Talk:Noam Chomsky

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 [5].
• 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 [6]; 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)

Not complaining but - what about the Faurisson affair. It was one of the more idiotic sections in all of wikidom but there are those who loved it at least for the laughs. What happened - the real reason, lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, someone high up the food chain dropped the hammer, etc? How is it done - for future reference? 159.105.81.48 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)I couldn't find it at first - please link from this article to the good stuff, please

URL "chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website"

The link "chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website" points to an automatically generated website containing "Sponsored listings", that means automatically selected advertising. At the first page you see texts relevant to Chomsky, but when you click on them, you will get to "Free Downloadable Movies", "Hotel Reviews" et cetera. This is fake site, please remove it. (I could't, because the page is locked.) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.87.88 (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be a local problem. Check your dns or your typography. chomsky.info is a well-designed site, a repository of Chomsky's works. It comes on top of google search. Check it with mcafee site advisor. It's cool with WOT too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.184.170 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a local problem. Last week I too found that the link went to a cyber-squatting spam site, so I removed it. The genuine Chomsky site has been restored to this url, so I have reinserted the link. RolandR (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

November interview in Tablet online magazine

Hopefully of interest.

Tablet - David Samuels - Q&A: Noam Chomsky, 12 November 2010: The world’s most important leftist intellectual talks about his Zionist childhood and his time with Hezbollah.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What languages can Noam Chomsky speak?

It's probably a naive question, but speaking of Anglocentrism, what languages can Noam Chomsky himself speak? Or, more broadly, what languages does he 'know'? I've been told he learnt a bit of Hebrew as a boy, but apart from that, zilch. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.31 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'coca cola' intellectual

Serbian philosopher Ljubodrag_Simonović said that Chomsky is dishonest and pretends to object imperialistic U.S. foreign policies while in the same time advocating things that support such imperialistic policies (he gives specific example of Kosovo). [7] 89.216.196.129 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You Tube is not a reliable source, and a professional basketball player is not a philosopher. RolandR (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

he has Masters in Law, a PhD in Philosophy[8]. being successful in one thing (best basketball player in Europe at the time) doesn't preclude one from excelling in other things as well. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)