Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Justified

Hello @Silver163: Although this[1] was not vandalism it was incorrect and without edit summary. By implication it does mischaracterise your edit[2] as vandalism. @AlsoWukai and @Lectonar: What is wrong with Silver163's correction? Indeed the source is clear that this is correct. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This came up during peer review for the article, actually, and was included subsequently in the article in the version which includes "...only one justified war...". This is only sourced to the interview, and as I understand it, after re-reading the interview, he does see World War II as somewhat justified. But just changing it to "no justified war", as Silver163 did, isn't correct either. Lectonar (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I don't know how I misread while talking about misreading. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it say "Children 3, including Aviva"?

The wording on the sidebar feels a bit confusing.

It says "Children: 3, including Aviva".

This got me super confused. What is Aviva? Is it like some kind of super intelligent AI that Chomsky built? That it may or may not be able to be considered "human"? So it is a "children" of Chomsky?

But yeah... seems like Aviva is a really normal human being...

Not sure if we should reword this part a bit? AkiraChisaka (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Aviva is a bluelink, so here she is: Aviva Chomsky. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that.

Anyway, is this the common way it works for every page about a person? "Including Alice" means Alice is a notable person? AkiraChisaka (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Best practice is that we do not include the names of children in biographies, unless the child is notable, as is the case here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello @Czar: This primary sources should only be used to fill in the necessary cracks where secondary sources don't go[3] is not correct. WP:PRIMARY sources are routinely used when they are the subject's description of the subject's positions. Additionally this is a crack – Chomsky's opinion that mass education is a form of propaganda is not covered by other text in the article.

I unlinked the link that I because MOS:SEAOFBLUE and because it is unnecessary next to a link which links to that. The person's article links to the group he belongs to. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In a biography about arguably the most cited living scholar, we have a world of secondary source analysis available to us. We should only be resorting to primary sources as a last resort, as the guideline recommends. There are plenty of academic sources you can cite on his education views if the points are noteworthy. And two links next to each other are not a "sea of blue". czar 07:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly matter in linguistics. This is a political opinion. In any case I see no reason why WP:V isn't sufficient.

And two links next to each other are not a "sea of blue". That is precisely what MOS:SEAOFBLUE is. When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue"), Invasive Spices (talk)

This isn't some random person with a paucity of sources. He's the most cited person alive. With this much content, the bar for inclusion is much higher than having said something once. If it's important, there should be plenty of secondary sources on the subject.

Again, I'm more than familiar with the guidelines, and two links in a row, even per the linked example is not a "sea of blue". It is more confusing for a reader to not know what a "Black Panther" means than to potentially think there was a person named "Black Panther Fred Hampton". czar 02:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue with Dates RE: Chomsky's Second Wife

For some reason, this page currently claims (in the fact box on the top-right) that BOTH of Chomsky's wives died in 2008. This is despite the fact that his second wife, Valeria A) is currently alive and B) didn't even marry him until 2014, so it'd be pretty weird if he married her six years after her own death. I can't seem to find any error in the actual page code when I go to edit it... but it's consistently there on the page. Anyone know where this is coming in from? What am I missing? Bishop2 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bishop2, not sure where you're seeing that but it reads to me as "Carol Doris Schatz (m. 1949; died 2008) Valeria Wasserman (m. 2014)" which is our standard notation. Wasserman is not marked as dead there. By the way you can sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). czar 04:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Student George Lakoff

George Lakoff's PhD thesis was advised not by Chomsky but by Fred Householder. As such, I'm removing Lakoff from the list of Doctoral students. Thatsme314 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Lakoff attended MIT as an undergrad but otherwise agreed that he doesn't belong listed there. "... as an Indiana student [I] was not really even considered a member of the MIT Linguistics community. My only claim to legitimacy was the fact that I had taken some linguistics courses there as an undergraduate."

Huck, Geoffrey J.; Goldsmith, John A., eds. (1995). "George Lakoff in conversation with John Goldsmith". Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. Routledge. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-415-11735-7.

czar 21:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

[4] Wikipedia avoids creating general "criticism" sections, especially for BLPs, as they become catch-alls for random opinions without any semblance of due weight. If there is something that needs to be said about critical response to his positions, it should be covered in context of the related section of the existing article (i.e., the sections on his political stances or his impact). czar 17:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky's Denial of the Bosnian Genocide

May I ask Wikipedia doesn't at least mention his denial of the Bosnian genocide? It mentions his other controversial options and beliefs of rumored anti Semitic talk and protests against continuing US Imperialism but doesn't mention his blatant changing of context and utter denial of the Bosnian Genocide.

Link to Video of loads of evidence by Kraut- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcX_xTLDIY&ab_channel=Kraut TreySutt22 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources about this. nableezy - 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

most of my sources are mentioned/ in the comments of the video i posted the link to. Even though its not my work, Kraut has put the research into one comprehensive and connecting video TreySutt22 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Kraut the Parrot doesnt really seem like a source we need to consider here, if you have third party secondary reliable sources please provide them. Academic sources would be best. Thanks, nableezy - 20:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Im begining a school/ college project related to thise subject. May I ask why Kraut the parrot isnt considered a good source? Many of his videos point out both sides in an argument and usually is political in nature but tries to remain unbiased TreySutt22 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@TreySutt22, Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains in full what Wikipedia considers reliable and why. In general, reliability is a function of the publisher's rigor: whether they fact-check, have a reputation for accuracy, employ experts with a pedigree, etc. Some of the links in Kraut's video fit this description but then the question becomes what to include and why. For why this article does not cover Chomsky's views on specific political regimes, see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. czar 03:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-11-24/ty-article-opinion/the-wests-leftist-male-intellectuals-who-traffic-in-genocide-denial/0000017f-f346-d8a1-a5ff-f3cec4320000 109.183.219.157 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia does acknowledge it, just not (currently) in this article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide_denial#:~:text=Noam%20Chomsky%20drew%20criticism%20for,existence%20of%20Bosnian%20concentration%20camps. I hope that might provide you with some help in sourcing the matter to Wikipedia's standards. Be under no illusion that this article is under heavy watch by Chomsky-stanning gatekeepers who'll use any procedural trick at their disposal to stifle criticism that doesn't tick every box they can dream up. Such is Wikipedia. Lordrosemount (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky drew criticism for not calling the Bosnian War's Srebrenica massacre a "genocide". While he did not deny the fact of the massacre, which he called "a horror story and major crime", he felt the massacre did not meet the definition of genocide.
— Noam Chomsky#In politics

It's been in this article for quite some time and discussed multiple times, but nice try. czar 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Czar: Just commenting here because one of the issues I raised in the peer review was that I felt this paragraph was overly defensive of Chomsky. It reads as giving undue weight to Chomsky's own defence of his views, without elaborating on any of the criticisms. That it lends greater relevance to Chomsky's own responses, essentially implying a conclusion that he is correct by ending the discussion with his defence, makes me question its neutral point of view to be honest. (Also, I'd like to point out that this is supposed to be in a "Reception and influence" section, yet more weight is given to his own views than how those views were received)

The above discussion mentioned a youtube video criticising Chomsky on this, but no reliable scholarly sources, so I thought I'd provide one: "Chomsky and Genocide" by Adam Jones for the Genocide Studies and Prevention journal. Specifically in relation to Chomsky's views on the definition of genocide in regards to the Srebrenica massacre, Jones had this to say:

A number of insights can be gleaned from this exchange. The first is Chomsky’s obvious hesitation and skepticism with regard to the “genocide” label – not least because of its vagueness and imprecision (“It has whatever meaning you decide to give it”), as well as its politicization, a subject I explore in detail later. [...]
Notable as well in the passage is Chomsky’s distinction between “genocide” and “mass killing,” with East Timor and Bosnia cited as examples of the latter. What distinguishes them, apparently, is the quantitative scale and totalizing exterminatory character of the genocidal enterprise. Chomsky’s framing is thus in line with the “hardest,” meaning most restrictive and exclusionary, of genocide definitions in the existing scholarship. [...]
In addition to meshing with more limited and exclusionary framings of “genocide,” Chomsky’s totalizing emphasis is at odds with the definition advanced in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with its well-known but imprecise phrasing of “destruction ... in whole or in part.”

This is only one part of the journal article, which is a rather broad look at Chomsky's history of commentary on genocides and mass killings, but one I think demonstrates the problem of the existing section in the Wiki article.

However one wishes to approach this, whether in this or the Political positions of Noam Chomsky article, I do think it needs to be dealt with. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That source was mentioned last year and it's a good one. I think we should cover his views more broadly in the section on his political beliefs and then can potentially cover more of the reaction in the Legacy section but ultimately this article is meant to be an overview, so we're not trying to go into depth into any one "side" of the many rifts mentioned throughout the article. czar 05:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Association with Jeffrey Epstein

@DFlhb Why do you think its not WP:DUE? [5] Softlemonades (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say that I don't have an opinion on inclusion vs. exclusion of this yet, but WP:ONUS is to seek inclusion, not exclusion, especially for such a guilt-by-association situation like this on a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See my edit summary.

It's not relevant to his biography. To illustrate, Bill Gates's association with Epstein received enduring and therefore noteworthy coverage (it led to Gates' divorce), which makes it due in Gates's BLP. Chomsky's ties, as described by WSJ, are minor at best. There are tons of things to say about Chomsky which we don't have the space to include, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:VNOT). Yet this section fails to establish its own relevance: "so what?" if Epstein flew him to meet with Ehud Barak on a plane, or helped him with a money transfer? Is it significant? Were they deeply connected? Was he accused of having sex with one of Epstein's victims? No.

The Guardian covered this in one WP:RSBREAKING report (link). In a later report, they only mention Chomsky's response, not his alleged ties. They don't present this as a noteworthy story about Chomsky, but as an attempt by Epstein to "rebuild his reputation", with Chomsky and others merely a side note. They find it more noteworthy to dedicate three paragraphs to an interviewee stating that Chomsky and others were being "used" by Epstein, and that the WSJ's report was an attempt to discredit left-wing and intelligence community figures. This is WP:NOTNEWS cruft. DFlhb (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the longer explanation. But telling me to see the edit summary Im asking you to explain and that I linked to doesnt help. But the longer explanation did. Thanks! Softlemonades (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I linked that for the benefit of any uninvolved editors coming across this, who might want a TLDR :) Hadn't noticed you'd linked it. DFlhb (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Spectator here. Given that there has been coverage of his connection ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ) on The Guardian and other outlets besides the WSJ, it is likely worth mentioning, though IMO perhaps not worthy of an entire section. GuardianH (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Already linked to the Guardian above. So far, every source is primary except the Guardian's second article, which treats the allegations as irrelevant. Even one sentence would be disproportionate when considering all reliable sources about Chomsky. This overweighing of recent news is a chronic problem on Wikipedia, so please observe WP:ONUS; the whole section was a bold addition, not just Softlemonades' expansion. DFlhb (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I now agree with DFlhb. That Epstein and Chomsky had a connection does not at this time, based on what I see, appear all that important to Chomsky's biography. Tie Chomsky to the child prostitution ring and then that's a different conversation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

A financial connection to Epstein is massive and WP:NOTABLE by itself. The policy WP:BLP doesn't mean to remove everything in a biographical article that might make the person look bad, it means that in a biographical article everything "challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source". This criteria for BLP inclusion was fulfilled already, with inline citations to WP:RS. The variety of reliable sources linked above, several of which were already cited, also fulfill the general notability guideline with significant coverage. Wikipedia is not censored, there is no encyclopedic issue with the previous section. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thus far, the WP:ONUS argument seems to be completely tangential and unrelated, as WP:BLP makes no mention of WP:ONUS. There's no doubt that the information is verifiable. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As it says there at WP:V, "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Epstein was a financier, in addition to being a sex offender, and so people having a financial connection to Epstein is more WP:ROTM than anything, unless there's a sex offense connection. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If the financial connections are widely reported by reliable sources, making them WP:NOTABLE, then they are not "run of the mill". Also, would any random person at the time have wanted to, or been able to, "move money through Jeffrey Epstein"? I can't think of many things more bizarre or evidently notable than that. Does it mean anything beyond what it is, that's undetermined so far. Is the RS reporting enough to state this bizarre and mind blowing fact with attribution, yes. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE discusses whether a given topic warrants its own article, not whether an event should be included in an existing article. And we don't make articles for everything that gets "significant coverage". WP:ONUS is not "tangential", it says not all verifiable information must be included and there needs to be consensus to include somethings contentious in a WP:BLP. BLP does say that WP:V must be strictly adhered to: that includes ONUS. Why should we include Chomsky hiring Epstein to resolve his widow's estate? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You're reinstating something against WP:ONUS when I raised good-faith BLP objections: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject (emphasis mine). It is a misunderstanding of policy to say that something should be included because it's cited.

We don't have a variety of sources. We have the WSJ, whose claims are quoted with attribution and without analysis, hindsight or corroboration by other breaking news sources. The Guardian is the only one to provide analysis, and disputes it.

4channers on both /pol/ and Twitter have mentioned this Wikipedia article and criticized it for not mentioning Epstein.[6][7] That makes BLP all the more relevant, because Wikipedia shouldn't help 4chan smear its political opponents, though I'm not presuming you're in on that. DFlhb (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted again since these concerns are still not addressed, and this is a BLP. No objection against reinserting after consensus is gained. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a guilt-by-association edit, extending into a section indeed. Epstein ran a sex-racket and was a major financier, which means that a lot of the wealthiest people around would have availed themselves of his financial acumen, most I assume at the time completely unaware of the former side, which would be what makes any connection notable. I concur with DFlhb's sensible analysis. This is not noteworthy in the context of Chomsky's life (unless one thinks that people critical of the 'corruptions of empire' should be penniless, and not look after their assets). We all have to, esp. when estates have to be settled.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I still think it is DUE but there are poicy issues and consensus says no. No one should be adding it back now Softlemonades (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sensible. I just read all the sources, and realized that if we make the connection important for a wiki bio, we are going to establish a precedent for dozens of biographies from Martin Nowak, Henry Rosovsky, Lawrence Summers to Steven Pinker and on and on. Epstein knews everyone.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If we did that, it would makes more sense to have a list article like People associated with Jeffrey Epstein. But a discussion about that belongs on the Epstein talk page and not here and I do not know him or his case or all those people well enough so I give that problem to other people who are smarter about it. but I did know Chomsky from before when I saw that news Softlemonades (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Add {{American socialism}}?

Chomsky's name appears in the "people" section of that template. I suggest adding the WP:SIDEBAR template {{American socialism|expanded=people}}, just as it appears on Howard Zinn or {{American socialism navbox}} (although this article already has a navbox at the bottom). However, this article is a good article and Zinn's is not, so I'm not so bold as to do add the template without any discussion, especially since adding that sidebar might make the right side of the article too cluttered. Illuminati42 (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that template adding much value to the pages it's on. Chomsky is not known as an indelible figure in American Socialism. czar 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky on Russia

Gilbert Achcar, a major writer on the Arab Spring and critic of Russian military intervention in Syria AND Ukraine points out that although there are issues with Chomsky's framing of the Ukraine conflict, that in the Youtube interview itself the article tries to base itself on, Chomsky does support the US government's efforts to send weapons to the Ukranian Government to defend itself against Russia, and he never says that Russian intervention is "humane" (he in fact compares it to Hitler's/Stalin's invasion of Poland) just that the US War in Iraq has been worse (which I think is debatable depending on the factored considerations, but that's a different matter). The New Statesmen article referenced is not a reliable reference to Chomsky's views on the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

https://gilbert-achcar.net/on-chomskys-interview-on-ukraine

https://chomsky.info/20220301/

https://newpol.org/interview-on-the-war-in-ukraine-with-noam-chomsky/ Saphsin (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently citing the Intercept not the New Statesman and the description in our article with regard to Chomsky's view on the Russian nvasion seems correct. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here. For more detailed description of Chomsky's political views (and their critics) there is a separate article (see the section above this one).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion is simply false, it is the New Statesman article being cited. By the way, I have my own critique of Chomsky's views, this is simply about his views being wrongly described (see the articles I cited above)

When discussing the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Chomsky described Russia's aggression as "moderate" and "humane" in comparison to the American aggression in the Iraq War, and expressed his belief that the USA was helping Ukraine only to weaken Russia.[193]

[193]Vock, Ido (April 29, 2023). "Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq". The New Statesman. Retrieved July 23, 2023. 74.102.40.210 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't log in, the above subsequent comment was mine. The above commenter "Kmhkmh" could not even bother to check whether it was the New Statesmen rather than the Intercept in the main Chomsky Wikipedia Article. In fact, he did not even check the Political positions of Noam Chomsky Article, which also cites it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

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.[138]

Vock, Ido (April 29, 2023). "Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq". New Statesman. Retrieved May 1, 2023.

And it seems like this level of sloppiness seems to require me to cite from the links I provided:

https://gilbert-achcar.net/on-chomskys-interview-on-ukraine

"On 29 April, the New Stateman published an interview that its Europe correspondent Ido Vock did with Noam Chomsky. Reading the interview – starting from its title itself – I got the impression that the interviewer might have wanted to seize an opportunity to achieve a little sensation by setting a trap for Chomsky. In what follows, I will comment on the most significant excerpts from the interview – reproduced below in italics – to show how the sensation was performed. My comment is inserted under each quote in non-italicized text. Fortunately, a video recording of the actual interview has been posted online. It is much better than the use the NS made of it."

"Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq

The text of the interview clearly shows that this is not an assertion formulated by Chomsky himself but an opinion that the interviewer has literally put in his mouth. He addressed the question to Chomsky in that malicious way, as the video shows, and got him to agree, which Chomsky did by stressing that it is obvious. Chomsky’s intention was clearly to emphasize the viciousness of the US bombing of Iraq rather than to minimize the brutality of the Russian bombing of Ukraine. That the sentence got then turned into a title where it is presented as if it were a quote from Chomsky is plainly dishonest. On top of that, it does a disservice to the Ukrainian cause and renders a service to Russian Putinist propaganda for the sake of attracting attention by way of sensationalism."

"Three points here:

1. Chomsky actually makes clear his concern that the US has been blocking the path to a negotiated settlement while Ukraine is being “battered, devastated”. He was certainly not advocating the abandonment of the Ukrainians to a cruel fate.

2. The assertion by the interviewer that “negotiations with Russia would mean de facto abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the whims of an aggressor” is a non sequitur: negotiations do not in any way imply that the Ukrainians would abandon the fight or that NATO should cease supporting the fighters. The Vietnamese held negotiations with the US during five years while continuing to fight with Soviet and Chinese support. Chomsky’s statement in the actual videoed interview that it is “reasonable to provide weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against aggression” has not been reproduced in the written piece – one is entitled to infer that this was because it provided a corrective to the impression that the interviewer wanted to convey about Chomsky."

3. It is hardly disputable that for the US, Ukraine’s war against the Russian invasion is a “bargain”. In other words, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a boon for the US: its effect on Russia’s actual military capability and “credibility” as well as on Europe’s allegiance to Washington is tremendous.

https://chomsky.info/20220301/

Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.

https://newpol.org/interview-on-the-war-in-ukraine-with-noam-chomsky/

SRS: There are some (like Code Pink or DSA’s International Committee) who argue that the peace movement should oppose weapons deliveries to Ukraine by the U.S. government because the provision of weapons undermines diplomacy. Others say that Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself in order to negotiate an acceptable end to the war (such as the terms that Ukrainian president Zelensky put forward at the war’s beginning) and maintain that denying Ukraine weapons amounts to forcing it to capitulate. What is your view?

NC: Personally, I don’t accept either of the positions you formulate. Ukraine should receive weapons for self-defense — though this seems to me to have little to do with negotiating an acceptable end to the war, including Zelensky’s proposals. I should add on the side that I’m quite surprised at how few seem to agree with providing military aid: a mere 40% in the US-Europe. Saphsin (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok here is the reason for the confusion, apparently the Ukraine war/Russia is described twice in different sections and in rather different manners:

• "In March 2022, Chomsky called the Russian invasion of Ukraine a "major war crime", ranking alongside the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the German–Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939.[144]" (source: The Intercept, section Noam_Chomsky#Retirement)
• "When discussing the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Chomsky described Russia's aggression as "moderate" and "humane" in comparison to the American aggression in the Iraq War, and expressed his belief that the USA was helping Ukraine only to weaken Russia.[193]" (source: The New Statesmanm, section Noam_Chomsky#United_States_foreign_policy)

I'd agree that the second description is problematic. Unfortunately due the fact that Chomsky is rather famous and polarising figure, you can expect some/many description of his positions in the media to be biased and not particularly accurate. And in many different interviews on the Ukrainer war Chomsky may have provided answers with a different focus/emphasis, which might tempt people to cherry-pick rather than providing an overall apropriate summary. As far as this article here is concerned, I'm fine with removing the New Statesman and relying on the Intercept only for his position on the Ukraine war. But in any case a more nuanced and detailed description on his views on the Ukraine war is undue in his biography and belongs instead in Political positions of Noam Chomsky.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see why Chomsky's opinion on the Ukraine war is germane to his general biography. Cover it in the article on his political positions. czar 09:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't realize the Intercept article was also quoted because it was not in the political views section of the Main Chomsky article. But yeah I agree with everything you wrote, especially "And in many different interviews on the Ukrainer war Chomsky may have provided answers with a different focus/emphasis" That's also why I tend to think multiple articles should be cited for representation of positions, I think the NewPol interview I cited is also good. The New Statesman article is not good though. Saphsin (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky's appeasement towards Russia in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

I've read some comments Chomsky made about the war in Ukraine, and I find them interesting in the fact that it seems Chomsky is more interesting in criticizing the US and NATO over the war in Ukraine rather than Russia herself. He also claims that one of the main reasons for the war is NATO expansion. I think we should have a section where we have more of his opinions regarding this war. There are several articles with his opinions on the matter online, so sources is not an issue. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:89:126A:8AD4:1463 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless sources contend it to be a critical aspect of his life, per the FAQ above, the best place to cover it is Political positions of Noam Chomsky. czar 08:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky has history of these kinds of takes. Consider, for instance, his denial of the Bosnian genocide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcX_xTLDIY

As I understand it, he was rather reticent to walk back his denial of the Cambodian genocide, as well. There's quite a lot missing from the article that many people would consider important and interesting. 184.147.246.65 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Jesus..Shakespeare...Noam Chomsky?

What a ridiculous puff piece. Especially at the end where McGilvray is quoted to deflect from what is no doubt valid criticism by academics, claiming he's the victim of "distortion" and "straw men".

Chomsky has frequently made remarks about US foreign policy and the global economic system that are categorically false. Much of what he writes about politics is conspiracy theory asserted with no evidence, which is why academics in these fields tend not to take him seriously. But I see this article was written by his Youtube fan club. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are some exceptional claims to present without any reliable, secondary source backing. Please do share any such sources that the article is missing. czar 03:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas

I am shocked that Chomsky's long-term support of Hamas (and accompanying virulent antisemitism) is not even mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's been white-washed in recent days, but this is one of his most (if not the most) outspoken politcal views. He testified to the UN on the subject, and his views are even referenced on the wiki Hamas page. The genocidal repercussions (including infanticide by beheading) of his world views certainly now warrant at least a sentence? Gnyc18 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ above. czar 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Which in particular? That the article doesn’t cover all of his views? This is his most noteworthy cause. You can’t possibly be asking me for a reference. He’s been spewing the same hate for decades. Gnyc18 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has been stable for a long time. Chomsky is not mentioned on the Hamas page. If Hamas is his "most noteworthy" cause, then surely you can bring a reliable, secondary source germane to his general biography that says so explicitly. On Wikipedia, we discuss sources and there's nothing to do here until there are sources to discuss. czar 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is becoming a bit surreal. A statement that Mr. Chomsky has been a long-term supporter of Hamas is not in the least bit controversial. In fact, he seems to have always been a proud supporter and would take no issue with this addition. However, I will assume that you are just not knowledgeable in the subject (as opposed to advocating or working for Chomsky (or even worse)) and will play your game. Here are three such reliable, secondary sources, including a video of Chomsky himself!

“A Hideous Atrocity”: Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and U.S. Support for the Occupation

Noam Chomsky with Amy Goodman and Juan González Democracy Now!, Part I, Part II, August 7, 2014

Chomsky in his own words in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssIBGppyTlY

Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

Finally, as far as the reference on the Hamas page, I suggest you learn to use the search function and see Footnote 261.

I can understand why shills for Chomsky wouldn't even want the mere statement entered into the encomium, but it should be added and let the reader decide. Gnyc18 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The very fact that other editors disagree with your assessment of Chomsky's views is sufficient to establish that this is controversial, and the insistence that you provide reliable sources is a basic requirement of Wikipedia editing. And none of the sources you cite above establishes (nor even, as far as I can see, claims) that Chomsky is "a long-term supporter of Hamas". I challenge you to find even one sentence in all of these sources that states this. In fact, while recognising that Hamas is an elected government and a representative of the Palestinian people, with which Israel is obliged to negotiate, Chomsky is actually a critic of Hamas, as some of these texts show. The claim that you want to add will not be included without much stronger evidence than you have so far offered. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your answer is completely intellectually dishonest.

Wikipedia’s credibility has taken a terrible hit by your collective decision not to write a simple sentence indicating his historic support through the decades (hence “long-term”). In the several occasions of violence between Hamas and Israel he has consistently appeared in the record to fully condemn Israel without reservation. I would venture to say he is even proud of this position.

I suggest you also watch his address to the UN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoC7sRNkrlI

That said, I am not surprised that he/you would be humiliated by his position. I guess it was all well and good until his guys started chopping off babies’ heads.

Gary Curwin

NYC Gnyc18 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

His opinions of Israel regarding Palestine, Gaza has been documented in this and other articles. In fact, "Gaza in Crisis" (referenced in your earlier reply) has its own article already.

Meanwhile, this alleged support of Hamas has not been sourced satisfactorily. The youtube video you've posted demonstrates no such support, merely descriptions of a situation, and some criticisms. It should be noted that criticism of one side of a conflict is not the same as "long-term support" for a perceived representative of the other side. Reil (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pure double talk. Whatever. I pity your lack of moral objectivity. 138.20.184.11 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your position is akin to asserting that O.J. Simpson’s defense team didn’t “support” him. They just defended him and tried to contradict every accusation against him. 138.20.184.11 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I could easily find that O.J. Simpson's defense team defended him. It would be a much higher barrier to say they personally supported him outside of their professional duty.

If you had any objectivity yourself, you (or @Gnyc18, in case you are not the same person) would be able to produce a source of displaying actual support, like "This group is legitimate" or "I fund this group", not "I dislike some of the actions of this other group in opposition to them." Reil (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve clearly hit a defensive nerve for those who choose to defend the amoral human being. 138.20.184.1 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And it is the same person.

I chose to put my name on one of my posts as I have nothing to hide; as opposed to “editors” who have locked his entry 138.20.184.1 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge/Bosnian Genocide

Why is there zero mention of his genocide denial on this page? 2600:8805:D21A:F200:7C5B:3735:3600:1923 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate article regarding the subject's political positions. It's got a pretty extensive section about Cambodia.

Similarly, the Bosnian genocide denial page already has a full paragraph dedicated to the subject's position here. There's an argument to be made for adding an excerpt from that page to the aforementioned political positions page before anyone bothers filtering it up to the more biographical page. See FAQ at the top. Reil (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

zero mention

Both genocides (Cambodian and Bosnian) are already mentioned in the article, in two different sections. czar 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)