Talk:Political positions of Noam Chomsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leftist hagiography[edit]

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

"Worldwide audience" section[edit]

Radiohead are mentioned in this section: would fix, but article is locked. Says, "Radiohead has recommended Chomsky's works on their various websites and Thom Yorke in particular is an admirer..." - however, this should read, "Radiohead have recommended Chomsky's works on their various websites and Thom Yorke in particular is an admirer..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement

Views on Russia contain debunked fake-quote[edit]

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

With:

Explanation:

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

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

Using a single source from media - and a strongly missleading article at that - is not enough to justify as substantiating Chomskys view on mayor issues. --Micge (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Your 'with' is empty please fill it out and reopen the request. Thanks Lightoil (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update[edit]

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