Talk:Noam Chomsky

Criticism

There surely must be some mention of (the very apposite) criticism of Chomsky and UG in general from the integrational linguistics perspective and particularly the work of Roy Harris. 197.168.195.167 (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section needs to be expanded. Now it's just these short 3 sentences:

"Chomsky has received criticism for both his political views and his work in linguistics. Although his linguistic theories are widely accepted, some, such as universal grammar, have attracted controversy. In the political arena, Chomsky's status as a key intellectual figure within the American left wing has also resulted in criticism and led to a number of notable controversies."

First thing is that it is stated that his linguistics work has been criticized and in the next sentence it is said that it is widely accepted after which it is again said that some aren't. It looks contradictory even if they don't exactly nullify each other and it's not necessary, nor helpful, to say the same thing twice. In short it's badly written.
Then a whole lot of questions: Who criticizes his linguistics? Which theories, besides universal grammar, have attracted controversy? Who criticizes his political views? Are those criticizers from the left or the right? (can be both of course). What are the controversies his political views have led to?
I think that's a good layout to start enlarging the criticism section.--Tomvasseur (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is getting a free ride from Wiki. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist97 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• In general, criticism sections are discouraged as unencyclopedic. Criticism should be worked into the text where it's appropriate. In Chomsky's case, though, it'd be particularly problematic to have a general criticism section, because he's high-profile in so many things -- lumping together reactions to his political views and his work in linguistics into one section makes no sense. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Years ago the article had a long and detailed criticism section, and I think this got moved to a separate "Criticism of" article at some point. My understanding is that this sort of section/article isn't considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Chomsky is not getting any more of a free ride than many other controversial figures. (To pick one at random, I notice that e.g. Murray Rothbard's article doesn't have a criticism section.) Cadr (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The section on Problems with Chomsky's view on language is terribly written. Many of the points are valid, but they are not presented in a manner compatible with Wikipedia's standards. The interrogative "ever try to imitate a bird" is not only irrelevant with regard to language complexity (ever try to imitate a howler monkey? or the sound of a cicada? or watch a bird try to imitate a human?), but is unscientific, confrontational, and should be reserved for tenth-grade speeches, not discussions of language theory. In addition, the charge that Chomsky's description of human language as being of a different type, rather than simply a different magnitude from animal communication constitutes racism is absurd. Not only would Chomsky clearly deny this, but it has nothing to do with how he has differentiated language: Chomsky's differentiations are based on his belief that there is an internal system, analogous to the visual system, which causes humans to develop language, which by his definitions comprise certain characteristics (recursivity, infinite creative scope, a common generative grammar) which are either absent in animal communication systems, or of a different nature or scope. If it is the view of the contributor that this view derives from racism rather than from objective criteria, that should be reserved for a book or essay, which, if peer reviewed and approved, may be cited as criticism in the page; however, asserting in an article about Noam Chomsky that he is a racist because he believes animal languages lack certain scientifically identifiable features present in human languages is absurd, insulting and unscientific, and does not belong on a Wikipedia page. Perhaps this section can be rewritten with the (legitimate) criticisms intact, but stripped of the ad hominem argumentation. If there are specific criticisms, accepted in the linguistic academic community, they should be objectively discussed in the section: it is not a place for someone (clearly highly educated) to post a rant about how Chomsky has, by creating a definition of language which self-consciously restricts itself to those features common to human languages, shown himself to be a racist, or has shown contempt for the forms of communication used by birds. This should be a discussion about whether the concept language should refer exclusively to human languages, or should be extended to include animal communication of sufficient complexity, of which human language is only a subset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.157.231 (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2011 (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). [3] 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[4]. 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)

his reply to Noam Chomsky was published in Politika 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did Chomsky support intervening in Kosovo? LamontCranston (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Chomsky never supported an intervention. To the contrary, he constantly condemned it (like he does with every justified intervention.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.70.102 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Lead is too long

The lead is too long. It's supposed to be 4 reasonably sized paragraphs. Does anyone else what to take a stab at trimming it down? Or should I have a go? FurrySings (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, FS! Scaleshombre (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected article

I find it odd that Noam Chomsky a person that has campaigned all his life to promote freedom of speech should have his article protected. If he found out about it he would properly disagree.78.146.28.151 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What does semi-protection have to do with freedom of speech? Rivertorch (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be a total battleground if opened, and probably ruthlessly spammed. Blant Bayneler (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea free speech is one thing, total chaos is another. --DanielCD (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in Intro

Could we change this sentence in the intro: "However, one ought not to forget that one of Chomsky's most influential pieces was "The Algebraic Theory of Context-Free Languages", by N. Chomsky and Schützenberger."? Encyclopedias ought not be in the position of having to "remind" readers of facts.

How about the more direct "One of Chomsky's most influential pieces was 'The Algebraic Theory of Context-Free Languages', by N. Chomsky and Schützenberger.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.39.254 (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I left the "however", since it appeared to connect that sentence with the previous one, and just removed "one ought not to forget that". Rivertorch (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Research

Does this guy have droves of researchers gathering facts for him? I'm astounded that, even with such a high IQ, that anyone can know and process so much information without help of some kind. His writings are dense with information and ideas varying from free markets to linguistics to the history of nations and organizations... how does he do it?

I know people like Limbaugh use researchers b/c he gabs for money, but does Chomsky? Or does he just read 24/7? --DanielCD (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing Link

I was all set to click on footnote #66 to see the link to the discussion of Hilary Putnam on Semantic Externalism but found that there is nothing there. It is listed in the debate section of this article and I know Chomsky and Putnam have known eachother since high school and that they were both critics of US involvement in Vietnam. They used to have very similar philosophies though Putnam (along with Saul Kripke) seems to have leveled a lot of Chomsky's philosophy-cum-linguistics so I was very excited to see an example of debate and was disappointed when I didn't find one. What the deally-yo? They are both giants and rock so hard!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.163 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New lead

I appreciate that the lead has been pared down, but I have some major concerns with it. It strangely emphasizes Chomsky's relevance to computer science, surely not one of the most significant aspects of his intellectual career. For one, he is not, contrary to the current lead, a practicing computer scientist nor has he ever been. Instead of emphasizing the aspects of Chomsky's approach to linguistics as the old lead did (though it perhaps lacked brevity), the new lead cherry-picks an appreciative and undescriptive quote from a computer scientist gushing about Chomsky's work. What we need is to get a good summary of Chomsky's linguistics, not this hodgepodge. Comments? Grunge6910 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd also like to see more about his political criticism. It's probably what he's most known for outside the academic community. InverseHypercube 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although I would definitely argue that his linguistic work is his main contribution to the world. He has had enormous impact on a number of scientific fields through this work. His political work has gotten him attention, but what kind of influence has it had on anyone? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that he is the most influential American left-wing political commentator alive, excluding maybe Michael Moore. His book has been promoted by Chavez, he has been denied entrance into Israel, his books banned at Guantanamo Bay, and has met with many world leaders. I don't see how you can say he hasn't had an influence in politics. InverseHypercube 06:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, being a linguist I may be biased to focus on his contributions in that field - but I don't think that his political work will be remembered 15 years after his death his linguistic work will be remebered 100 years after. It doesn't matter much - the article obviously need to cover both.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Academic achievements, awards and honors

In the Academic achievements, awards and honors section, it would be useful to note that his name features as an "easter egg" in the Xbox 360 game Left 4 Dead 2, Gnome Chomsky is a toy gnome won on a funfair game at Dark Carnival and an achievement can be unlocked by carrying him to the end of the level.

It would be nice to see this change applied soon.

Craig Brown.