Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Featured article status

Who would like to collaborate to achieve featured article status for this article? CyberAnth 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i will. 67.204.9.166 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) what are the criteria

faurisson misstatement replaced

Earlier, there was a long debate over the main article's grossly one sided treatment of the Faurisson affair which misrepresented the actual beliefs of Chomsky's critics. Someone has apparently both cleaned up/deleted that discussion from the discussion page and also reintroduced the same type of one sided exposition into the 'criticisms' section. It's a bit absurd that we can't even present criticisms of Chomsky in the section devoted to that topic, and instead show Chomsky trying to rebut arguments that aren't even allowed to be made. The article on the Faurisson affair gives a good overview of the topic, but the summary in the main article is horribly misleading.--Ryan Wise 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)--150.135.1.43 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is there to misrepresent? He was one of 500 people who signed a petition calling for free speech to be protected, the critics response was quite fantastic LamontCranston (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What languages does he speak?

It seems like a strange ommission, but I can't find in this article what languages Noam fluently speaks. Gronky 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

English only. He mentiones it in talks sometimes.--ChainSuck-Jimmy 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he's ever said he speaks only English- he was translating Hebrew texts by age 7: http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/LitMap/bios/Chomsky__Noam.html

Furthermore his debate with Foucalt seems to indicate that he speaks French as no translator could be heard. If I had to guess I'd say he speaks a few other languages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.46.221 (talk)

When you take a look at the video of this debate you will recognize that Chomsky spoke in English while Foucault spoke in French. In case Chomsky would speak French there would be no point to that. I do not know about Chomskys Hebrew, but I remember him saying in an interview that he would like to be able to speak foreign languages but did'nt manage to get into this.--ChainSuck-Jimmy 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that his standards for what constitutes fluency or 'competence' in a given language tends to be more stringent than that of most folks BernardL 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If he can speak Hebrew or French or whatever language, then there will surely be a record of him conversing, writing, debating, or otherwise using that language somewhere. And his level can be obvious from the complexity of his use, or can be judged by the comments of a third-party. His standards are not the issue here. Gronky 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first chapter of "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" (1965), he quotes French text without providing any translation. At the very least he can read it. Quite probably he can also understand it passively, just not speak it well enough to do so in a in public debate . Emile 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't prove he can read it, it just proves that he expects his readers not to be thrown by seeing it. Anyway, basic French is not difficult for English speakers. The languages are so similar that you can even get by in French speaking countries by speaking English with a French accent. Gronky 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Help, I just fell off my chair! LOL

"The languages are so similar that you can even get by in French speaking countries by speaking English with a French accent."

Thanks for the laugh! (really)

You, um, do realize, I hope, that just possibly the reason for this is that an awful lot of people in those countries have learned basic English. Cgingold 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An awful lot have, and others haven't. A quarter of words in English are of French origin (that figure, IIRC, excludes medical and scientific terms). Take a look at fr.wikipedia.org, in the opening welcome sentence, even if you've never heard of French before, you'll understand "project" "encyclopedia" "distributable" and you might cop that "librement" has something to do with liberty. Then in the sentence that follows, you'll understand "articles" "French" "million" and you'll probably recognise "languages", and from the word "plus" you might take the right meaning, or if not, a meaning not too far wrong. The rest of the page is also full of examples of French that a monolingual anglophone can understand. You must have a special chair that ejects its occupant whenever the occupant encounters something they don't know much about - be careful on Wikipedia! :-p Gronky 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

These days, you can get by if you only speak English. (Note that "speaking with a French accent" is not going to help you in any way.) However, this has not always been the case. If you went to France 30 or 40 years ago, you would have had a very rough time if you didn't know basic French. Just the fact that some words are similar isn't going to help you a great deal. Same goes for Spanish and Italian. Them being able to understand basic English is actually only a very recent development. —msikma (user, talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He can probably only understand French and German, but is not really fluent. In his C-SPAN interview that was relatively recent (it's on Youtube, you can find it), he was talking about how in graduate school (or perhaps when he was a fellow at Harvard) he was teaching some other grad students quick courses in French and German because these other grad students needed to pass such classes in order to fulfill some grad requirements. But from what Chomsky was saying, it seems that these were very cursory courses, and from the interview you don't get the feeling that he is really fluent in any meaningful sense in those languages (though he doesn't explicitly say he is not fluent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.4.156 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

There is a scene in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (which is also included in the book of the same name (Black Rose books) made from the documentary) where Chomsky is met at the airport in Europe (as I remember) by some minder for a lecture he is going to give and the minder asks "what would you like to read? I've bought a selection of papers." And Chomsky answers, "anything in a European language" which to me implies at least a reading knowledge of French, German, and Italian. 137.82.188.68 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This question was put to him by me a long time ago and the answer was added to the article: see here. — Chameleon 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems most likely that he can read quite a few languages but only speaks English fluently. Cadr 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate seems to me about the degree of competency in any particular language. For instance, I can read and speak Italian and Spanish at about the level of a third grader in their respective cultural contexts. It is enough for me to get by and be reasonably understood; but no one would say that I spoke those languages. Certainly, no native speaker of Spanish or Italian would make that mistake. I think perhaps this might be what Chomsky means when he says he speaks only English. He probably has significant competence in many languages--but not enough to claim that he speaks those languages.Aletheia (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

--I have studied linguistics and language for a few years, and have studied spanish a lot in particular, though i would say i only speak a basic conversaional spanish, and can only read other languages. Reading is much easier because written words are permanent, and thus also the context is permanent--you can linger over the words, do comparative linguistics with other current languages or dead languages like latin, and also the subject/discourse of the written piece will give you clues, as you can remember what they are likely to say in a foreign language based on what you know the discourse to be like in your language. In this respect Chomsky may be able to read dozens of languages, especially considering european ones that are extremely closely related, like portuguese/galician, dutch/german, etc. As far as speaking goes, he may be able to speak Spanish in a basic slow deliberate academic manner, but perhaps not colloquially--I remember Chomsky in The Managua Lectures saying something like he could give the speech himself, but he preferred a translator, who would do a much better job than himself. Mmuldoor (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Atheist

Just as a matter of interest, has anyone e-mailed Chomsky and asked whether he prefers being labelled an atheist? I've always been under the impression that this is a slight controversy, in so far as people are not quite sure as to whether he is a atheist or agnostic, I have seen him described as both. The only time I have seen him comment on the subject was when he was actually asked whether he believed in God, and his response was something along the lines of "I can't answer that question, I don't know what it is exactly you're asking me to believe in", before stating that some people have to imagine some sort of creative intelligence behind the design of the universe, whereas he dosen't. He seems to have given the impression that he doesn't really mind being called an atheist or agnostic, curiously he seems to regard both labels as valid, but it might be handy if someone checked which he prefers, if either. --MarkB79 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to be atheist and agnostic at the same time ("I don't know for sure, but I have no reason to believe there is a god, and so I don't"). It, in fact, describes *most* atheists, and I have no doubt that Chomsky is exactly that. It is not an error to describe him as either or both; it only appears that way to you because it looks like you see atheism and agnosticism as incompatible. Qed (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? He's an atheist. 207.105.30.44 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does matter, as Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate. If you have a link were he defines himself as an atheist that would be helpful, otherwise it might be worth e-mailing the guy to check. I've seen him listed as an agnostic on websites and I think he was listed under agnostics on Wikipedia for a long while, seems that nobody really knows what he is. He clearly has no belief in God, but that in itself does not determine whether he is atheist or agnostic. Might be handy to ask the man himself and settle it once and for all. MarkB79 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He might prefer not to share his personal religious views. I personally don't recall reading about them anywhere, but there's a lot I haven't read. I guess you'll find out if you write him. If I had to guess, I'd say he's an atheist or agnostic, depending on how you define the terms. Bertrand Russell, who influenced Chomsky quite a bit, wrote an essay on how he considered himself an agnostic because there was no way to prove absolutely that there is no god; but depending on who asked him, he might say he was an atheist because he didn't want to give the wrong impression -- he was equally skeptical about Homeric gods, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky had similar ideas. Of course ... I have no reference to refer you to. Sorry! Organ123 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the problem may be defining the terms, and that he would probably hold similar views to Betrand Russell. I cannot find the interview I mentioned above, but I have found a source on chomskyinfo.com where he states something very similar, namely that he cannot answer the question as to whether he is an atheist or agnostic without defining what the terms mean and what he is expected not to believe in. For instance, he says he is not agnostic about Greek gods or ectoplasm, but gives no examples of what he might be agnostic about. Judging by this interview he seems quite uncomfortable about being labelled either in a more general sense and doesn't seem to like either term much, so it might be wise if Wikipedia refrains from putting him in either category. I'll try e-mailing him when I get the chance, he's very approachable, but if he doesn't want to talk about it then fine, I suspect if he objects to both terms he'll ask not to be labelled as either. Maybe its not such a big issue, but I don't think we should misrepresent people's views as such, plenty of intellectuals on here are not labelled atheist or agnostic, I don't see why Chomsky should be if he prefers not to be classed as either. MarkB79 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He has, however been more explicit at least once. I recall him stating in an interview that he had some kind of cosmic, mystical religious experience in his teens. It made clear that calling him an atheist wouldn't be exactly right; somekind of deist or agnostic with views similar to Einstein or Spinoza would probably be better. Unfortunately can't remember the exact reference. Might have been some recent interview in Skeptic or Free Inquiry or Humanist or some periodical like that.4.234.102.92 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That surprises me, though it's intriguing I guess. However I'm not sure if believing you may have had a spiritual experience (if that's what he said, as opposed to believing you've had what merely resembles a spiritual experience) does not mean you cannot be an atheist, I think it's possible to believe in the possibility of some spiritual or metaphysical whatever and still call yourself an atheist, provided you don't believe in a God, obviously most atheists are strictly materialists but not all are. It does suggest his beliefs are possibly a bit difficult to label though. My university does have subscriptions to those three journals so I'll see if I can find that interview in any case. MarkB79 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope I am not sending you off on a wild goose chase, as I said I am very unsure as to where he said this. Usually he is much more guarded about such matters. But on thinking about this, I realized that a glaring omission in the article - equally absent when it was featured - is mention that Chomsky is "some kind of Kantian" (I believe these are his words) and that he said so on many occasions. Someone less lazy and Hegelian than me should figure out where to put it and write about it so I won't have to. Although Descartes' influence is at least obvious by mention of "Cartesian Linguistics", in general what Chomsky himself has seen as and written about his intellectual ancestors and inspirations has been given short shrift here, given far less importance than he has given it himself in many publications. At the very least, Descartes and Kant belong in the infobox influences line, and I put them there. Also his opposition to what he calls dialecticism (and the dialectical strands of Marxism stemming from Hegel) - which he sees as BS, close kin to po-mo-ism, should be in the section on his opinion of criticism of science. 4.234.102.221 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it won't take me long to check out the contents in the front of each edition of these for the last couple of years and it dosen't matter if I can't find it. In any case, I won't get a chance to do it for a while anyway. When I get around to e-mailing Chomsky himself, I'll post about it. As for Descartes, I seem to remember reading an interview with Chomsky where he stated that Descartes was possibly his biggest influence, so he was rather a glaring omission from the list, well done for noticing and fixing it. MarkB79 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Scource on him with religion, or "faith" never specifically labeling himself atheist or agnostic http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5854018606313608966&q MonkeyBoy111 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He has stated his religious beliefs and they are not what is being stated here. The information is located in Language and Politics if you care to find out what he says on the topic. q 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of section

The "Academic achievements, awards and honors" is just a long list. It should probably be placed next to the bibliography list at the end of the artilce. The criticisms section does not only concern his political writings but also linguistics and criticisms for being a "closet capitalist". It should be a separate section at the end of the main body of text, as is standard practice for all criticisms sections in other articles. Objections? Ultramarine 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this earlier, but... Yes, I object. "Criticism" sections in biographies strike me as absurd, as though a person has lived their life as an argument! Criticism of a person's ideas and/or actions are, of course, completely appropriate to add to any biography, but in the midst of description of those ideas/actions. A separate section polemicises a person's life - which makes no sense. again, it's not that people don't have controversial ideas, etc. but their lives (except when their status as real vs. fictional is uncertain, for example) can't properly be the subject of a separate criticism section. As for "Academic achievements, awards and honors", I think the article has changed some since your post, and the section seems fine where it is now. Pinkville (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

underdetermine

I can't find this word in Merriam Webster or wikitionary. Can anyone else provide a reference to what this word means? There are a lot of places on the web where this "word" is used, but none of them make it clear what the actual meaning is. If this word is actually used in linguistics research, it would be very useful to have a link/reference to what it means considering how hard it is to find out what it means. 74.103.98.163 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a word you see everyday, is it? I think I've seen it a few times in mathematical contexts, and it generally means that a set of equations is not enough to solve for whatever it is you're solving for. That isn't a whole lot of help for the current use, which from context I gather to mean, broadly speaking, that linguistic experience does not begin to explain the rich linguistic knowledge that children have after a short time; therefore, some linguistic knowledge must be innate (hence, Universal Grammar). BrianTung 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this word is employed very well here. In philosophy of science more generally, and in linguistics more specifically, the word usually refers to the underdetermination of theories by data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination). This is a philosophical problem that would be present even if Chomsky didn't support the poverty of stimulus argument. --Rairun (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Something that's always annoyed me: just because you have a separate article for a section that doesn't mean you can totally not include information on the subject in the main article. We need a summary of the criticisms, not just a link. 75.68.6.81 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How much criticism is needed? Let's take George W. Bush, How much criticism is listed on his main page? Is it just a link? q 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A summary of the most notable ones would be appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever acceptable to have a section that merely links to another article. Someone shouldn't have to go to another article just to get the full picture. All such sections should be summarized, with others cut back in size to make room if need be. It doesn't matter whether it is the history of a company or criticism of a political movement, they should always be summarized. Richard001 08:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have done so. Larklight (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky's influence in other fields

shouldn't 'Chomsky's influence in other fields' go after his 'Political views'?? Uwaisis (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)---

Yes, I agree. And so I've switched the sections. Pinkville (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name

I noticed that the Hebrew spelling provided is אברם נועם חומסקי, which should render (in Standard Hebrew) IPA: [avram nɔʔam χɔmski]. Note that the first letter of his last name is Heth, which in Modern Hebrew is pronounced [χ] and transliterated ch. So does he pronounce it IPA: [χɔmski] or IPA: [ʧɔmski] (with an "English" ch)? How was it pronounced originally? Lockesdonkey (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Although that does not decide anything, but it is worth noting that the Russian transliteration of his name also starts with Х which is [χ]. Kope (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms, again

What do you mean, that isn't how they are formatted? That's how I've seen them done in every instance. It's clearly unacceptable to have no criticisms, they're sourced and aren't pretending to be direct facts. What more do you want? If you have any genuine reasons aginst this, please say so. Larklight (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No criticism? There's a whopping great page of them (a blatant violation of [{WP:NPOV]] as guidelines stand). There is no accepted precedent for the formatting you insist on trying here. One can summarise these things without resort to numerous level three headings. The brief introduction found on Politics of Noam Chomsky will suffice for now. smb (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any "criticism" section should be removed altogether as nonsensical (and I would argue the same in any biographical article). There's a very nursery school disciplinary taint to such a notion. It is absurd to speak of "criticism" of a person, rather than criticism of her/his works, ideas, etc., though I know that many Wikipedia biographical articles include such sections... Nevertheless, they are inherently illogical, they are lightning rods for edit wars, and they run counter to intellectual sense. Opposition to Chomsky's politics, or his linguistics, or his ideas/actions generally should be considered in the relevant contexts (e.g. in the article on Manufacturing Consent...) or in relation to other matters, and not in isolation. I wouldn't, for example, expect a "Criticism" section in the articles on Antonio Gramsci, or John Kerry, or Adolf Hitler. And there is already an article dedicated to "criticism" of Chomsky, with at least two links to it in this article. There's no need for a summary of the contents of another article, the links are sufficient. Pinkville (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't for promoting one's political views. Having seen the edits (which include clear WP:BLP violations ex. He has also been attacked for misrepresenting statistics, quotes, and asigning people false intentions.) and the userpage of the user who inserted these edits it is quite clear that the intent is to push a political POV and thus such edits will continue to be removed from this article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

@Smb; There is a criticism page, but not on the main article page, unlike on most other articles, for ideologies, projects and people. If you think that a criticism page is POV, you will have a lot of pages to remove.

You say there is no need to resort to three level headings. Do you really think headings are POV? And if headings really are POV, we should delete only them: not blank the whole thing.

And what do you mean when you say the summary on Politics of Noam Chomsky will suffice? Do you mean the criticism page? I was referring to this article, which is why I wrote it on this talk page. Also, please bear in mind I inserted summaries of the criticisms of his other work, which obviously cannot go there.

@Pinkville; presumably the reason there is no criticism section on Hitler is that he was some time ago, and it's hardly an issue that attracts contempory debate. Chomsky is current however, and warrants one, in a similar way that George W. Bush gets one (with sub-headings, one should note).

On the subject that there should not be any criticism sections, their existence is mentioned in WP:BLP, without any indication that they should not exist. It would seem silly to make rules for soemthing you did not intend to exist, and so we can infer that they are permissible, if not actually advisable.

@Jersey Devil; Can you explain how that was a WP:BLP violation? I didn't know how to format a complex cite, but there are examples of the criticism section, so I felt not citing it would be premissable.

I do not appreciate the idea that I am here to push a POV. I've added criticisms to things that I support and oppose, including adding section dividers. You have diagnosed my views on Chomsky without justification and, infact, inaccurately. Furthermore, the fact that an editor has a POV does not mean his edits do. If I wished to, I'm sure I could make some equally unsubstantiated claims about used, on the basis that Hegemony or survival is on your bookshelf. I would appreciate it if you make constructive comments rather than sweeping generalisations and attacks Larklight (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the agenda for this page should not be set by the criticisms page because that page is one of the worst cases of WP:BLP violation on wikipedia. It is replete with sources that include blogs, personal websites, fringe and partisan sources making very exceptional claims. In the case of a claim of anti-semitism, if a serious and notable independent scholar wrote a paper called (hypothetically) "anti-semitism in the work of Noam Chomsky" examining the work closely and without prejudice, it would be worthy of consideration. Even the criticism referencing Dennet is not substantial. If I remember correctly from my reading of that book several years ago, Dennet's objection against Chomsky is a passing one that occurs in a footnote. Dennet is, of course, a very notable philosopher but these particular comments are not based on a close reading and analysis of what Chomsky has written and said about the subject. And fwiw, having read pretty in-depth in various places Chomsky's views on the matter, I think Dennet's comments amount to misrepresentation and caricature.BernardL (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I fail to see how the criticisms section 'sets the agenda' for the page. In fact, I fail to see how a page has an agenda at all: only people can have agendas. If you have problems with individual sources, I suggest you raise them at the Criticism of Noam Chomsky, rather than attacking them en masse in a secondary location. It seems sensible for all discussion about particular criticisms to take place on that page, and for this page to simply summarise the contentious from over there.

As it seems the only remaining objections are over individual sources and not the whole thing, I'll re-insert. Larklight (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits yet again. Please read WP:Consensus regarding how we resolve disputes on wikipedia.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave you four days to come up with a reply to my arguments, and, after this, presumed none was forthcoming. Since manage to revert me so fats, I cannot understand how you couldn't make an argument in that time. The only response to my arguments had no objects to the existence of such a section per say, so I presumed that this was an acceptable agreement: since no-one disagreed. I would prefer if you actually said soemthing helpful, rather than merely providing me with a link to a page I have read, and does not support your position.

I would also prefer if you didn't revert my other edits in one big go!Larklight (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't discuss by myself: that's simply soliloquy. Until you actually respond, rather than relfexivily blanking all my contributions, I'll reinsert. Larklight (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use the talk page to try bring about a consensus. Just because the other editors did not answer your last comments does not mean there was consensus. They probably did not regard your counter-arguments as worth responding to (I didn't). As for me, you gave counter-arguments to my objections and then re-inserted the criticisms just about five minutes after making them. What I meant above was that just because something is good enough for the extremely low standards of the "criticism" page does not mean it gets carte blanche to be inserted here. Your choice of the source for the antisemitism issue is a good example because it violates wp:BLP. Werner Cohn's Partners in Hate which existed for years as a little pamphlet funded by a Zionist lobby group, and then only made it to press under the auspices of David Horowitz, can hardly be said to qualify as a reliable source, especially for such an exceptional claim as antisemitism. Moreover, you have totally mis-characterized the Dennet criticism. Why don't you try reading up on these issues before pretending to know what they are about? It can hardly be described as an "attack", he was (and is) full of respect for Chomsky's intellectual achievements.BernardL (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does a criticism page have lower standards than this page?-why not try to improve that one? I haven't read the articles, but I presumed that, since no-one had said anytuing on the criticism page, they were suitible for wikipedia.

Additionally, how is it possible to gain a consensus if people do not reply? Surely it is sensible to give people who once commented and then ceased too the same treatment as everyone else who sin't contributing? How can we tell what opinion silent people hold?

Finally, you never gave any objections to the existance of such a section- I presumed you would seek to improve, rather than blank, it. Since criticism of Chompsky does exist, it seems more irrisponsible to have no section than a poor one, but better to try to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larklight (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It often takes time to formualte a careful and useful proposal for changes - particularly to an article on such a "controversial" subject. It isn't clear that it's better to work on an existing criticism section (whatever its quality) than to work towards carefully adding the criticism of Chomsky's ideas and writings within the pertinent sections of the article; i.e. rather than having a separate - and artificially separated - section for criticism. These are matters I'd like to return to, but I have lately been otherwise occupied - that doesn't mean I don't intend on joining in improving this article in the coming days. Pinkville (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it better to put the criticisms into the separate sections, rather than in one place? One place is easyer to find- why I want to research someone, I want the other POV quickly accessible- in it's own section, not buried under other things. Would you prefer sub-headings from individual sections for criticism? If I'm being hard to understand, I'll add it and revert, so you can see. Larklight (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On intellectual grounds, there are two main objections to a separate criticism that come immediately to mind. One is that criticism should be considered in proximity to the subject being criticised so that the two (or more) points of view can be fairly and coherently evaluated. Far from being buried, while describing and elaborating Chomsky's arguments, etc. criticisms can be brought to bear directly on them. And a separate criticism section represents a dualistic world-view that simply isn't accurate: ideas rarely divide neatly into pro- and con- categories. This leads to the second objection: that a separate section for criticism promotes a false uniformity of criticisms... Some disagreements with Chomsky's ideas accept his overall framework (in whatever field), others are fundamentally antagonistic to his positions; some criticisms (unworthy of the term) are unreasoned mud-slinging, and others are rational and guided by an intent to (collaboratively) discover truth. These differences - and their significance - are minimised (to nothing) by a separate section. The separate section tends to (falsely) suggest that criticisms are of equal value and importance. A third objection, to echo what I said somewhere above, is that it makes no sense to create a section of criticisms of a person... criticism is a response one has to an argument, a proposal, an action, etc. - something with a human agent - not to a human being herself, nor any other thing for that matter (try to imagine a "criticism" section in the article on bicycles, for example... but criticism of bicycle advocacy is an imagineable phenomenon). You suggest subheadings within each section, but again, that misses the point. The approach that I think makes more sense might read like: Chomsky points out various errors in Skinner's blah blah blah, but MacCorquodale disagrees, saying, blah blah blah.... Pinkville (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about overall criticisms? People who say he cherry-picks data are quite common, but there's no obveous place to out that. Not all criticsim is a simple x says this, but y thinks x is wrong becuase z...

If you think the criticisms are of varying value, why not just write more on the more important ones, or put the petty ones under one heading? I added stub-criticisms, so I couldn't differentiate.

Addditonally, he is soemthing of a public interlectual: In the same was as Hitler was criticised as a person, so is Chompsky. To say all the criticisms are leveid at particular ideas is misleading: his entire world-view is attacked, and his manner of bearing himself. People attack 'Chompsky', not 'Chompsky theories on...'Larklight (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a source that for a general attack- "arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics" http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm If there was a separate criticism section, I'd put it there. As it is, None of the existing sections are really apropreot, so Either it's at the beginning or a new section. Larklight (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not criticism, that's name-calling. People attack 'Chompsky', not 'Chompsky theories on...' WP doesn't deal in attacks on the person. And, in fact, there are plenty of "attacks" on Chomsky's theories - though it might take some effort to cite them rather than mere name-calling. Pinkville (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Chomsky is attacked as a person, but such (ad hominem) attacks aren't worth considering, being mere slander. Similar attacks against Hitler aren't worth considering either, anyway, he can easily be dispatched by the use of elementary rational/moral criticism. Overall criticisms of Chomsky (or anyone else) are precisely what I reject - and what ought to be rejected by the WP community. Such attacks are inherently unanswerable (how does anyone respond to "Chomsky is a self-hating Jew"). As you say, it's not a "simple" case of x says this, but y thinks x is wrong... yet the latter is exactly how to deal with rational criticism. And if the criticism will not fit such a pattern of response it's probably not worthy of consideration. Take your example, the accusation that Chomsky "cherry-picks" data"... For one thing, that's just a slur - it's prima facie incorrect and the sort of accusation (I've seen it a number of times) that comes from non-academic, or politically-motivated, or mainstream media sources (who almost without exception do not cite any sources or evidence themselves). But let's pretend for a moment there's some merit in such an accusation. Chomsky provides voluminous references that can easily be checked - and that have been checked by many skeptics and fellow travellers alike. In my (extensive) reading it's usually Chomsky who points out the dismissed or neglected pertinent information that illuminates an issue (in contrast to the cherry-picked conventional wisdom). Take one example: Chomsky has pointed out in numerous articles and books that the Vietnam War was first of all a war of the United States against South Vietnam. This observation is amply backed up by the record and factually uncontroversial (the US did not begin regularly bombing North Vietnam until 1965, three years after it had started bombing the South; between 1962 and 1965 a couple of hundred thousand South Vietnamese were killed; in 1965, along with the bombing of the North, the US escalated its bombing of the South to three times the scale of North Vietnam), yet conventional mainstream history persists in supposing that the Vietnam War was between the allied US and South Vietnam against a North Vietnamese aggressor; the war was in fact between the US and its puppet regime in Saigon against a burgeoning revolutionary movement in South Vietnam, with North Vietnam as a later participant. Along the way, Chomsky relies on the writings of people like Arthur Schlesinger, historian and Kennedy advisor, and contemporary columnist Anthony Lewis, supposed liberals with whom Chomsky has little sympathy, and contemporary military historian Bernard Fall, whom Chomsky describes as a hawk... but who cared about the Vietnamese...[1] He uses publicly accessible government documents (e.g. National Security Council Reports, etc.), etc. That is, he keeps to mainstream or governmental sources for most of his evidence. If it's cherry-picking, anyone is able to show the context he neglected or removed to make his argument - yet few seem committed enough even to try, presumably knowing on a deeper level that's it's a mug's game. If demonising someone is acceptable in a WP article, then I see no problem with including overall criticisms, but if we want to create substantive and accurate biographies of people, then I think we should stick to criticisms that can be rationally evaluated. Pinkville (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would personally like to thank user: Larklight for informing all of us in his edit summary that Hugo Chavez is "no longer prez." That must be because he lost a referendum some months ago, right? Perhaps you should inform Hugo and the Venezuelan people that he is no longer prez too? [[2]]. More seriously... editors may want to keep in mind the long history of the Chomsky biographies at wikipedia. Originally it was one interminably long article; a site of constant edit-warring; ultimately it was at the initiative of the critics that the article was split into three parts, but it was basically a consensus manoeuver. The article was really way way way too long. Chomsky's thoughts exercises peoples minds in many particular ways and after the obvious core themes it can often be difficult and a matter of highly subjective opinion which themes should be addressed here on wikipedia.BernardL (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got mixed up with CastroLarklight (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

'See also' section has mind of it's own

Whenever I go to click on a wikilink section of the article, everything shifts, usually into two columns instead three. Is this just my computer, or is there some kind of bug? -- Reaper X 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a problem for you? What browser are you using? I'm not having any difficulties myself, so it's hard to respond. Pinkville (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Impetious Imperialist

this is fake, or a joke. i delete it 67.204.9.166 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

View on Wikipedia

Hi there,

i am wondering what Mr Chomsky's view on Wikipedia might be. Is it known?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

he has a positive opinion of the internet in general, for its vast organizing potential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.62 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky has made his views on his wikipedia page known when it was sent to him by an Editor here something like 2 years ago. If you can find it, it's useful to read. I've read it once. As to the internet, he doesn't have a "positive opinion of it" in general. He believes it's like Radio or Television, or anything else. Potentials for a wide range of feelings which may be positive or negative, and he has both concerning the internet. q (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

POV editors, name-calling

User:Larklight cannot disguise his/her contempt for Noam Chomsky, and obviously has personal issues with the subject, repeatedly calling him "Chompsky". (diff) When emotions get in the way, it's a solid indication that one should move away, leaving disinterested editors to improve the page. smb (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a typo- that's how his name has always been pronounced to me. Nothing more, and please don't assume bad faith over one letter. I'll change it if you wish. Larklight (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But the page you have edited repeatedly spells his name correctly: Noam Chomsky. And there are countless other instances here on Talk:Noam Chomsky for you not to have made such an error. More to the point, you yourself spelt his name correctly here here here here and here. Only recently, after your edits were reverted, did you begin calling him "Chompsky". smb (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"This is related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge, in that it is not due to experince." what is the problem with this line?

Or a factdate tag?

Or saying he opposed the western side- since he supported the (NFL)?

Can you please say soemthing constructive, rather than simply construing one letter into terrible POV? I messed up on the exprez bit, and will re-revert that. However, the others that Pinkville agrees are good I will readd, pending a real reason to delete. Larklight (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment on the rationalist ideas line (I don't consider myself qualified to judge). But I meant to remove the "western side" edit you made (in fact, I thought I had!) because it just doesn't make much sense. First, "western" is too vague - plenty of so-called western nations were not militarily involved, not otherwise involved or publicly opposed the US war on Vietnam, so which "western side" is Chomsky meant to have opposed? Further, he opposed his government's policies and not, for example, much US public opinion, which was also opposed to the war (illuminatingly, particularly working class, non-university educated Americans). He has often stated that as a US citizen his energies are best directed towards the policies and actions of his own country (he might well lament and disagree with the policies of, say, the Soviet Union, but there's nothing particularly noble or significant about criticising the crimes of official enemies - it's much more important to try to bring about positive change where one's actions might reasonably have some effect, i.e. in one's own country). Second, this Western vs. NLF is too simplistic. Chomsky supported the right of the Vietnamese to fight back against the US and other aggressors - the NLF was one organisation in that struggle and I doubt he would characterise his view as support for one political/military organisation rather than simply support for the Vietnamese people. Anyway, see if you can find an example of him saying he supports the NLF and opposes the "western side"... but I don't think you'll be successful. Pinkville (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I answered the "cherry-picking" issue above, so that was one reason for removing the sentence about Chomsky's and Herman's supposed 'selective' evidence. The second part of the sentence was simply a personal opinion (i.e. that "the media has been far harsher on the west") without foundation. The end of the sentence featured points about the Iraq war and Tibet that were not cited and that for separate reasons are irrelevant. Pinkville (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if this appears rude, but anyone who calls Chomsky-Chompsky to begin with must know very little about the man, as that person cannot have come into contact with their name often, and probably solely in a audio context, and secondnly must of not read this article before placing suggestions on this talk page, calling into question the usefullness of their edits.86.133.101.176 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Noam Chomsky's 9/11 should be on the 9/11 attacks page. Help get it on. 67.165.163.114 (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM

Zionism

What are Chomsky's views on Israel? Can he be considered anti-Zionist?Comradesandalio (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is a bit of a non sequitur... views on Israel (i.e. its government's policies) and Zionism don't have anything particularly in common. Regardless, Chomsky has often spoken of his early attraction to certain left tendencies of Zionism, but has pointed out that those Zionist beliefs that then attracted him would - in today's climate - be considered anti-Zionist by many. So adding Chomsky to the category Jewish anti-Zionists wouldn't make much sense - the issue is too complicated to fit into such a limited/limiting formula. Pinkville (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Chomsky was a leader of a Zionist Youth Group as a child. So putting him under Jewish anti-Zionists makes little sense. q (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ali G

Should we mentions somewhere that sasha mashed him up once ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, I wouldn't say that Chomsky got mashed... Sasha seems to have been having a pretty slow day, and Chomsky didn't flinch... unlike many of Sasha's other targets. Either way, don't think it has any place in the article. Pinkville (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky's comment about psychoanalysis should probably removed from this article

This part of the article should probably be removed: 'He is critical of psychoanalysis. In an interview with the New York Times he stated, "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?' The case for removing it is that this appears in the section, 'Contributions to psychology', and this opinion of Chomsky's is not a 'contribution to psychology' of any kind. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. Amazingly, I agree with both you and Chomsky. I don't think psychoanalysis is a science (to be that you have to be able to predict results, etc.), and I also don't think Chomsky has contributed anything to science, except, perhaps, for his formalism, but that is a very big perhaps, a huge, colossal, gigantenormous perhaps. Cheers Io (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I will remove this; unargued for personal opinions are not contributions to psychology. Skoojal (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds about right.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

About language comprehension

If, as has been suggested here, English is the only language Chomsky really knows, how can it be that he can:

a) Concoct a theory of language as a whole (that was the easier question, ego has probably something to do with it), and

b) So many, possibly otherwise intelligent, people have swallowed it whole?

English is by no means a "typical language", so you can't base a "Universal Theory" on it. More to the point, noone has ever undertaken a pairwise comparison of the ca. 6000 languages in the world. A pairwise comparison would incidentally not be enough. You would have to set up some sort of 6000x6000 correlation matrix (so to speak) to get to the comparisons and only then could you filter out commonalities. (How one should do that - well, I have no idea.) But the limitations of the man and lack of research should be enough to make anyone suspicious. Cheers Io (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: When I mentioned the correlation matrix, I was of course referring to the number of comparisons necessary. That is: 6000*6000-6000 = 35,994,000 comparisons or about 3.6*10^6 (36 millions). Anyone interested is invited to undertake that task. Cheers Io (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS: A mistake of mine: Since the matrix is symmetric, we are only talking about ca. 18 million comparisons. Cheers Io (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Struck a foolish mistake of mine. Io (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smbboy: The talk pages are for discussion and that I have provided. If any particulars irk you, take them up here. Talk pages are not soap boxes, but neither are they to be consored according to your personal politics. If you continue to undo, you do nothing more than to label yourself as an idiot. Io (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a reliable source that has published the above theory that you wish to include in the article? If so, please provide it for discussion and creation of consensus on how to include it in the article.

If the above has not been published in a reliable source, it is considered original research and is not allowed in wikipedia articles.

Please remember, this talk page is designated as a place to only discuss the content of the article; so if you simply wish to discuss the above theory, you will need to do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a theory nor original research. It is just a statement of a fact as obvious that 1+1=2. I concede, that my wording was overly harsh, and I did not attempt to hide my point of view. Why should I? But I was actually asking a question in continuation of the discussion above about Chomsky's knowledge of languages. What I was hoping for that someone might have been able to point to research in this direction. Since I'm no diplomat to put it mildly, but then of course, neither are you (see the comment you assigned to your first removal, which was actually what set me off), I see that I should not have dashed the thing off as I did. I disagree about the original question being irrelevant. You can't write an article about a person without mentioning his works? That would make for dull articles about Shakespeare, Goethe and Newton to name but three. And just in case it is not clear, intimidation by posting icons does not work. Anyway, this has been boring, and I won't add anything further unless asked or pricked. Goodbye Io (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

previous sidetracked interactions not related to article content

THIS IS NOT A FORUM WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE WORK OF THE MAN. It is the page where we discuss the content of the article. What portion of the above has anything to do with the content of the article? If no direct connection is provided in 24 hours, it will be removed as irrelevant chatter. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, read and understand. Io (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that you do understand because you keep returning irrelevant chatter to a place where comments are supposed to be dealing only with how to improve the content of the article. As suggested before, please read WP:TPG and WP:NOT#CHAT and then consider reverting yourself so that you are not blocked for clear violation of WP:3RR -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Io, by the way, I don't appreciate having my comments removed by you, as in this edit. Here it is again, though. Pinkville (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored comment: Io, you can think whatever you like about Chomsky, linguistics, and anything else, for that matter, but this talk page is for discussion of the article, not of your ponderings. If you'd like to take up your topic of interest, please do so somewhere else, such as your user talk page. Pinkville (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that removal. My technical mistake. Io (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. That's what I'd hoped. Pinkville (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is the story with the endless vandalism -- does anyone know? ~ smb 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Zionist thug, angered at my edits to various articles, who has decided to make my continued presence on Wikipedia intolerable, and has over the past two years used more than 500 different IDs to make 3000 plus offensive edits to articles. See the list of Runtshit sockpuppets for more details.RolandR (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the vandalism has been going on forever. Like the guy has nothing better to do than vandalize wikipedia all day. I've been following it as well since I have this article on my watchlist.--Jersey Devil (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This article, like those on Norman Finkelstein, Howard Zinn, etc., will undoubtedly always enjoy the contributions of vandals, due to their political nature. At least the situation is not quite as bad as some of the Israel-Palestine articles... Pinkville (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

semi-protecting

I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet this persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

It would be good to put a link in this section to Noam Chomsky's page on Academia.edu, which is here: http://mit.academia.edu/NoamChomsky Richard56 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pornography

I think this article needs a section on Naom Chomsky and his criticism of pornography after being interviewed by Hustler controversially when he claimed he did not know what the magazine really was when he was interviewed by them for a political article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 August 2008

How is Chomsky's ignorance of Hustler an example of criticism of pornography? Chomsky has written nothing about pornography, so what significance could this dismally trivial anecdote possibly have? Also, don't forget to sign your comments by tapping the tilde key four times, like this: ~~~~. Pinkville (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a video of him on YouTube describing his position on pornography in fairly certain terms (he considers it degrading to women, and therefore abhorrent, basically) in the context of this article. Qed (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Father of Modern Linguistics?

While there are two citations to support this statement, they are from op-ed pieces rather than from "scientists" or some representation from the scientific community. Running a Google Books search for "father of modern linguistics" reveals [3] that there is indeed a level of consensus that implicates Ferdinand de Saussure as this father figure, and I would tend to agree. It may be more appropriate to change it to something like "Chomsky is well-known in the academic and scientific community for his contributions to modern linguistics." Alephsmith (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who inserted the "father of modern linguistics" sentence. I think it's an accurate assessment. Daniel Dennett, for example, thinks so (Kinds of Minds, 148). Others texts do, too; you can find that on a Google Books search as well. Sausurre is often regarded has having the same title, very true. But "modern linguistics," as in research conducted today, is way more influenced by Chomsky than by Saussure. As to your suggestion, "contributions to modern linguistics" is perhaps insufficient. He's made more than mere "contributions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible dead site under 'External links'

It appears as:

Chomsky videos Direct download

It leads to:

http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/videos/videos-en.php

I am in a country which blocks some sites so I don't know if the link is really dead. I can get to theyliewedie.org through a proxy but the whole link seems dead. Please double check and zap it if need be.

Thank yooooooooooo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"largely shunned by the mainstream media in the United States"

Really needs a strong citation, especially considering the claims of his role as a leading dissident.Ultramarine 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...from reliable, mainstream media, I suppose? --131.111.8.96 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding out of place commentary such as this [4] should be avoided.--Jersey Devil 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Also the intro should be neutral and there are many criticisms.Ultramarine 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the introduction is currently sufficiently neutral. I do not see any statements praising Chomsky, or talking about how other people praise him, in the intro, so I don't think it's necessary to have statements criticizing him either. As far as I can tell, the intro deals almost entirely Chomsky's notability -- the fact that he is notable, and why he is notable. So I don't think there's a neutrality problem. Organ123 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Chomsky would disagree that he has been shunned by the mainstream media. I think he would agree that views that go against the business interests of the media are not discussed. He would also bring up "concision" and other topics he's discussed in length. Further research would lead you to a much better description. q 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

chomsky regularly says that he travels all over the world for interviews, but rarely any on MSM in the US. as for the source, i think it's in the manufacturing consent movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.94.227 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A friend loaned me the Manufacturing Consent video, and I just finished watching it yesterday. (It is excellent, by the way. ) Chomsky does in fact say precisely what the previous entry says, namely that he travels all over the world for interviews, but rarely is there any coverage on mass media in the US. Aletheia (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Add category

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Add Category:Computer pioneers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.64 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-18T11:07:17

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Peacock verbiage

There is a lot of peacock verbiage in the article, calling Chomsky a "hero" and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Chomsky has not made the slightest discovery in genuine linguistics, such as the Bantu group, the Indo-European group or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.76 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The "hero" quote from "Linguistics Wars" is valid, but could possibly be moved into a "legacy" section. Chomsky is 80 years old now, so it's probably an appropriate time to begin discussing such things. CABlankenship (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retired or not?

The article currently reads as follows: "As of 2008, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 53 years."

Yet on MIT's homepage it says: "Professor Chomsky retired from the Linguistics Section as of January 15, 2002."

So, does he still teach at MIT or not? What's his current status at MIT? (I do believe he still holds an office there.)

--Kvaks (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He still teaches. If you check the course schedule on the Linguistic MIT page, it says he's co-teaching a graduate course next semester. Grunge6910 (talk)

Fish or fowl?

What does he consider to be his main occupation? Is he a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, Socratic gadfly, author, lecturer, professional intellectual, political pundit, national conscience? He might well be all of these, but does he consider himself to have one essential, characteristic occupation?Lestrade (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Subjective opinion

The following sentence in the first part of the article is a subjective opinion: First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. It reflects the particular zeal of the writer and possibly may not be descriptive of Chomsky. In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received . To stagger is to totter, reel, or lose balance. This adverb has no relationship to the adjective "smart." The sentence merely expresses the writer's enthusiasm.Lestrade (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I hadn't noticed that. In fact that second paragraph had alot of commentary on top of that sentence. I have removed it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That phrase you quoted is not used to describe his philosophical writings or political activism, but instead to describe his contributions to the field of linguistics. Noam Chomsky has literally revolutionized the field of linguistics. It’s no wonder why he’s been named the father of modern linguistics, and that fact has been acknowledged by numerous scholars throughout the years.

That particular opinion you're referring to, comes from a fellow and distinguished linguistics professor, and is intended to highlight the prominence of Chomsky within that field, which in the end is very relevant to the article itself. Likeminas (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of Chomsky's influence in the field of linguistics and indeed it should be made clear in this article that he is considered "the father of modern linguistics" by various scholars in the subject. The problem with this is that it is not presented as a quote by a fellow linguist but rather as fact and in doing so it gives off a feeling of WP:SYN i.e., a user using a published material in order to advance their own position. For instance the phrase "First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary" isn't in quotations. Is this part of the quote of the referenced linguist or is it the personal opinion of the person who wrote that part of the article? Regardless I don't object to the content, I object to the way it is presented. If you wish place it back but please do so by referencing the author of the quote in the text i.e, linguist Randy Harris says of Chomsky "...".--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One can take or leave Chomsky's politics, but his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky. John Maynard Smith, one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century. Considering all of the hatred and lies out there about this man's work, I feel that the quote should remain.CABlankenship (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to use the blockquote tag?

Perhaps, I’m not following Wikipedia’s standard etiquette, but I thought that in order to quote some one, these “ ” would suffice.

In any case, the text being removed is the following (and please take a look at the reference)

Within that field, he has been described as "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will."

As I said before, the commentary done by another linguist is primarily used to describe Chomsky’s great influence on the field of linguistics and it’s completely unrelated to his “controversial” or "not well received" views, as the other user argues.

I don’t see nor I understand why it’s being removed.

Likeminas (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to mention specific contributions that Chomsky has made to the field of linguistics. It is another thing to make a broad, general statement about his entire inner mental constitution by using the gushing phrase "staggeringly smart."Lestrade (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

If I’m not mistaken your initial argument claimed that “In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received.” Obviously that was a straw man, since the quote in question was in the context of his contributions to the field of linguistics and, again, not about his philosophical or political views.

Now, I see a shift in language in order to keep that commentary out in the shadows. The question now seems to be; is it appropriate for a linguist scholar to praise the father of modern linguistics in a manner that to some might come across as too enthusiastic? I personally don't think so.

Given that the man is the most cited person alive and is up there with Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato and Freud seems to me like his linguist colleague is not really exaggerating a bit about his this man's smartness.

The prominence and intellectual stature of Chomksy deserve a mention like the one given by that professor. Omitting it simply amounts to blatant disregard of those facts.

Likeminas (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Seems to me" that anyone "up there" with Marx and Lenin (ignoring the events of 1985–1991) is "staggeringly smart." No exaggeration!Lestrade (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I assume that's intended to be in a political way, just like your initial argument.

I personally don't care a tiny little bit whether you dislike Lenin or Marx, nor I think it is of any relevance to the issue at hand. I pointed out that he's the most cited scholar alive, and his works are comparably referenced as much as works like the bible or people such as Karl Marx only to put into perspective the magnitude of prominence. Nonetheless, it's rather interesting and honestly quite amusing to see your previous comments attacking him as a public figure.

It's now clear to me, that you have a personal bias toward this man, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions but no to your facts, and certainly you can't change the fact that he's a prominent figure in the intellectual world, much less you could within the field of Linguistics.

I will be re-adding the quotation that was deleted with its appropriate reference as I extensivley stated the reasons why it's relevant to the article. If you have any other arguments objecting the addition of that quote besides the recurrent ad hominem, straw man or red herrings please, post them here.

Likeminas (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)