Talk:Noam Chomsky

Possible additions and corrections Discussion please

Apparently he has assets worth 2 million dollars. I've heard people say that "he has 2 mill yet he has guts to call himself a socialist". That's from uncyclopedia, actually. Should this fact be researched and included? Because the article on Ralph Nader has such details. Am not trying to slander, just saying that a fact like this would play a role in forming an opinion of him.

He has said in an interview that "science simplifies everything and is totally inadequate for human affairs." Should the fact be included under " Opinion on cultural criticism of science"? http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm)

I further think several other stuff in this article are, for the want of a better word, half-truths. I got the Chomsky bug last year, and read a coupla political works. I would feel obliged if somebody joined me in some discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the net worth is irrelevant to the main article, as including it would treat him as a public figure in a way he is not. The criticism based on this claim is already here.

You can go ahead and add the view of science, although I have been debating with myself whether that section should be here at all.

As for the half truths… what are you referring to? Allformweek (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't substantiate the half-truth comment, but i just "felt" somethings were not right. I'll point out in due time.

Why hasn't the controversy on his views about the srebrenica massacres not mentioned? Also his views on the recent supreme court ruling on campaign finance? Geez, this article needs an update. I'm going to reread chomsky.info and add some stuff in the following days. Any stuff on this guy needs a "Featured" quality. Iceman87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Rather than zeroing in on Srebenica, why not the whole Yugoslav war, particularly the NATO bombings (which is what he has most written about). On the other hand, I don't feel a great compulsion myself to add content based on every event he's comment on... Surely his policy analysis, since it's consistent and deep, is what's most significant, rather than any one of the examples on which he brings it to bear... Pinkville (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, i changed my mind on Srebrenica too, that's why you don't see an edit. I hold that his views on the Supreme court are important; they are a commentary on judiciary, democratic processes, legalism etc. But one line is too thin. I'm trying to pull some more stuff he might have said on those topics.Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So what can we do to improve the quality of this article? It currently has a b- right? Does the reader get a snapshot of what he wants to know about Chomsky's political opinions? What about the stuff on kibbutz, for example? Is that so relevant? Instead of having quotes in the middle of articles, we have articles amidst quotes. I propose to trim some. (Not an easy job, this guy never wastes words, yet manages to talk at length). Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between editing and vandalism? If I chop off a section, like the stuff on kibbutz, for example, how will it be viewed? Iceman87 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'm just repeating the stuff under Milestones. Sorry. Didn't check.Iceman87 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." 173.76.221.237 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the families lived in a Cubist neighborhood.67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.151.136 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Naom Chomsky is an american, born in Philadelphia, USA to Eastern European jewish immigrants. So why is his name spelled in Hebrew in the article?? I think it should be deleted. --188.177.17.223 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed it - it seems irrelevant, non-standard (other such BLP names aren't so rendered), as well as unsourced. AV3000 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the "view of science" section

I think this section either needs to be deleted or turned into a nice, neat summary of the Chomskian view of science. Allformweek (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be s shortened, and conglomerated into a different section or deleted.

he makes grandiose statments about scientific philosphy that are not consistent with the goals, methods, and successes in the PHYSICAL sciences (which includes mathematics, engineering, and medicine among the other obvious disciplines).

He fails to make the necessary distinctions, which are obvious even from a non scientist's perspective (I am a chemist). This failure to recognizes such obvious and basic differences is pretty naive.

I wonder if those quotes were taken out of context (I know that discussions of science vs social science may sound like a fine distinction, but it is not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the quotes are pretty much totally out of context. I am curious though what grandiose statements you think he makes and necessary distinctions you think he misses. Allformweek (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

you are welcome to check the references. that was a pretty complete interview. Iceman87 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any idea why this section even exists. Chomsky's views on science are essentially compatible with any thinking person (which includes myself) and his comments on it merely scratch the surface of the philosophy of science. I don't think its because he's shallow or doesn't have a deeply considered position on it, but rather than he just hasn't bothered to articulate much on the subject. When he is quoted on the issue he's usually doing so to correct some serious misconception of some questioner whose understanding of science (or Chomsky's position on it) is weak or incorrect. I mean because his comments have been relatively light on the issue, I think it is comparable to a section on the kinds of sweaters he wears. Qed (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. DocteurCosmos (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty poor. If this material was to stay, it'd need a lot of explication, material from his debate with Focault, etc. As it stands it's terrible, as poststructuralism isn't science, and largely, if not wholly, dedicated to the investigation of "complicated problems like human affairs" Ross.Brighton (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Family

Does he have any children? Grandchildren? How come the article doesn't say anything about that? 70.116.76.173 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article states clearly "The couple had two daughters, Aviva (b. 1957) and Diane (b. 1960), and a son, Harry (b. 1967).". If you want to add any more relevant and reliably sourced information, feel free to do so. RolandR (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Religon

Noam chomsky stated repeatedly that he is a secular atheist [http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Noam_Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.148.49 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Find a citation and you're set. Allformweek (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How's this? http://www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/2007/05/27/show-219-noam-chomsky-chomsky-on-humanism/ "... The problem with me (Chomsky) is that the only '..ism' that I believe in is truism" (so he doesn't subscribe to deism; and weak atheism, of course, is not an "ism") and regarding other people who have religion: "I don't have it, and I think in the long run it's destructive". Both quotes are in the first 10 minutes. Qed (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics: non-NPOV

The article is completely devoid of contradictory research from many of his colleagues in the last few years. I've just written the following to the editor, "John," who deleted my attempt to add a citation from a Stanford Univ professor, which summarizes these criticisms from herself and many of her colleagues -- important criticisms since they are empirically-based challenges to one of Dr. Chomsky's most crucial theories:

Why are you undoing an edit --that was approved of by Snowded, who has a barnstar for balancing POV's-- and your only reason given for undoing it was, "not how we do things"?

Sure, Noam Chomsky is a father of linguistics, but today, decades later, many linguists are finding fault in one of his primary theories (UnivGrammar). I'm not sure how "we" (who are you speaking for?) do "things" or what you meant by such a vague & pithy statement, but:

• Verifiable and reliable info from a prominent Stanford U professor, which also is relevant to the content of that paragraph, is what you are deleting (not modifying, but wholesale deleting). Deleting info from a section where it is relevant, when the info also meets WP:Core_content_policies, without moving the content to the Talk page, nor even using the "edit summary" to give _any_ reason(s) which are related to WP content policies as an explanation for _why_ you're deleting it, is that how "things" on Wikipedia should be done? As an admin, shouldn't you especially be expected to know that WP policies say that's not proper (e.g. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages"...i.e. I had already given a briefer summary of my reasoning, now you're supposed to explain your reasoning (if you have anything that's supported by the WP staff's core content guidelines, etc.), instead of bitingly snickering at me with a "reason" of only: "not how we do things". I would have expected to see "see talk page" (in the edit History page) when you undid my edit, because when I added that info, I gave perfectly good [and much briefer LOL] explanations, for why I made that edit; if you're editing in good faith, you'll finally maybe someday be kind enough to explain your own, contrary reasons, esp if you have any reasons in WP's content policies as support? ).
• Striking Prof. Boroditsky's info from the paragraph which summarizes Chomsky's UG theory appears to violate the neutral POV policy by not giving equal prominence to two equally-scholarly camps who disagree with each other; this is not some fringe group criticizing Chomsky's UG theory, many in the scientific community find fault with it. In study after study, scientists are reporting that they've found empirical evidence which disputes Chomsky's UG theory (I can cite even more studies by researchers who weren't noted by Prof. Boroditsky, but her article which I tried to cite in Wikipedia gives a good summary of her colleagues' studies, and describes the issue in plain English -- and plain English is what's most useful to most encyclopedia readers [i.e. non-linguists, laymen] who can click on the footnote if they want to look further into Prof. Boroditsky's synopsis of her colleagues' research).
• We also have: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." The criticisms section for Chomsky creates a "new article" and doesn't even mention that criticisms (of his theories in liguistics) even exist: "Main article: Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Much Chomsky criticism revolves around his political views. His status as an intellectual figure within the left wing of American politics has resulted in much criticism from the left and the right." Only politics, no linguistics. This is the epitome of a "POV fork"; see also [3].
• as a scientist, when I see a statement as strong as calling someone a "father" of any major field of research, and I have credible info showing that today's experts are pointing out that their "father's" research is not quite as widely accepted today as it was decades ago when he first published it, I realize that for encyclopedia readers --most of whom probably don't keep up with the latest scientific journals-- such a strong statement (which seems geared to give him god-like or fatherly status amongst linguists) can mislead laymen unless it is tempered and balanced by quoting today's expert linguists...especially because a major theory like UG is a big part of how he became a "father" of linguistics. This gives the reader 3 benefits which make the Noam Chomsky article more informative: (1) the "whole truth" about the status of UG theory amongst the research community rather than a one-sided argument, (2) a more balanced POV, (3) and a sense of how the scientific process works.

Readers of Wikipedia are being done a disservice if they're not told the full picture, i.e. the latest state of this major theory of linguistics which is also a major, major part of Chomsky's career! Many people might not read beyond the first few paragraphs and leave with an impression of, "Chomsky's work makes his UG theories so valid and great, they call him the 'father' of linguistics," so at least a brief snippet about the more recent studies that contradict Chomsky views on UG should be placed where such info is relevant: in the same or adjacent paragraph to where his UG theory & prominence in linguistics was initially discussed (and discussed glowingly in both those paragraphs, in a POV one-sided argument). This is copied to the Chomsky Talk page & John's Talk page; John, please reply to this on the Talk page if you still oppose my edit. 216.188.254.46 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a range of criticisms of Chomsky's theories of language. Deacon's Symbolic Species being one of the main ones. --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole linguistics section of this article is woefully inadequate, not really summarizing his influence and arguments. Devoting better research and sourcing to criticisms rather than the actual substance of his work seems counterproductive to the aims of this article. Also I'm moving the claims about him being better known qua anarchist back to the lede where it belongs; it's out of place in the generative grammar section. Grunge6910 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree its poorly written (and the anarchist bit should be in the lede). However including some of the criticism, which are starting to date his theory is not counter productive its a matter of balance. --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but we risk losing balance in the opposite direction by emphasizing the criticisms without emphasizing the merits. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree and his contribution is major. However some of the criticisms are key - Deacon for example. Improve the merits is the answer surely --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We have an extremely large article named Criticism of Noam Chomsky in case nobody had noticed. Critics of Noam Chomsky are handed more space than any other person on Wikipedia (even dead ones). There is less Criticism of Adolf Hitler than Chomsky. Wikispan (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "criticisms" section is large; so are the sections where his theories are detailed. The sections which describe his theories in glowing & positive terms, in all their glorious detail, remain on this page (in addition, these sections link to lengthy articles, each of which is dedicated to each topic of his work), whereas the criticisms of his theories, in all their equally-glorious detail, were removed.

That's not usually a good style per [4]; see also Wikipedia:content forking (POV fork: "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."). So, perhaps to shorten this article, the large sub-section that this article links to should be, basically, a webpage dedicated to "Chomsky's Linguistics work -- in detail," and within this article itself, sections that describe his linguistics work should contain brief synopses which are more suitable for laymen or those looking for the simplest of descriptions (whilst also giving a briefer, layman's summary of the contradictory research & other criticisms that exist), and then place the longer descriptions of his theories (along with the longer descriptions of the criticisms of those theories) on the webpages which are dedicated specifically to the more in-depth look at each theory, since these more in-depth webpages already exist?

216.188.254.46 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

The article tells us that:

Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including from the following:

whereupon there's a long and unsourced list. Somebody wants to add Peking to the list. The romanization is somewhat suspect, but that aside the claim is hardly less credible than what's already there.

Suggestion: Pull the entire list. If people wish to add honorary degrees and have a reliable source for it, they're welcome to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)