait. Sams 12:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I find his response extremely relieving in that he didn't find anything more major factually wrong (in the politics section.). DanKeshet

TDC's proposals

User:TDC recently made a great many changes to the article. The majority added considerable POV, notably by denying Chomsky's right to reply on a couple of points. I have reverted it to its previous state. I'd like to discuss the changes here. I am, of course, open to the allowing some of the changes, if there is consensus that they improve rather than damage the article. Chamaeleon 23:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chomskyan

The term Chomskyan has come to be used to refer to his ideas; however, Chomsky has described such words (Chomskyan, Marxist, Freudian...) as making "no sense in any science" and belonging "to the history of organized religion".
"Chomskyan" is frequently-used term [8] and deserves mention. Chomsky's own criticism of it is also highly relevant. Chamaeleon 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was unaware that I removed that, was unintentional. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics

The first application of the approach was to Modern Hebrew, a fairly detailed effort in 1949–50. The second was to the native American language Hidatsa (the first full-scale generative grammar), mid-50s. The third was to Turkish, our first Phd dissertation, early 60s. After that research on a wide variety of languages took off. MIT in fact became the international center of work on Australian aboriginal languages within a generative framework [...] thanks to the work of Ken Hale, who also initiated some of the most far-reaching work on Native American languages, also within our program; in fact the first program that brought native speakers to the university to become trained professional linguists, so that they could do work on their own languages, in far greater depth than had ever been done before. That has continued. Since that time, particularly since the 1980s, it constitutes the vast bulk of work on the widest typological variety of languages.
Chomsky's reply to criticism regarding the range of languages covered by TTG is highly important and should not be censored. If anyone has a problem with it, they should find a response to it, quote it and attribute it. Chamaeleon 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Once again, that removal was most likely unintentional. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent on terrorism

Many of Chomsky's critics, however, have noted that Chomsky's stated views regarding terrorism are inconsistent both with historical evidence and with his own writings. They argue that Chomsky has been supportive of left wing organizations and movements that employ terrorism as part of their strategy.
They have not noted anything. They have claimed, illogically. Such claims may have a place here, but only if attributed, and only if properly balanced by facts. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks this claim is illogical has been drinking too much of the Chomskyaid. He never has a kind word to say about the U.S.'s foreign policy, and when "criticizing" the foreign policy of our opponents, it's usually "well yeah they were wrong, BUT the evil U.S. incited them blah blah blah..." He has a kneejerk tendency to trace our misdeeds to some kind of twisted desire for global dominance and our opponents's misdeeds to some kind of reaction to this. J. Parker Stone 01:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are you simply saying that the US desire for global dominance isn't a twisted one? Twisted or not, most people don't like being dominated. The resistance movement in Iraq is only one example. — Davenbelle 02:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Basically, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Oh, and resistance movement in Iraq, that one is precious. TDC 02:33, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
It is silly to say there is no resistance movement in Iraq. It is a country under occupation. You may agree with the invasion and occupation, but that does not change anything. If Iraq decided that the US had WMDs (it does), had links to terrorism (a link as tenuous as being of the same religion should suffice), had broken international law (it has) and needed régime change (it does), and so then decided to invade the US in order to defend itself (it would indeed be defending itself) and liberate the American people (this claim is made for every invasion), then would you meekly submit to your self-proclaimed Iraqi liberators? Or would you perhaps join anti-occupation militias? You perhaps cannot understand the analogy because by definition you and your kind are the good guys and they and their kind are the bad guys, no matter what. Chamaeleon 11:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If someone did indeed invade and occupy the United States (as it has existed for 227 years), then I would most assuredly fight back. But make no mistake, by fighting back I mean attacking those who occupy my country, not by loading cars full of explosives and driving it into a marketplace, or sabotaging my towns water supply or blowing up the local ComEd substation. Secondly, if the United States were a dictatorship run by one of the few remaining leaders cut from the mighty Stalin’s mold, then I would probably be grateful to them for the assistance. But seeing as how only one of us has actually been to there, I would drop this point if I were you. I know you think you have gotten an good handle on the situation by reading the Nation and ZMag, but the truth is much better and much worse than some one who has not been there can realize. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying there is no New World Order that Chomskyites envision the U.S. pushing for. Our foreign policy is not solely based on economic dominance despite his hysterical pseudo-intellectual ramblings. J. Parker Stone 04:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well then, what you're saying is "basically" different from what TDC is saying. Why don't you two take it someplace else? Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh I am sorry, did I just ruin your intellectual masturbatory climax with this debate?
Attributed how? Do you A: dispute that Chomsky did indeed make that statement regaurding the NLF, or do you B: beleive that the statement was taken out of context? TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
You may not make the criticism yourself by using weasel words; if the 'many critics' are not identified, then this is original research. Sams 23:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey no problem. Do you want me to list the dozens of critics who make this point by date of birth or alphabetically? TDC 00:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
If you want to add it to the article, you'll need at least one such critic. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No probelm.

The use of "noted" implies support. "Said" or "claimed" is NPOV. The quotation must also be attributed and made less vague so that it can be countered. It no doubt is the point covered by the next section... Chamaeleon 10:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Subtlety lost on critics

This subtlety seems to be lost on many of his critics, who see his criticism of American foreign policy as an attack on all the values held by American society.
100% true, but could be seen as POV. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would have to argue with its truthfulness, but it is most definately POV. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
It is definitely true, as demonstrated by comments by people like you, but we need to express it with a quotation from someone instead of saying it directly. Chamaeleon 10:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right again you are! Chomsky’s ranting are just way too complex for me to understand. I know, maybe I will be able to understand his nuances and subtleties after drinking a bottle or two of grain alcohol. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
You all too often accidentally say the truth when you try to be sarcastic. Chamaeleon 03:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ahhh, from the mouth of another satisfied McChomsky consumer, mmm mmm good! I see you still have yet to comment on Chomsky's seemingly deliberate and underhanded manipulation of his “rigorously sourced” sources. Your silence speaks volumes. TDC 05:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
You would do well to make more points and fewer empty, sarcastic, facetious remarks. Chamaeleon 22:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Endorsement of orthodox socialism

Although Chomsky touted his opposition to communism, when it came to international politics Chomsky endorsed a fairly orthodox band of socialist figures including Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, and Ho Chi Minh. As historian Keith Windschuttle points out, Chomsky told a forum in New York in December, 1967 that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable." He believed the Chinese had gone some way to empowering the masses along lines endorsed by his own libertarian socialist principles
This "endorsement" needs to be backed up by quotations. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What kind? Although Chomsky has in the past offered criticism, mainly in passing, of Cuba and the USSR (for example) he has far more often gone on to espouse the virtues of these societies and of their leadership. I would hope you could take this at face value, but I will most certainly provide documented quotes if that is what it take. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I've been reading numerous anti-Chomsky websites recently, and none of the stuff that they quote from Chomsky backs up what they say. The best they can come up with for support for China is Chomsky's rather mild comment about "admirable" things happening. They don't quote the countless statements Chomsky has made criticising the Chinese régime (e.g. on p.60 of my copy of Hegemony or Survival he says "in Western China [...] state violence was intensified after 9-11"; on p.218 he accuses China of joining "'the coalition against terror' [to get] authorization for its atrocities"; on p.292 of Understanding Power ISBN 0-099-46606-6, "China's a very brutal society, a brutal government...") Chomsky would criticise the Chinese government even more, but he has many times expressed reasons for concentrating on his own government. Regarding other régimes, in the Manufacturing Consent video he says "the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot". I can't find a quotation attacking or endorsing Castro; he only talks about the reasons for the embargo. As for Mao, I won't bother looking it up because I can tell you that in e-mails to me he has used "Maoist" almost as a synonym for "lunatic". In short, the problem that the Right has with him is that, although he criticises the official enemies, he doesn't criticise them enough to please them, and then intensifies this crime by criticising American foreign policy. Only a bigot could fail to see Chomsky's constant condemnation of authoritarism, which is the basis of his anarchist politics.
It inserting to note that Chomsky criticized China after it broke with socialism and embraced capitalism (well large parts of it at any rate). It is also interesting to note that Chomsky held in reserve the strong condemnation for the Khmer Rouge only till after what they had done had become impossible to deny. Would it not have been more appropriate for Chomsky to criticize China when 10's of millions were starving to death? Would it not have been more appropriate for Chomsky to criticize the KR when Tuol Sleng was in full gear disposing of several hundred counter revolutionaries a day? I find his timing a bit suspicious and his condemnation insincere to say the least. His criticism of America's enemies is also interesting when he actually has a bad word to say about them. Recently he criticized the FARC for it continued campaign of terror in Columbia and a few sentences later he blamed the FARC's use of these tactics on the United States aggressive policy in Columbia, saying in effect, what the FARC is doing is "bad", but its not their fault, the devil (USA) made them do it.
  • Yesterday and today, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishment
An excerpt from a radio speech Noam Chomsky gave on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi
But, yes, yes, I know, Chomsky was simply unaware of the oppressive nature of the North Vietnamese.
Sorry but like many on the left, Chomsky finds it difficult to acknowledge that the difference between reactionary repression and revolutionary repression is the difference between cat shit and dog shit.
But once again, you want sources I will gladly provide them. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing that you have quoted contains a statement from Chomsky supporting any particular régime. He doesn't criticise the official enemies as much as you would like, or at the times you would like. That is all. Chamaeleon 03:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
File:Chomsky Cuba.jpg
Chomsky smiles like a school girl when face to face with one of his heros
So, Chomsky goes to Hanoi and talks glowingly of North Vietnam's brand of "social justice", Travels to Cuba to show his solidarity with the people of Cuba (and despite what you may have read, Chomsky never criticized Castro or the Cuban government while he was in Cuba), talks of Cuba's brave role in the liberation of Africa (a move when conducted by the US is fascist terrorism) [9], calls Vaclav Havel the moral equivalent of a Stalinist, praises Mao's great leap forewords, and so on..... and you cannot see how maybe, just maybe some of us uneducated slobs in fly over country could view this as tactic support, to use Chomsky's own lexicon here, of these regimes? Well I suppose it does not matter. But remember, this is not about what I think, namely that Chomsky is a commie thug loving vile piece of dog shit, it is what others more notable than I criticize him for. I have shown that yes there are many people, both notable and non notable, who take exception to Chomsky's support for some of the most disgusting regimes of the 20th century. Since it is not original research from myself, simply the citation from many others, I think this debate has come to its conclusion. TDC 14:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
No, you did not attribute all your claims. The first ones are made directly. Can you come up with a quotation from Chomsky actually supporting these people? (a quotation from a Chomskyphobe claiming Chomsky said something to that effect does not count.) I have heard Chomsky express a limited preference for certain leaders over others where he believes it is a "lesser evil" (e.g. he would prefer Kerry to Bush, or Castro to a US puppet), but I have never heard him give real support. From an anarchist perspective, I would like to hear him condemn Castro, Kerry and others in stronger terms, but you or Windschuttle, as supporters of authority, cannot ask him to do so without great hypocrisy. Chamaeleon 16:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources

File:Some of Chomsky's files.jpg
Some of Chomsky's files
However, Chomsky's books rigorously and extensively cite their sources
For Understanding Power, the notes were longer than the book. This claim is not POV. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is not always the case in his writing. Many of his sources come from rather suspect sources, and many others are not sourced at all. There is an entire chapter in the Anti-Chomsky reader that deals with this. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would really like to elaborate on this particular point, because I believe it is at the root of my and manys disgust for Chomsky both on an intellectual as well as on a personal level.

The nice think about references in books is that an author cause them to support an argument or point they are trying to make. Most people don’t need to look into the sources, because most authors, and all hones ones, will be as accurate as possible when using them (even if they cherry pick those they find most supportive and discard those that are objectionable). Most people assume that if an author provides a selective quote from someone else, it should provide a reasonably accurate summary of what the other person believes or said. Apparently Chomsky does not follow this writing convention. I realize that you do not believe me, but let me provide with two of hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of anecdotal tales of Chomsky misrepresenting someone he uses as a source.

There is a letter to the New York Review of Books by Sam Huntington which illustrates this point.

In response to "After Pinkville" (January 1, 1970)
To the Editors:
In the space of three brief paragraphs in your January 1 issue, Noam Chomsky manages to mutilate the truth in a variety of ways with respect to my views and activities on Vietnam.
Mr. Chomsky writes as follows:
Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the Viet Cong is "a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist." The conclusion is obvious, and he does not shrink from it. We can ensure that the constituency ceases to exist by "direct application of mechanical and conventional power...on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city...."
It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong:
...the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation.
By omitting my next sentence--"Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation"--and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument.
[10]
It seems here that Chomsky omitted a dovey comment to stress the more hawky thrust of the guy's argument: that forcing migration would be a good way to dislodge the Viet Cong. The guy then tries to say he really is a dove. It's a matter for the two men to sort out between themselves — a disagreement on interpretation. If you think this is an example of someone's words being twisted in order to construct a straw man, then I advise you to look at anything that Dersho/Horowitz has said for a far better example of it (e.g. the attribution of opinions opposite to the ones actually held). Chamaeleon 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let me ask you a question about this. Who knows more about the real meaning and context of the source Chomsky manipulated; A: you Chamaeleon, B: Noam Chomsky or C: Sam Huntington, the person who actually wrote it in the first place? Let me also ask you this, how many times has Chomsky been accused of doing this; A: Never, B: just this one time, or C: too many times for TDC to catalogue here?
(BTW, the answer to both is C) TDC 14:12, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you apply this principle to Chomsky's writings? Chamaeleon 16:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also the case of George Kennan's infamous, at least till Chomsky got a hold of it, PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy. Many have argued that Chomsky deliberately misrepresented Kennan's main point, so I will direct you there : [Russil Wvong http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan/quote.html].

The reason I detest ole Noamy so is not because he durn talked shit bout 'Merica, but because he seems to have a pathological, almost obsessive compulsive hate of it.

Conspiracy theories have always been the staple of fundies. Lacking any real evidence to demonize your scapegoat and finding ones self not exactly on the path to success, conspiracies sooth a simple mind. Arabs believe there are thousands of grand conspiracies (a subject that would make an excellent article for Wiki) to explain the sad shape they find themselves in today: loosing the 6 Day War, falling being the West over the past several hundred years, even loosing soccer matches to Britain. The anti-Semite sees Jewish interlopers as the cause for their suffering. Chomsky sees his dreams of a heaven on earth smashed by American Capitalism. That, in Chomsky’s mind is why every revolutionary movement started out with the purest of hearts (Cuba, China, Vietnam) but was corrupted by American meddling.

Straw man. Chomsky is sceptical of conspiracy theories. Chamaeleon 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Guy is a nut and belongs on medicine, but I suppose thats a bit POV as well, even if it is the truth. TDC 00:20, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum on Sudan

"Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.
This is a key argument that he makes, and a direct quotation. No need to remove. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Horowitz

he feels "there really is no need" and notably has not done so, leaving few claims to refute.
If he shoots himself in the foot like this, it's not our fault. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Horowitz 2

Peter Collier and David Horowitz compiled a set of critical essays in 2004, called the The Anti-Chomsky Reader that analyze some of Chomsky’s more popular work. The Anti-Chomsky Reader points out that many of the sources in Chomsky’s works are himself. Thomas Nichols essay Chomsky And The Cold War illustrates Chomsky's rage against anti-communists when the Soviet Union fell apart. There is also an extensive criticsm of Chomsky claim that the US invasion of Afghanistan would result in millions of deaths in what Chomsky critics labeled as the "Silent Genocide" claim.
No need to further expand the Horowitz section. His views are not so important. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And why are his views not so important? If they are important enough to have a section on, then perhaps more of his criticsm other than the ad-hominmes should be included. The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a good synopsys of his criticsms and if Horowitz is to be mentioned at all, then it should be included. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Because he's a lunatic. His baseless accusations deserve limited coverage. But OK, if we have to mention him, his main rant should be mentioned. Chamaeleon 06:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accusations at Harvard

In a subsequent debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky initially denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to have to back down upon being confronted with the evidence. He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in "revisionist" literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.
I think this needs checking. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Checking how? Are you doubting that the incident happened and that Dershowitz is either exadurating or fabricating the event or something else? Certainly Dershowitz has been a very vocal and noteworthy opponent of Chomsky. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes. Things like these need both citations and attributions. Who said this happened? When and where did they say it? Who were the witneses? DanKeshet 09:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
OK, there are several points:
  1. The question of the binational state is a complex one and Chomsky's views on it are well documented. They cannot be summed up with a simple "yes" or "no". An attempt to do so is an attempt to distort.
  2. All this "tried to dispute" is extremely twisted. If you don't understand what happened in the Faurisson affair, then read the article about it and come back better informed.
  3. "Interest in 'revisionist'" literature" is another question that does not have a simple "yes" or "no". Is it one of his interests? Apparently not. Has it ever come up in a chat with someone? Apparently so. There is no contradiction here. I could say the same thing about myself and this topic, or about myself and cheesemaking. (Got an interest in cheesemaking? / Not really. / Ever been involved in it? / Well, I went on a school trip to a French cheese factory once. / Ah, so you're backing down on the claim of no interest.)
  4. I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky got annoyed at this Nozick dude for bringing up an irrelevant private conversation to make him look bad. I'd be very surprised to see proof that he actually shoved him though. If so, however, all it proves is that he has a temper on him, which is not relevant politically. Chamaeleon 11:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Your claim, but then again this is not what Dershowitz argues.
  2. Its it that I dont understand what happened, or I dont Buy Chomsky's bullshit excuse for it? TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3.  
  4. Once again, these comments are made by Dershowitz, not me. The arguments make the criteria for bieng included here, and I think I am going to leave it at that. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's no good saying "Dershowitz said it, not me" since you are obviously trying to express your opinions of Chomsky through Dershowitz's words. His claims are pure mud-slinging, and we need to present the other side, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is mud-slinging. A transcript of the debate that Dershowitz reports on would be helpful. If it cannot be found, then Dershowitz's comments should only be included accompanied by a comment such as "No transcript of the debate is available to allow refutation of these claims." Chamaeleon 05:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sections

I also think that using third-level (and very short) sections makes the table of contents unwieldy and does not aid navigation. I suggest using non-section headings, which is done by putting a semi-colon at the beginning of the line. Chamaeleon 00:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On some of the non-default wikipedia skins (in the preferences), the semicolon doesn't generate bold text, but the surrounding 3 ' marks do. Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Third level would be nice. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I looking briefly at what TDC added. As for the principle, I think that what Chamaeleon added to the linguistics sections, based on Chomsky's comments, is good. There was no reason to revert it, it should stay and if someone would have further comments he could insert them there. As for the rest, some of it is displaced right-wing pov, and some of it is just weird, like adding Hitchens to the Cambodia section, with no particular relevance to Cambodia. As for Dershowitz, if you want so much to include his fantasies in the article, some comments as a response are available here, and also I looked and there's some more in the forum replies, e.g. [11] [12]. Sams 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hitchens is most certainly relevant. He did, after all, write an article in the Nation magazine defending Chomsky's odd dismissal of KR atrocities. As for it being "right wing POV" many of his critics, (Dershowitz, Delong, Welch, Hitchens) could hardly be considered right-wing. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hitchens' article from 1985 is not only about Cambodia, and his new opinions are not relevant with regard to Cambodia, so it's weird that you added that inside the Cambodia section. I'd say that it'd be much better to remove this weirdo completely, including the 1985 article - Chamaeleon already removed him from the Sudan section. The right-wing pov referred to info that you added outside of the criticism sections. As for the last point, Hitchens is a self-described neo-conservative, Dershowitz belongs to the pro-torture liberal left, and DeLong is not right-wing in the same sense that Bill Clinton is not right-wing. I also advise you to compare some of what you've written above with Chomsky's wikiquote page. Sams 23:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Remove this weirdo? Why si Hitchens a weirdo exactly? Is it because he saw the light of day and sees the great St Noam for what he is? Is it because he voted for Bush? What exactly makes him a weirdo and how, exactly, should that disqualify his critcisms from being a part of this article. I added very little outside the criticism section, and what little I did add, was addresses. And once again, just because they are from the "pro-torture liberal left" and the "not Right Wing in the same sense that Bill Clinton is not right-wing" diminish their critical remarks? Are they not notable? Are they not widely know amongst those who criticize Chomsky? I will need a bit better than that to dismiss them. TDC 00:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, a Hitchens fan, I've never come across one yet... Why is he a weirdo? Hmmm, let's see, many possible answers I assume... How about because he describes himself as a non-socialist Marxist? Can't you pick someone more normal to discuss instead? Anyway, read again. I wrote "displaced right-wing pov"/"outside of the criticism sections", I did not say that right-wing pov should be dismissed. In fact, I challenge you to add criticism such as the Huntington or Kennan ones to the article, I'm positive that we'll then witness how Chamaeleon easily destroys them. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look over the edits in detail yet, but I'll be a pain in the ass and once again point out that material from Chomsky's comments is original research and should not be included in the article unless he's repeating things he's said elsewhere (which is probably the case). I understand Chamaeleon objects to the no original research rule, but this isn't the appropriate venue for trying to change it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research! I am using a primary resource! Chamaeleon 08:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Original research, neither if you cite Chomsky, nor if you paraphrase him (which is better, and others could add information there later on). I remember that I read an interview with Chomsky where he said that everything that he writes is public (anti-copyrights), and that he prefers complete transparency to email encryption etc., i.e. it's best not to try to hide or protect anything at all. Maybe someone could claim that perhaps Chomsky didn't send this email, and there's a problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability? If someone thinks so, Chamaeleon could send the email to a wikipedia admin (such as DanKeshet) to verify it. I do think, however, that Chamaeleon should remove "and in e-mails to Wikipedia" from the article, it doesn't contribute anything new anyway. Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash

This whole article seems to mostly whitewash Chomsky's documented support of the Soviet Union, state terror and mass-murder.

Looks like this one needs to be marked for a rewrite.

No, those loony claims are noted in the article. Chamaeleon 06:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&oldid=9460636"