Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 10

Chomsky's support for fraudulent scholarship
It's worth mentioning that Chomsky's support for blatantly fraudulent scholars. He's also given his support to Ward Churchill. - Ryan Wise (17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC))


 * It is not worth mentioning. It is worth mentioning Chomsky's arguments. You can make a case for the Farussian affair as note worthy. But mentioning every accusation on every person that Chomsky has read some articles from, and thought it was compelling is stupid, and demeaning. If you really wish to attack his arguments than do so, but this by association smearing is below wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.30.45 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ironically, Here is an article from Ward Churchill on the denial of the Holocaust in Context. Maybe this is the article Noam Chomsky has read, and liked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 October 2006


 * I just read your "9" link: Ward's essay fully supports the facts of the Holocaust.  It absolutely is not "denial of the Holocaust in Context."  Your Neocon Fox News "swiftboat" style of propaganda, providing links yet hoping no one takes the time to read the links, can be dismissed as "swiftboat scholarship" worth no more than any Rush Limbaugh "dittohead" rant.  Taking the time to read the link you provide, it appears you are "blatantly fraudulent," since there is nothing wrong or controversial in anything Ward Churchill says in the link you provided.


 * Chomsky's tenet is the All-American assertion: "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."  Chomsky is right.  We cannot force university professors and scholars to adhere to certain "truths" deemed unquestionable by prevailing power.  If prevailing power says, "of course African slavery was not as bad as the Holocaust," or "of course God exists," it is the right and duty of scholars to question these "truths" and conclude the opposite.  It is a scholar's right to conclude:  "African genocide and slavery are just as bad as the Holocaust" or "God does not exist," no matter how much it may upset prevailing power.  Telling professors certain "truths" must not be questioned is simply Orwellian totalitarianism.  Chomsky wants scholarship to be subject to the same peer review process that science and medicine require:  A Holocaust denier should be allowed to say something crazy, then real scholars can tear apart the paper in peer review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.243.232 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Chomsky claims that this is what he was saying. But that isn't, in fact, what he was doing. The controversy is that Chomsky defended the character and legitimacy of someone who had not just given an unpopular opinion, but who had committed outright fraud. I assume you understand the difference? Faurisson's fraud was sufficient for Faurisson to lose his teaching position, which Chomsky protested and still protests. Even American law, which is among the most liberal in the world, recognizes libel and academic dishonesty. But lets put that aside for a moment. If you commit academic dishonesty you can still publish. You can still research (Chomsky falsely claimed that Faurisson had been barred from researching. In fact he had only been barred from one private archive.) Chomsky claimed that he didn't know the details of the case when in fact he had been informed in confidence. And there's some evidence to believe that he continued to help Faurisson after the whole affair had been uncovered. There's no question that Chomsky tried to portray himself as acting according to the words of Voltaire. His side of the argument deserves mentioning. However the facts, and even his own statements, argue against him. Incidentally, the 'Ward Churchill/holocaust' link above was not mine (though the original 'Ward Churchill' comment was). The link was a different poster who didn't sign his post. The comments which followed suggest that someone has conflated us.--Ryan Wise 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiserd911, you are correct to say that the various points of view need to be aired. The problem is, they already are - in two seperate articles : Criticism of Noam Chomsky and Faurisson affair. All we need here is a brief sentence and a link to those pages where all your points are (or should be) explored in full.--Oakhouse 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. My concern is not with the present text. My concern is with future revisions. --Ryan Wise 20:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have been badly named. Ward Churchill is most certainly not a fraudulent scholar, please try to at least hear both sides of story before attempting to form an opinion.Palenque 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The investigative committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in academic misconduct.
 * Then you might want to head on over to the wikipedia article where an investigative committe found him guilty of academic misconduct and argue your point there. --24.251.18.125 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Link title

Great you brought that up. I would encourage anyone interested in that ruling to read up on it. "Fraudulent" has a specific meaning.

Chomsky and Israel
Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of antisemitism for his views on Israel's foreign policy  Chomsky has criticized Hebrew as a 'secret language' and taken stances regarding what Israel's demographic composition should be, among other things. This is why I wrote that Chomsky's views on Israel earned him criticism rather than trying to debate what was "domestic" and what was "foreign" which would is a tricky area, especially in a place whose borders are so hotly debated. --70.162.72.237 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ryan Wise)


 * He's *called* Hebrew a "secret language", not *criticised* it. And he calls it a secret language because, he notes, few people who are not Jewish speak it. He claims that things are published in Hebrew that do not appear in English. It's not an attack on Hebrew. --Dannyno 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and the Left
Cut from article:


 * He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics.

I put this back. He is arguably the most influential intellectual in the U.S. left, whether he thinks so himself or not. --Uncle Ed 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

better known = more widely known
I changed "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become better known for his radical politics than for his theories of language" to "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his theories of language". It's a minor but I think important change: "better" could imply more highly thought of, which is not the case regarding his lingusitic work. Instead, "more widely known" is a plain descriptive term about knowledge of Chomsky in the popular culture, which is what I think we want to say here.PaulLev 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky's reputation: deleted sentence
User:FeloniousMonk has twice removed the first sentence from the following: "Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his linguistic theories. He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW)."

I am not the initial author of any of the above - I just refined the first sentence a bit, changing the original "better known" to "more widely known" - see above.

User:FeloniousMonk has shifted the stated reason for deleting the sentence - first, saying that a reference was needed; and then, when a reference was provided, saying it needs to be more objective.

Before I take this to Dispute resolution, I thought I would see if we might be able to reach some consensus among some of us here. Thanks in advance for any views on this you may provide.PaulLev 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it not well-known that Chomsky's popualrity comes from his politics rather than his linguistics? Does Chomsky even write linguistics books anymore?  Did Hugo Chavez hold up a Chomsky linguistic text at the UN?  I'm not sure the sentence that's being removed is at all false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What Chomsky is best known for is a matter of perspective, more akin to subjective opinion than objective fact. As such the passage (which was lifted nearly verbatim) needs to be attributed to a source. And a publisher's marketing blurb for a book on Chomsky is simply neither authoritative nor neutral. Find a credible, neutral source for the statement and the issue here evaporates. FeloniousMonk 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a matter of perspective at all, and I'm rather surprised that the sentence is being challenged at all. If you do a search on Chomsky, you don't get results based on his linguistics.  Salon calls him an "the world's most important intellectual" while not even mentioning his work in linguistics outside of his being a professor.  The best I can find is this WSJ piece, which appears to assert that his popularity/notoriety today is due to his work in linguistics before, not because of it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging the accuracy of the passage, only its supporting cites. As a sweeping statement, it needs stronger support if it's to survive serious scrutiny, that's all. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who want to keep this sentence need to remember that, per Verifiability, you need a reliable source or any editor may remove the passage at any time. Simply not finding information in a search isn't proof that such information does not exist. I'm sorry, but that's policy, especially when it involves a biography of a living person. Wyatt Riot 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be about a 50/50 split between those who think the sentence was fine as it was, and those who think it needed more references. In the spirit of compromise, here's what I've done: (a) provided a second reference (although, for these purposes, I think the publisher's blurb is fine - it's not saying that Chomsky is great or terribe, it is merely describing a state of affairs), (b) reworded the sentence to provide additional info, make it even less like the line from the publisher's blurb (again, I was not the one who put in this line in first place), (c) under the assumption that this is acceptable to a majority of us, I have reinstated the sentence - amended, with additional reference.  If not acceptable, let's continue to discuss.PaulLev 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would question how reliable the new source is, as well as how he came about his information. From the context ("But he is perhaps even better known..."), it seems like he's only guessing or asserting his own opinion. Wyatt Riot 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article was published in a well respected, scholarly journal. At very least, this means that not only the author of the article but the journal's editor vetted it. The "But he is perhaps even better known..." is a standard scholarly locution.PaulLev 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction for clarity of meaning
It is stated:

"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, though Chomsky himself states that he does not agree with the police protection.[8]"

This struck me as an awkward contradiction for someone so ideological. In actual fact, according to the reference, Chomsky receives UNDERCOVER police protection, (rather than overt protection) precisely because he does not agree to the protection. As opposed to the implied contradiction of accepting protection in spite having principled grievances with doing so.

It should be rewritten, for clarity, as follows:

"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree to it.[8]"

One use of the verb 'states' is enough to render the whole sentence 'stated'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.33.143 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your posts using ~ thanks. RWV 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dean Acheson and Chomsky
Someone just e-mailed me this:


 * My favourite Chomsky moment is something I heard on the net. During a speech mentioning Cuba, Chomsky was waxing lyrical about JFK and Dean Acheson in his usual manner. When questions from the audience were introduced, up stood Arthur Schlesinger Jr - the historian who worked extensively with JFK in his administration and worked on all the Cuban projects - who tore him apart on every point. Schlesinger was right and I'd read all the material Chomsky was supposed to be quoting from, Chomsky was way off and was flapping like a fool.


 * ...The Chomsky speech was at somewhere like the "Kennedy centre"? Or some such Kennedy related college probably in Boston, where Schlesinger was an inhouse professor. I've had a look for it on audio but can't find it now. Schlesinger's opening gambit was something like "I've heard a lot of things here tonight which I don't agree with and haven't paid much attention to, but when I hear the name of Jack Kennedy my ears pick up". Before bickering with Chomsky about Acheson's role in the Cuban missile crisis (at least I think it was that - it was some time ago). Schlesinger's politics may be contentious but he's not a liar, and he's a fastidious chronicler of detail - Chomsky didn't really know what he was on about.

Anyone know anymore details, where and when this speech happened? Any details they can provide?

I also posted this question at the alt.fan.noam-chomsky site.RWV 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. I listened to it last night. Chomsky quoted certain people in regards to issues. Schlesinger responded saying that the quotes were incorrect, and Kennedy didn't say what he was suggesting. Chomsky responded that he didn't say Kennedy says it, he said an aide did. Then there was an issue over if the CIA is in control by Kennedy. Chomsky says it is, Schlesinger says it's not, the CIA went over it's bounds. Chomsky the CIA is used by the president for plausible deniability, and the audience appluaded. I agree with Chomsky's statements in regards to the matter, but could see how someone could differ. It was not Chomsky being foolish, it was a difference of opinion, and a reasonable person could agree with either. 70.56.179.97 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great anon, please tell me when and where this happened. I would love to listen to the speech myself, and decide for myself. Thanks a lot for posting this message. RWV 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know which exact speech it is from. I have an absolutely enormous collection of Chomsky audio/video. I attempted a mild google search, and didn't come up with anything immediately. 207.105.30.44 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for more details anyway. I appreciate you adding more information. Have a good day. What is the title of the audio file? Thanks again.RWV 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know the name of the audio file because I was listening to a very large playlist, and letting things go while I listened. I have decided to do more research on the matter for the fun of it. This is an interesting interview from 67 where Chomsky gets on Schlesinger's case which may partially explain his tone when questioning Chomsky. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm . Another Quote, http://san.beck.org/GPJ32-Chomsky.html . Another http://lanr.blogspot.com/2005/11/cuba-in-cross-hairs-near-half-century.html . Another http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=166&sid=f87ef073a656f747d7fe7483d881d113 . I didn't realise this until now, but now his tone, and what sounded like bitterness is probably from what Chomsky has said about him. I am not trying to mischarcterize how he felt, and this is just my opinion, but it makes sense to me. I will try and find the audio file and date, but the most likely event is that I will stumble upon it in the next two months. 70.162.42.37 04:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sounds like they hate each other. Appreciate your time. RWV 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: "word count" should not be wiki-linked
Why is "word count" wikilinked in the following Chomsky quote:


 * Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count.

The "word count" article is about: 1. Programs that count the words in a document (like "wc" in Unix), and 2. How many words are required in different kinds of documents (e.g. "epics" and Ph.D. theses).

The phrase "word count" in the Chomsky quote is not related to these. In fact, it's not a lexical unit; its meaning is just the composition of the individual meanings of "word" and "count". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.51.164 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your posts using ~, thanks RWV 03:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of criticism of linguistic works
Like most writing about Chomsky, this article mentions how controversial his political ideas are, but not how controversial his work in Linguistics is. A large number of linguists think the whole generative project is deeply flawed. This ranges from traditional structuralists to computational linguists, and certainly deserves inclusion. I will only mention the names of some linguists with whom I am more familiar: Roy A. Miller, Anna Wierzbicka, G. van Driem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.112.96.130 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kind of interesting.
I didn't know this existed. It's interesting, shouldn't it be linked somewhere if only from the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky/Comments_from_Chomsky 70.162.42.37 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is great, thanks for posting it! Palenque 07:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Political views.
I changed a part here because it was simply badly constructed. Candy 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Nim Chimpsky
Puellanivis edited my rewording re: the naming of the chimpanzee "Nim Chimpsky". The previous entry reported that he was named "to mock Noam Chomsky because he believes animals other then humans cannot learn/communicate via language." I changed this because there is no indication whatsoever that the researchers conducting the study intended to mock Chomsky for his belief. Indeed, Herbert S. Terrace initiated the study because he was skeptical that chimpanzees could be taught to communicate in a manner resembling the sophistication of human grammar. Not because he believed it possible and intended to mock the great detractor, Chomsky. Thus, I edited the paragraph to say Nim was named "playfully" after Chomsky.

Puellanivis essentially reverted to the previous edit and deleted the work "mock". This to me seems to give the same indication; that the organizers of the study fundamentally disagreed with Chomsky and were intent on disproving him. Quite the opposite is true and the study confirmed Terrace's suspicions. Nim Chimpsky was playfully named after Chomsky. Also note that the entry for Nim Chimpsky describes him being named "in honor of linguist Noam Chomsky — the father of modern generative linguistics and a strong critic of animal research into language acquisition." Inoculatedcities 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to say "named in honor of" I'm fine with that. But changing a subjective wording of "mockingly" to "playfully" is just as unencyclopedic.  If Noam disagrees that a Chimp can be taught language, then that's somewhat important to mention, but you can mention that the researchers suspected agreement with Noam.  Either way, "playfully" or "mockingly" are both POV. --Puellanivis 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed to "in honor of". I fail to see how "playfully named after" is "unencyclopedic" while "...cannot learn/communicate via language." somehow is. A slash between words is shorthand. Also, please sign your comments with  so we know who is talking. Inoculatedcities 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because if Noam Chomsky actually believes that animals cannot learn to communcate via language, or at least that the researchers naming Nim had the perception that Noam believed as such, and this was the reason why they named Nim in honor of Noam, then it's a factual basis giving reason for the action, while saying "playfully" is a coloring of the phrase which ads no denotaional meaning, but only connotational meaning, and is ths subjective information. --Puellanivis 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you should mention that they were proven wrong, and Chomsky was proven right, at least per the researchers who named Nim Chimsky 70.162.42.37 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the Nim experiment was essentially a failure in terms of language acquisition. I guess the joke is on Nim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palenque (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious Views
Is Chomsky agaist religion, even though he grew up Jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 (talk • contribs).

Atheism?
Why is Chomsky listed as an Atheist repeatedly in the categories section? I would like to see a source of this information. I think it should be removed. He has explictly stated he will not answer the question of weather he is an atheist on a number of occasions. One such example is here. N. Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.88 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that you won't answer whether you are atheist isn't the same as denying that you're an atheist. His exact words in the article you cited were... "I never felt marginalized because of my lack of religious beliefs. On the other hand, if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed to not believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." So, he's only saying he won't answer the question if it is posed in that particular way. Presumably, if posed in a more clearly explained fashion, he would have no problem answering. By saying he has no religious beliefs, he makes it quite clear what his answer to such a question would be if the question were properly explained. Aelffin 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Views
So was Chomsky against Darwinism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 (talk • contribs).

Darwinism after Charles Darwin? Marxism after Karl Marx? Why deify individual human beings when they all ultimately have cognitive limits? Chomsky deplores the Kansas school curriculum teaching against natural selection. (http://www.zmag.org/chomdarwin.htm). Neverthelss he has a partially critical stance towards aspects of so-called Darwinism, a stance which emphatically does not equate in any sense to creationism. The iconoclastic work of D'arcy Wentworth Thompson was a major influence on his views about natural history and living organisms. BernardL 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky – who would have thought?
Ayn Rand praised Chomsky’s New York Times article “The Case Against B.F. Skinner”, calling it “bright and forceful” and a “demolition job.” —Jollyreddonut 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)