Talk:Noam Chomsky/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 &#1061;&#1086;&#1084;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; in Russian. At least that's the way it's spelled in my Russian encyclopedia (&#1041;.&#1057;.&#1045;). There used to be a transliteration section in the Wikipedia article, now sadly gone, which also mentioned &#1061;&#1086;&#1084;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; as the preferred way, IIRC. Since Google's &#1063;&#1086;&#1084;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;-count is polluted with articles in other languages (as opposed to &#1061;&#1086;&#1084;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;'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 &shy;  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 solely 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, 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 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)

External links Chomsky criticism

 * The JFK Assassination: Conspiracy Phobia on the Left, by Michael Parenti
 * MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's Ties to the Military, by Bob Feldman
 * The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions, by Jeffrey Blankfort
 * Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, by Werner Cohn
 * Thus Spake Noam, by Jeffrey C. Isaac
 * On Framing and Being Framed, by John Touchie
 * Response, by Noam Chomsky
 * Counter-Response, by Jeffrey C. Isaac
 * Chomsky versus Lippmann, by Clare Spark
 * America's Dumbest Intellectual, by Stefan Kanfer
 * Dissecting Chomsky and Anti-Americanism, by George Shadroui
 * Noam Chomsky: Unrepentant Stalinist, by Anders Lewis
 * Chomsky on 9-11 and how to rebut those speaking of Mao's and Stalin's "crimes", by MIM
 * U.S. Hands Off Iraq!, by Spartacist League
 * Noam Chomsky: from antiwar protester to advocate of US aggression, by Peter Symonds
 * To Kill A Nation (The Attack On Yugoslavia): Leftist Intellectuals Fail the Test, by Richard Hugus
 * BALKAN WITNESS: The Left Revisionists, by Marko Attila Hoare
 * Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy, by Bruce Sharp
 * Noam Chomsky on the CIA Demographic Catastrophe Report, by Nathan Folkert
 * The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia, by Sophal Ear
 * Chomsky lies, by James A. Donald
 * Reply, by Noam Chomsky
 * Contortions at First Hand: James Donald on Noam Chomsky, by Dan Clore
 * My Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky, by Bradford DeLong
 * My Very, Very Allergic Reaction To Brad Delong On Chomsky, by Edward S. Herman
 * When Chomskyites Attack!, by Bradford DeLong
 * Chomsky’s Immoral Divestiture Petition, by Alan Dershowitz
 * Noam Chomsky: He's really an interventionist – and also completely clueless, by Justin Raimondo
 * Peace puzzle, by Michael Berube
 * The Cruise Missile Left, by Edward S. Herman
 * A Guide to the Mysterious West, by Michael Neumann
 * A Frustrating Task, by Samuel P. Huntington
 * Parenti on Chomsky, by Michael Parenti
 * Chomsky and AIDS, by Michael Morrissey
 * Noam Chomsky and Marxism, by Heiko Khoo
 * Noam Chomsky: A Critical Review, by Russil Wvong
 * The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky, by Keith Windschuttle
 * On Faurisson and Chomsky, by Pierre Vidal-Naquet
 * The Denial of the Dead On the Faurisson Affair, by Nadine Fresco
 * Chomsky Sex Scandal, by Ivan Lenin
 * Chomsky’s War Against Israel, by Paul Bogdanor
 * Noam Chomsky and ‘Left’ Apologetics for Injustice in Palestine, by Noah Cohen
 * Advocacy And Realism: A Reply To Noah Cohen, by Noam Chomsky
 * Chomsky's "Realism" and "Advocacy": Advocacy for what and for whom?, by Noah Cohen
 * Forty-Four Reasons Why the Chomskians Are Mistaken, by Alexander Gross
 * Deep Language, by George Lakoff
 * A brief review of an alternative view on language learning, presented by Michael Tomasello & Elizabeth Bates

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)