Talk:Political positions of Noam Chomsky

Leftist hagiography
This article must have been been purged of all information that might cast Chomsky in a negative light to people on the left. Either that, or you have here an immense and supposedly comprehensive article that manages to bring up R.E.M.--yes, the band--but somehow stay mum on what Chomsky had to say about the Khmer Rouge and Serb atrocities in the Balkans. Funny how that works. The article is locked in a state of leftist hagiography. And since it devotes a whole section to his influence even though it's supposed to be about his political views, why not also devote a section to all the times Chomsky has been accused of manipulating quotations (i.e., slandering), going all the way back to American Power and the new Mandarins? I happen to think that being called "an ignorant man who has read superficially in American history" by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. is a bit more relevant than being called "the Elvis of academia" by Bono.89.121.160.79 (talk)

"Worldwide audience" section
Radiohead are mentioned in this section: would fix, but article is locked. Says, "Radiohead has recommended Chomsky's works on their various websites and Thom Yorke in particular is an admirer..." - however, this should read, "Radiohead have recommended Chomsky's works on their various websites and Thom Yorke in particular is an admirer..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement

Views on Russia contain debunked fake-quote
Replace: In an interview with New Statesman published in April 2023, Chomsky is quoted in saying that Russia was fighting more "humanely" in Ukraine than the U.S. did in Iraq, and that Russia was "acting with restraint and moderation" as Ukraine had not suffered "large-scale destruction of infrastructure" compared to Iraq.[137] Chomsky also asserted that Ukraine was not a free actor, that it was the U.S. and then United Kingdom which refused peace negotiations to further their own national interests, and that U.S. military aid to Ukraine is aimed at degrading Russian military forces.[137] Chomsky also argued that the applications to join NATO by Sweden and Finland had "nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack, which has never been even conceived", but instead was to give both countries new markets for their military industries and access to advanced equipment.[137]

With: In an interview with New Statesman published in April 2023, Chomsky is quoted in saying that Russia was fighting more "humanely" in Ukraine than the U.S. did in Iraq, and that Russia was "acting with restraint and moderation" as Ukraine had not suffered "large-scale destruction of infrastructure" compared to Iraq. However, the author of the article admitted that the quote "acting with restraint and moderation" was his editorial wording and not uttered by Chomsky, and the quote on "fighting more humanely" was put in Chomsky's mouth by the interviewer. In the same interview Chomsky also asserted that Ukraine was not a free actor, that it was the U.S. and then United Kingdom which refused peace negotiations to further their own national interests, and that U.S. military aid to Ukraine is aimed at degrading Russian military forces. Chomsky also argued that the applications to join NATO by Sweden and Finland had "nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack, which has never been even conceived", but instead was to give both countries new markets for their military industries and access to advanced equipment.

Explanation:

In https://www-telepolis-de.translate.goog/features/Wie-Noam-Chomsky-Opfer-eines-Fake-News-Angriffs-wurde-9154375.html?seite=all&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp it is demonstrated how the "New Statesman" used very misleading language to make it seem as if the quotes used in the this lemma <> were uttered by Chomsky. They were not. The Interview is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJGYmfTaFRw and he does not say that. Asked about it, the article author retracted:<<''"The headline does not come from me, but from my editors," Vock wrote in response to a Telepolis request. The alleged statement on Russia's "restrained and moderate" war "was my editorial phrasing, not a quote".''>>(see telepolis article).

I would advise to remove the whole second paragraph in the "Views on Russia" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_Russia) as it is solely based on this now rather discredited New Statesman article. I do not think that an article inventing quotes fits the criteria for a reliable source. The same then applies to the whole "Views on China" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_China) that is solely based on the same non-reputable article as well.

Using a single interview repeatedly putting word into Chomsky's mouth - and a strongly missleading article at that - is not enough to justify as substantiating Chomskys view on mayor issues. --Micge (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Your 'with' is empty please fill it out and reopen the request. Thanks Lightoil (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I reopened the request and filled the "with" field. Micge (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you reopened this 11-month old edit request. Your account is auto-confirmed (extended confirmed), so you may make these changes yourself.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs update
The main Noam Chomsky article says the 2010 Israel incident was a mistake, and not intentional. I haven't verified, but if so, this one needs an update. Andre🚐 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Add reference properly
Change Chomsky has further defined himself ... (Chomsky Reader) to Chomsky has further defined himself ... spintheer (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Though you could've done it yourself; the page is semi-protected, not extended-protected (technically speaking this should've been declined with EPHR, but there's no need to go through the formalities here). Liu1126 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was just following WP:ECR: "The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area [WP:PIA], broadly construed". Technically (according to some), even this comment might not be allowed under WP:ECR, since it's an edit which may be construed as broadly related to the topic area but is not itself an edit request. I choose to take the risk here and WP:IGNORE the policy so I can respond to what you said, because I think that having open communication and reducing misunderstandings between editors is more important to productively advance this project than following a draconian, overly-broad rule.
 * Somewhat absurdly, according to this policy, I can't even ask for clarification on it (e.g. on WP:HELPDESK) because those questions would also be edits that may be construed to be broadly related to the topic area. spintheer (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right, apologies for the confusion. Rereading the rules myself, I was quite surprised we wrote them to be so ironclad. Maybe they should be reworded to allow for a bit of flexibility and WP:IAR, even if it leaves more loopholes for wikilawyering, but that's for another day... Liu1126 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Chomsky on Syria
Perhaps someone could write a short paragraph on this topic as well?

Some material from a critical Arab perspective can be found in these articles e.g.:

https://www.newarab.com/opinion/chomsky-and-syria-revisionists-regime-whitewashing

https://www.newarab.com/opinion/chomsky-and-syria-revisionists-lefts-moral-cul-de-sac

https://www.newarab.com/opinion/noam-chomsky-still-alive-i-began-mourning-him-years-ago 93.204.110.126 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)