Talk:The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Comments
Have moved material from criticisms of Chomsky page to this page as per discussion attached to that page, needs clean up. Any takers?--Zleitzen 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this qualifies as a "stub". Its fairly detailed as to the contents of the book.--ben-ze&#39;ev 06:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point, Ben. Best leave it though as it may encourage more users to add details. There's a Peter Collier stub that needs expanding if you're interested? Follow the link from the article page.--Zleitzen 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is weak on follow-up criticism. It links to Chomsky's own response. Perhaps that should be incorporated, point by point? --88.104.110.160 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed wording
''Chomsky and 9/11 by David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh analyzes a speech given by Chomsky at MIT immediately after 9/11. They particularly attack Chomsky's claim that the US invasion of Afghanistan was planned to result in millions of death...''

This is highly dubious, and quite possibly a deliberate misreading of Chomsky. I'm challenging it. I'd like a verifiable quotation. Thanks. Dynablaster (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the book reproduce a transcript of Noam Chomsky actually saying the invasion of Afghanistan was "planned" to result in millions of deaths? I'm not hearing this from the audio provided. If Chomsky does indeed said what out article says he says, then it should be easy to copy the quote here, and thus end the dispute. If nothing is forthcoming, then we must make it clear this is the interpretation of the author. — ThePowerofX 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The New War on Terrorism Excerpt. At 2:40, Chomsky says:  "Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of 3-4 million people or something like that."  At 3:50, he states:  "Looks like what's happening is some kind of silent genocide."  At 4:00, he claims that "plans are being made, and programs implemented, on the assumption that they may lead to the deaths of several million people in the next couple of weeks."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that none of those quotes support with what our articles says (the invasion was planned to result in millions of deaths). Chomsky is citing the New York Times and the Red Cross regarding refugees and the risk of starvation. The problem is easily solved by making it clear this is the author's interpretation of Chomsky's remarks. — ThePowerofX 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is intentionally distorting what those sources say for propaganda purposes, creating all sorts of amazing "facts" that go "unreported" in the media. Improvements in healthcare alone have saved hundreds of thousands of lives since the invasion, and American aid prevented a possible famine.  The Taliban were notorious for not allowing aid from "un-Islamic" organizations.  How much clearer could Chomsky have been? Try this: "We are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We require the exact quote from the The Anti-Chomsky Reader that supports the text in our article that reads: "David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh analyzes a speech given by Chomsky at MIT immediately after 9/11. They particularly attack Chomsky's claim that the US invasion of Afghanistan was planned to result in millions of deaths". It really should be too difficult. — ThePowerofX 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote that you recently added ("...trying to murder 3 or 4 million people...") may I ask, is that also to be found in the same book? — ThePowerofX 23:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that both Chomsky and the book itself are being misrepresented: "We require the exact quote from the The Anti-Chomsky Reader that supports the text in our article". Page 164:  "Chomsky detected the plot by Washington to deliberately starve 3 to 4 million innocent Afghan civilians" (emphasis in original).  The links to Chomsky's speech shouldn't even be neccessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I do not believe Noam Chomsky is stupid (or senile) enough to seriously suggest the invasion was "planned" to result in millions of innocent deaths. I recognise a sardonic tone in both Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens. But my opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how we summarise the book and, clearly, this "deliberate plot" is the interpretation of the authors, therefore we must be careful with attribution, as always. — ThePowerofX 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the snippet of text offered as support tells us nothing about what Chomsky actually said. This is what the commentators believe he said. It's one thing offering an overview of the book, and quiet another to try and turn this article into an anti-Chomsky polemic. Currently there is undue weight given to the "propoganda model" content fork. This should be trimmed substantially. Semitransgenic  talk. 11:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect to fears of an Afghanistan refugee crisis, our job is to accurately describe the contents of the book, using neutral language, and making sure to attribute views to those who hold them. The 'propaganda model' section is a separate issue. — ThePowerofX  —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to challenge the current version, even though I fail to see how anyone could interpret the speech differently, but (for what it's worth) I remember that Hitchens brought up Chomsky's "silent genocide" claim during their post-9/11 back-and-forth in The Nation, and "interpreted" it the same way (not as some kind of joke!). Chomsky responded by using deniable language to accuse Hitchens of racism.  I would have prefered to provide a quote like "trying to murder 3-4 million people", as a neutral summary of one claim that Chomsky made in his 2001 speech "The New War on Terrorism", before describing the book's "allegation".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Postal
Might mention that he was heavily-associated with Generative Semantics, a kind of rival to Chomskyan theory in the late 1960s and 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eli Lehrer
This bit: "an outsider who knows relatively little about the media... except to the degree that 'media subserviance' serves to explain why there is no outcry against the evil he sees everywhere in the American enterprise." <-- direct quote from the article, I am unsure if Lehrer is referring to 'the American enterprise,' synonymous with qualities outlined in the constitution, bill of rights etc. or 'the American Enterprise,' the magazine he formerly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.225.255 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

John Williamson
Which one, not specified in the hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.225.255 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of cooked up evidence
'Michael Leon, in a review in CoreWeekly, at the time a weekly arts and entertainment magazine, states that "The Anti-Chomsky Reader is mired in a thick haze of loathing and hard-right ideology, short on verifiable facts and long on ideologically-steeped assertions" and "As for all the weird personal defamations, they do not merit a response."[5]' - no traces of the article, even on Chomsky's own web-site. Just another example of Mr. Chomsky not even bothering himself to conceal his homework. Sorry, deleted for absence of source - even as unreliable as subject's own web-site213.93.40.227 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

Of course all the reviews in praise of the book remain in the "Reviews" section, with not a one chosen for that section which criticises the book. Wikipedia as laudatory review. Peterthooper (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Balance - Wikipedia policy
Given that it is WP policy that all verifiable POVs ought be reflected on any topic, and given that Chomsky polarises many into strong supporters and strong detractors, it strikes me that this article lacks balance in that no criticism of the book is made at all. I think this needs to be fixed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing this page, I agree that the outline of the book and critique of Chomsky is clearly biased. In fact, I expect Chomsky himself would argue the defence of media is an example of exactly what he refers to. Choice between 2 or 3 flavours of vanilla, still gets you vanilla ice cream. Stating that the optics of competing views in the west is mainly just that, optics. Take the current conflict in Ukraine for which the west immediately restricted ‘false narratives’ from Russia as being reasonable? Any reasonable person understands that wars are about propaganda and selling weapons, not truth, democracy or freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.176.34 (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article largely a lauditory review
Why is this article largely a lauditory review of this anti-Chomsky screed? One grows particularly suspicious when the authors--with very prominent and stated public positions--are not content to criticize Chomsky's political views, but feel diven to forge into technical areas of Chomsky's linguistic work for which they are patently unqualified.

Why are only favorable reviews of the book cited?

As an entry into the Wikipedia, this article needs more balance, and much revision by those buried deeply in the far-right camp.

Neutral, we trust. Neutral. Peterthooper (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing with Peterthooper's point
Peterhooper's point is correct and find the neutrality of the review section of this entry to be especially egregious given that a review critical of the book is listed in external links section of this entry.