Talk:Noam Chomsky

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

See also: Talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism, /Archive_1, /Archive_2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6

Dr. Fun cartoon about Noam Chomsky

One of the Dr. Fun cartoons is about Noam Chomsky: http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200304/df20030409.jpg . I tried to include a link to it, but User:HawkerTyphoon reverted it. He then left a note on my talk page accusing me of link-spamming to my own site. I'm not Dave Farley, so the accusation is certainly misplaced. The cartoon is certainly relevant enough to be included at the bottom of the article in the external links section, I think. Nsayer 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Why should anyone care about a vaguely amusing cartoon? Things aren't "relevant" in encyclopedic terms merely because they refer to the same subject! For my money, the cartoon is irrelevant. --Dannyno 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of other articles about Chomsky under "See Also"

These other articles about Chomsky should be highlighted at the end for people wanting to add more on those topics, or just want to read about them.

Picture of Chomsky & Castro

See Archive 6. Resume discussion here if you must. -- Pinktulip 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for reviving the issue, but since the picture has reappeared, I would like to know the rationale for including it. I have reread the earlier contributions (see Archive 6), but have not found any convincing argument as to why the picture is relevant for "Views on Socialism". My stand is that the picture is at best uninformative, and — given Wikipedia's purpose of being informative — ought not be included. PJ 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I expanded on the caption, for clarity. We can take the picture out or further expand with a Chomsky disclaimer or use it to assert that Chomsky is sometimes the victim of manipulation. Whatever. I'm easy. -- Pinktulip 21:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Although the caption does add clarity, I don't think it ought to settle the dispute. Further, I don't think that a disclaimer is the right way to go, since it might make the article appear amateurish. Rather, I am hoping that the disagreement can be settled by argumention. Personally, since I believe the "principle of simplicity" is a good basic rule, it ought to be up to those who favor the inclusion of the picture to present their case. In absence of a positive and sound argument, the picture ought to be discarded. My suggestion is therefore to set up a dead-line, and if no such argument has been presented by that given date, the picture ought to go. PJ 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously more informative than the BBC4 picture that just shows his face. If the section title bothers you, no one is stopping you from putting the picture in another section, or creating a new section, or modifying the sections. Tcsh 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For the following reason, I don't think the Castro-pic is more informative than the BBC4-pic: Whereas the BBC4-pic is at worst uninformative (at best, informative), the Castro-pic is at worst misleading (at best, uninformative). Furthermore, since I know of no appropriate section for the Castro-pic, I won't move it. To create a new section to suit the pic seems quite disingenuous, so I will not do this either. Removing the pic is only a short term solution, since it will most likely reappear. Thus, rather than a tug-of-war, I would like to see a discussion. An agreement may flow from a discussion, which can serve as a precedence to avoid future disputes. PJ 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even offered any arguments, i.e. why is it supposed to be misleading in your mind? Let me guess... That evil man Castro has raped your young sister and therefore you don't want him to be seen with a nice guy like Chomsky? Or, that evil man Chomsky has raped your young sister and therefore you don't want him to be seen with a nice guy like Castro?:) Chomsky had no problems with meeting Castro, so the personal opinions of people who want to censor the picture aren't significant for a Chomsky article. You also assert without giving anything that resembles an argument that this picture is uninformative at best. Others did find it to be informative it appears, e.g. the AP people who took it, and the Wikipedia people who included it in the first place. As long as the caption for the picture is accurate (the current one drifts to irrelevant stuff), there's nothing misleading about it as far as normal people are concerned, the demons inside your mind notwithstanding. End of story. Tcsh

Besides being crude you also have a bad memory, Tcsh. I have already argued for my position; and you should know since you partook in the discussion (see Archive 6). First of all, given the "principle of simplicity", the burden-of-proof lies with those who wish to include the pic. I have argued that the pic is uninformative since it fails to add to our understanding of Chomsky's view on Socialism. (Remember, Chomsky met Castro in the capacity of being a scholar.) When the pic actually does add to the readers perception of Chomsky's view on Socialism, it will most likely add confusion. Mind you, Castro a controversial political figure seen in the Western world as a nationalist and a dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro). The further fact that Castro is sometimes seen as a socialist may mislead the reader into believing that Chomsky share Castro's notorious political views. (Whether Chomsky did or did not have a problem with meeting Castro is completely irrelevant to the issue in question; so is whether the AP found the pic "informative" in their context, for their purpose. And whether the person who first added the pic was right is precisely the burning question.) PJ 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it to be misleading in the "views on socialism" section, as long as there's an accurate caption that mentions the type of conference that it was. If having it in this particular section bothers you (and you seem to be the only one), then stop being lazy and edit the sections of the article. Note that the picture was originally in another section, and someone moved it into this section and claimed that it's more appropriate in this section. Tcsh

Dear Tcsh, first of all, I would appreciate if you left out your silly ad hominem comments. Had I been lazy, then I would have simply removed the pic. Instead, I instigated a discussion in order to hear the opposition; because if you actually took the time to read the discussion in Archive 6 you would see that the majority of contributors agree with my position. Yes, the pic was originally under the section "Criticism of United States Government", which seems to me completely out-of-place. Further, even if you don't find the pic misleading, it may very well be; and until you have addressed the issue concerning the informative value of the pic, the pic cannot be justified. (Lastly, as I have already said, to create a new section merely to suit the pic seems quite disingenuous to me, and I will not endorse that.)PJ 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the picture itself, then that's your problem, because Chomsky didn't have a problem with the event. If you have a problem with the section being misleading in your opinion, as far as I'm aware of you're the only one who doesn't like it in this section, but you could edit the sections of the article if you wish. Wikipedia is editing-driven, so generally you won't get results by just using the talk page, e.g. in this case one of the right-wing loonies was so excited with this picture that he uploaded it twice without noticing, so your censorship crusade is hopeless on arrival, even if you did have arguments for it. I thought that I address your 'informative value' issue by saying that it's obviously more informative than the close-up picture on his face, unless you operate under some new bizarre meaning for the word informative. Tcsh

You should read the previous entries before you comment, Tcsh; explaining things over and over hampers the discussion. First, I do not have a problem with the picture per se (which I made clear in Archive 6). Second, a fast count shows that twice as many contributors believe that the picture is unappropriate under the current section as those who think it is (see Archive 6). Furthermore, I explained to you yesterday (see above) why your argument regarding the infomative value of the Castro-picture is flawed; you never addressed my comment. Furthermore, whether Chomsky had a problem or not with meeting Castro, is completely besides the point. Just because Chomsky didn't have a problem with meeting someone, and a picture was taken of the two, does not automatically qualify that picture for this article. Finally, I believe this discussion has degenerated; I therefore I call on other contributors to take a vote on the issue. Is the Castro picture appropriate under Views on Socialism? A simple Yes or No will do. PJ 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I think that it's appropriate under 'views on socialism', I said that I don't have a problem with it being there, and that as far as I know you're the only one who do. You've explained nothing above, you just declared that it's "uninformative at best", even though any kid could see that it's more informative than e.g. the close-up picture, which you don't want to delete I assume. Perhaps you have problems expressing yourself, and you chose the word 'informative' by mistake. Anyway, since you don't have a problem with the picture per se, stop being lazy and start editing the article if this section bothers you so much. If you agree that in theory there could be a version of the article in which the picture would fit in your opinion, and you're unwilling to create that version, then that's not an excuse to delete it. Tcsh 14:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the First Pillar of Wikipedia, a picture requires a encyclopedic context (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). Wikipedia has defined its aim as an encyclopedia as, to convey relevant knowledge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is). Thus, "encyclopedic context" entails relevancy in context. Conclusion: To argue that the picture ought to be kept while agreeing that it is inappropriate, is to flout the First Pillar of Wikipedia! Moreover: To modify the section or article simply in order to "legitimize" the picture is to flout the Second Pillar of Wikipedia - Assume NPOV (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). Furthermore: You have completely disregarded the fact that all your remaining comments have already been dealt with in previous entries. Please be aware that to disregard the remarks of your opponent in order to prolong the discussion is to flout Wikiquette (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette) PJ 16:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're prolonging the discussion by falsely attributing to me the stance of "agreeing that it is inappropriate", i.e. if we remove your ability to make stuff up, this discussion would have ended much earlier. Tcsh 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On Feb 10 you stated: "I [Tcsh] didn't say that I [Tcsh] think that it's appropriate". Either you meant to convey some meaning with this statement or you did not. If you did, then you must have meant that you do not find it appropriate, since "inappropriate" simply means "not appropriate" (see e.g. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" or "Oxford English Dictionary") and there is a binary relationship between these two concepts, by deduction you must have meant that you find it inappropriate. Then the argumentation in my last entry holds. If you on the other hand did not mean to convey any meaning with that statement, then you have automatically flouted Wikiquette by being misleading. Now, if you against this, do find the picture appropriate, then you have to argue why this is so. Given the First Pillar of Wikipedia, the picture has to be informative for our understanding of Chomsky's views on Socialism — i.e. the picture must add to our understanding of Chomsky's views on Socialism in order to be relevant. Given the "principle of simplicity" — which is the common guideline for all rational discourses (see Ockham's Razor) — it is up to he who advocates for the inclusion of the picture to point out how it meets the criterion of relevancy. Again, N.B., your ad hominem remarks are in violation of Wikiquette. PJ 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By pointing out that "I didn't say that X is true", it doesn't follow that I'm saying that X is false. You cannot even comprehend simple English. Anyone who does comprehend English is invited to read all of your assertions above and see all the stuff that you made up. Tcsh 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikiquette, and I have placed a notification concerning it on the Wikiquette Alert page. I also see that you have been reprimanded for similar violations before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moral_responsibility). PJ 10:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also didn't say that you're sane. What follows from that according to your understanding of the English language? Now you lied again on my talk page and said that I "believe that it is appropriate". If you keep lying I'll request to ban your account. Tcsh

You play a high stake game, Tcsh! It is obvious that you have no interest in contributing to this discussion, which precisely is about whether picture is appropriate or not. PJ 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this dispute up on the Wikiquette alerts page and would like to offer a view from the sidelines, after reviewing the discussion on this section (not archive 6).

First, it appears that Tcsh is violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV by repeatedly accusing PJ of being "lazy", that he "cannot even comprehend simple English", by accusing PJ of "lying", by accusing PJ of being on a "censorship crusade", by describing a fantasy in which PJ's "young sister" is raped, by accusing PJ of having "demons inside [his] mind", by suggesting that PJ is insane ("I also didn't say that you're sane"), and threatening to "request a ban on [PJ's] account".

Second, PJ also appears to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIV by accusing Tcsh of "being crude" and having "a bad memory".

Third, it appears that Tcsh is violating WP:FAITH by assuming that the editors who do not think the picture is relevant "want to censor the picture", and that PJ is on a "censorship crusade".

So, first I would recommend that the parties involved refrain from further violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so that work on the encyclopedia can proceed without devolving in to a flame war. If Wikipedia policies continue to be violated I recommend considering some more formal mediation.

Next, on the subject of the inclusion of the picture in the article, if Tcsh "[doesn't] find it to be misleading in the 'views on socialism' section," it would help to achieve consensus on this issue if he could state his reasons. How would the picture inform the reader of the article regarding Chomsky's views on socialism? If, after all, there is no justification for keeping it in that section, and if no justification is given for why it is relevant to another specific section then, in my opinion, it should be removed.

Also, for the record, I believe that PJ has given his reasons for why he thinks the picture is misleading, namely, it could "mislead the reader into believing that Chomsky share Castro's notorious political views". It does not look like Tcsh has addressed this central point that PJ made regarding this issue. To achieve consensus I believe Tcsh should address this point directly, in a civil manner.

On the other hand, if Tcsh's only point is he "[doesn't] have a problem with [the picture] being [in the section 'views on socialism]", then it sounds like he has no objection to having the picture removed. If he does have an objection after all, then he should state what that objection is and the reasons for it. Is his objection that the picture is relevant? If so, he should explain precisely why it's relevant. Saying that "it's informative" is too vague. How is it informative? How specifically does it inform the reader of the article? And why does that information belong in that particular section?

Finally, I want to say that I am just another Wikipedia editor, and am not acting in any official capacity. This is just my own view on this dispute. If other editors are interested in this issue, I suggest that they contribute to this discussion in a civil manner with the aim of helping to achieve consensus. noosphere 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to prove a negative. I said that if the caption is accurate, I don't see anything misleading, but either way I don't care in which section it is. Again, PJ does agree that in theory there could be a version of the article in which the picture would fit in his opinion, and he's unwilling to create that version, so that's not an excuse to delete it. Tcsh

I appreciate your comments, Noosphere. In my opinion, you are absolutely right (including what you had to say about me). At this stage, there is not much reason to keep harping on this issue, I think. My intention had been from the start to ascertain whether the picture is appropriate or inappropriate. Thus, in my opinion, there are only two mutually-exclusive positions that one could take. (I am still not quite sure what Tcsh's position is.) Needless to say, my position is that the picture is inappropriate since it fails to satisfy the need for relevancy — given the context, the picture is uninformative. Obviously, from that conclusion, there is an additional question to be answered, viz. if the picture is inappropriate, what should be do? There seems to be three alternatives: add a new section, modify the present section, or (by default) delete the picture. To add a section simply in order to satisfy the criterion of relevancy, seems to me to be POV. We have to remember that also the added section needs meet the requirement of Wikipeida; e.g. being relevant, non-superfluous, and NPOV. As it is, I can think of no such additional section that would meet all of these criteria. Thus, such a line of action is inappropriate, in my opinion. Likewise, to modify the section in order to validate the picture seems equally forced and inappropriate. (To answer Tchs' comment: Although I have no problem with the picture per se, I can think of no version of the present section that would meet the Wikipedia principles, and for that reason such modification would be inappropriate.) Thus, by default, I believe that we ought to remove the picture. And going back to the old discussion in Archive 6, that is at present the majority view. At this stage, I would however like to see other contributors state their views on this issue. If this does not happen, then I suggest we take a 'vote'. And if nobody 'votes', then I will simply set up a dead-line and remove the picture if no one has objected and the dead-line has passed. PJ 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can think of no such section etc., then you'll have to wait and hope that someone who can will. Tcsh 05:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point. Until such section has been thought out, the picture is inappropriate. And it is not up me or anyone to conjure up a section, simply to justify the picture. PJ 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture is inappropriate. On an article named "Chomsky's political views" it appears misleading to have a picture of him with a man whom he doesn't share political views. The picture sets a precendent in the encyclopedia and should be removed. Zleitzen 1 March 2006

Lack of criticism

I realize the criticisms were moved to a main article primarily for reasons of space, but is this "featured article" still comprehensive and NPOV without them? We have several printed pages' worth of Chomsky's views here. I think we need at least a brief summary of the criticisms. --Hoziron 16:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, and nor is the current length short enough with them just snipped. I'd say that sections 2-5 on his academic work etc, and section 6 on his politics also need to be outsourced, then summary styled back in... but that's a massive copy edit job, an really needs someone who knows what are the most relevant bits to pull back into the main article. No reason not to pull a few paragraphs of criticism on linguistics, Faurisson and Israel back in here now though. --zippedmartin 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Definately needs to be here.--Alabamaboy 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Maybe when this semester is done, I"ll try some research. Hopefully somebody will help me with this. Uhgreen 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever read an encyclopedia and found an article called "Criticism of X" Calvin Jones —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.109.125 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment pretyt much nails it. The fact that he has his own criticism page shows just how awful and biased this palce can be.

Confusing part of section

I'm a random user without much Chomsky knowledge, and I am finding the "Opinion on criticism of science culture" section difficult to parse. Where it says "Chomsky notes that critiques of 'white male science' ..." it doesn't define "white male science." On my first read, this made me believe that "white male science" was what was discussed in his first quote, and thus this second quote is a sort of continuation. But I do not understand how it follows.

So, my suggestion is for someone knowledgable on these matters to define "white male science" at some point in this section, and make it clear whether the second section follows from the first or if it is a separate quote on its own.

The second quote is indeed separate from the first. I've tried to make that clearer. However, I thought it was rather self-evident from Chomsky's quote what he meant by "white male science", so I've not explained that further. rob 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 --It's confusing all around, just corrected a french typo, and there are a plentitude of french transliterations in the whole article..

Subpage needed

I think that this page should delegate much of Chomsky's political opinions/philosophies to a separate page. It is fine to summarize the results of his research and opinions, but they are too bulky to be included in his biography. This article should focus on Chomsky's Importance and avoid the bulk of the details of his ideas. It seems to me that his political views can be easily delegated to a subpage. I added a link to his NNDB page so that you can easily see how much less space they give to his political views. I think in this case, NNDB has found a better balance about Importance in the facets of Chomsky's life and have approtioned space accordingly. Another way to put it: Despite his intellectual stature, how much of Chomsky's political activism made a difference. How much influence did he wield? How much of all his political talk amounts to more than just eurudite hot air? -- Pinktulip 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The subpage delegation is almost done. Now maybe we can get this main article to FA quality. I note that both articles are still over 32KB. -- Pinktulip 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a sense of mastery of either Chomsky's academic or political works. I would appreciate any help to ensure that the main article is still readable and worthy of another chance as becoming a Featured Article. -- Pinktulip 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I think that his contributions to political thought are far greater in importance than his contributions to linguistics. -- subterranean 12:19, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Absolutely not. Chomsky single-handedly revolutionized linguistics, and 50 years from now, that is what he'll be remembered for. --Ashenai 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he will be known to posterity for his work in both fields, much like so many other figures of renown who applied their intellectual powers and moral spirit to widely varying subjects. In any case mere opinions based upon largely unpredictable future projections have negligible value.BernardL 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that everyone at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Noam Chomsky agreed that this article is a piece of shit. Tcsh

This demonstrates a major weakness with wikipedia, and it's failure as a research tool - partisans gain "ownership" of a subject and through fair or foul means (e.g. claiming an edit is "vandalism" and banning that editor from further editing) stop those with a desire to provide valid information objected to by the owners from further editing. Perhaps wikipedia is valid when examining non controversial subjects (e.g. the topography of tibet), but on matters like chomspky it is a failure.

Thanks for that constructive contribution. Cadr 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

links

Should Anarchist Federation (U.S.) be included somewhere? --Striver 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Too far removed from the subject--Zleitzen 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

HIS FATHER

I added the fact his father was a member of the IWW, which is obviously important in terms of his early influences.82.35.70.213

please provide evidence of this --Zleitzen 17:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He mentions it himself in an interview in the Anarcho Syndicalist Review a couple of years ago, but is this enough - http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605buhle.htm : The IWW was the “greatest thing on earth” according to its members and devotees. It averaged, in its best years, perhaps a hundred thousand members. Yet it brought together, for a time, the poorest and most downtrodden working people from every race and group, while its bards wrote some of the most moving and funniest songs mocking the rich exploiters and their willing slaves. Why would American poets, novelists, and radicals from John Dos Passos and Gary Snyder to Noam Chomsky (whose father was a Wobbly) continue to invoke the Wobblies when the memory of most unions is utterly gone from personal or family memory?

Fine for me. Though I think it might have more relevance in the Politics of Noam Chomsky page and worded as IWW - there's just something disconcerting about reading a passage that says Noam was the son of Wobbly William Chomsky :) --Zleitzen 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed External Link

I removed [ this link] from the external links section and it was brought back. For one thing, it uses WP:PEACOCK terms as "important commentary on Chomsky..." whilst if you actually look on the site it is an e-mail sent to ---- about a chapter he wrote on Chomsky. For one thing, Alexa has no date] on this site, so it is not notable and the writer can be anyone since it is a random e-mail. Second, it is not even directly about Chomsky but rather about a book with a chapter regarding Chomsky. With these facts I think the only reason to put that link up here would be to promote that website considering the traffic this page gets which is not a good excuse to keep that link on the external links section.--Jersey Devil 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This has happened before and was rejected some time ago. User Atomist appears persistent in getting this link onto this page, despite some negative feedback on his user talk page. --Zleitzen 14:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you see the user page of User:Atomist it appears that it is his site, thus it seems that by placing it in this article he is trying to promote the site. He himself likely wrote that e-mail.--Jersey Devil 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Atomist here. The link obviously does not need to be on the site. In this note here I will just explain why I've done what I've done... I put hte link back up yesterday (30th) because it was removed without justification--unless I missed the explanation of why it is to be done. Now I see there is an attempt to justify why it was removed. Before I comment, let me first respond to your claims. Of course if there is reason to remove the Chomsky--- link it should be removed. I put it on wiki becuase if you did not notice, there is massive bashing of CHomsky everywhere due to the first chapter of this best-selling book (even on natinoal tv), which is utterly riddled with inaccuracies of fact and logic. So it seems that getting this link on was relevant, but perhaps I am wrong. So it certainly seemed to me that if there was a terse way to publicize the the errors, it is worthwhile, but maybe you are thinking not so on wikipedia. As for the other claims here, I am not sure why you are saying I am trying to promote my site when that site is literally a one page site, which refers to the -- email. So there's nothing to promote. (I actually think I am going to take this site down, as I am not working on it at all, so there's no point. Anwyway...) But I could see your point regardless, and I think that could be reason to remove the link. I did admit trying to promote my own research in an entirely different unconnected area of reserach last year on wiki, but that is unconnected entirely to this -- email issue (Zleitzen appears to however draw a connection, not sure why), and the wiki-gods told me that that's not how Wiki works. AFter they told me this, of course there has been no such issue of self-promotion again, and I have only used the site for productive research contributions, none of which involve my research or any self-promotion (the only exception would be this -- page, and thus maybe you are right, and that's reason enough to remove the link here). Here are some side issues... JerseyDevil says the email is not about Chomsky, but is about -- book. But in my opinion, that seems a loose usage of language, and a big stretch of an opinion. Of course -- book is largely (!!) devoted to attack on Chomsky (just read the book jacket), as he states attacking Chomsky is a primary goal of his book (he says that's why it's chapter ONE). So it seems Jersey is not totally right about that--or he is at least giving an opinion that needs more justification. But I should also say that there is a part of me that thinks that I can see his point, I guess, and it seems enough to take the link down. BUt I am just not sure. Need to htink about it. Also, it seems that Jersey did not carefully read the page on my site that has the -- email, because Jersey says, "Atomist likely himself wrote the email..." But I explicitly refer to that page as an email I sent to him, even with my sigi at the bottom (go back and look at the page again). This is so obvious taht I can only conclude that this proves that Jersey is making a lot of claims and opinions about me when not having even read the page on my website carefully at all. My thesis is that obviously this link can be taken down. Its no big deal. I just put it up there after I had a number of direct email transactions in Feb. with Chomsky about the -- book, and it seemed relevant to put the link up since Chomsky was getting so much heat for the illogic in it. I disagree, but democracy rules on wiki. Also, if it appears to give self-promo, which I don't think it does, but it could appear that way, that's definately enough reason to remove the link. Lastly, obviously the other links up there need to be pureged by Jersey and others too, since they are also irrelvant in many cases, it seemed to me, but I am not sure. Anyway... thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. ~Atomist, March 31 06

One more thing... Forgot to say that this link is over at the -- page too. You might want to think about if it should be taken down there also. Take care. ~ Atomist, march 31

Hello. Continuing what was being discussed... I removed my name from the site, and removed mention of that site in the atomist page. So that assures that I am not trying to promote me, but I am only trying to promote information. Also, and to repeat, even despite this, people can still merely take down that link from teh -- page if they want. I also removed teh URL of the site from this dialogue here, so it is impossible for anybody to trace it to me adn thus conclude self-promo. Take care. ~Atomist, april 4

Link Page .. thingy ...

There's also a band called Chomsky. Should we make the search deal bring users to a page that provides links to the (as-yet uncreated) article on the band as well as the dude? I don't know anything about the band myself, except that they had a song that was in that movie Idle Hands. ... I'm so useless. :( :P Zanturaeon 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is the other guy?

There's another big thinker, but he is seen as "the elegant Chomsky", he is like Chomsky but dresses ellegantly and all that, anyone knows who I'm talking about?

thanks 201.132.34.197 20:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind, just found him, Gore Vidal, see ya! 201.132.34.197 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The elegant Chomsky??, thats a little bit naive to say.

Generative Grammer

Even lanaguage universal in semantic of body parts, which is physiologically universal, is only regarded as tendency rather than law. (See Linguistic universal) Language universal in syntax is far more controvercial. An example of partisan trying to present one's POV as a fact? Vapour

Citation Needed

I looked on the Democracy Now page and ran the search engine and found several interviews of Chomsky (as he is a frequent guest there) however, the supposed citation is suppose to come..."From personal interview with Amy Goodman for "Democracy Now!" 2000-11-26"...needless to say an interview with Chomsky on that particular day I can not find, so I put the "citation needed" tag on it. I know for a fact that Chomsky considered himself an anarchist from a very young age, not sure about the paper, but the thing is it needs to be verified.--Jersey Devil 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky talks about his paper on the spanish civil war here if that helps,[14]

Barsky cites on several occasions Chomsky’s first political essay, written when Chomsky was 10, on the Spanish Civil War, and he discusses at some length Chomsky’s view that the anarchist movement in Barcelona during the Civil War, described by George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, was one of the rare occurrences in modern history where, in Chomsky’s opinion, human political nature was allowed to surface (to use a linguist’s turn of phrase). I remember very clearly as a college student in the late 1960s how much this same view was widely held, and widely seen as being implemented (as well as could be managed) by Castro’s and Mao’s New Economic Man, in only slightly different form. [FN 6]--Zleitzen 04:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: "Chomsky considered himself an anarchist from a very young age", be careful about the wording because I'm not sure that Chomsky has ever said exactly that. He has often described himself as a "fellow traveller" with anarchist and/or libertarian-socialist movements (in the tradition of certain tendancies of anarchism that he then outlines, i.e. Pannekoek, Spanish anarchism, certain kibbutzim, etc.), but he appears resistant to labelling himself so directly as the quoted passage implies. Pinkville 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hizbullah Meeting

As this article demonstrates - of course if Al-Manar has correctly reported Chomsky's position (and it seems representational) - all this sophisticated condemnation of Western "state sponsored terror" seems a smokescreen for the real motivation behind his view. Clearly, Chomsky has no problem with terror - Hezbullah publically admits to targeting civilians as a focus of their attacks - compared to the accidental deaths of civilians that occur at times during Western actions. His real motivation then is best understood as a form of self hatred directed at his own culture's values.

U.S. Linguist Noam Chomsky Meets With Hizbullah Leaders in Lebanon

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP116506

On May 13, 2006, Professor Chomsky was quoted by Al-Manar as saying, "Hizbullah's insistence on keeping its arms is justified... I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position [is] reporting it correctly and it seems to me [a] reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, [and] the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can't be a deterrent."

Al-Manar goes on to state, "When asked about the U.S. list of terrorist states, he [Chomsky] said [that] if the U.S. was to stick to the clear and precise definition of terrorism in its code of laws, it would be the leading terrorist state."(3)

Fascinating, I'm sure, but irrelevant to this article. Chomsky's motivations as inferred and speculated on by third parties cannot be included in this article. Pinkville 16:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything in there about Chomsky defending Hezbollah's attacks on civilians; he is just saying they should not be disarmed when those arms deter potential aggression. It's about the right to defend themselves. If pressed, I'm sure he would admit the same about Israel.--csloat 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the article: The document you requested doesn't exist. Click Here for a complete list of available documents in this section. Not that I doubt he meets with many, many different people, ( I bet even Israelis, that Zionist bastard!) but the terrorist - lover claim is getting quite useless, and is mostly a sign of the desperation of anti-Chomsky zealots, as he has repeatedly denounced such attacks. BTW, check the civilians death statistics for the recent Israel-Lebanon confict (66 killed by the former, 4 by the latter last reports I saw) Of course all attacks on civilians are disgusting and wrong (it is sad such things need to be said), but to paint Israel as saintly makes you look either biased or uninformed (or both). User123 July 16 2006

Israel is just plain not having the best of images right now, wich is actually odd, cos Israel has been bombing the hell out of middle east for years and years.

So for his meetings with foreign "state sponsored terror" to be fair and balanced, maybe he should also meet with, for two examples, the Contras or the KLA?

NN Blogs in External Links Section

Please stop adding links to non-notable blogs in the external links section. Thank you. [15]--Jersey Devil 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky Watch is the premier dissenting blog in the Noam Chomsky conversation; how about stop quashing dissent?

DrZin 08:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For the "premier dissenting blog", it's not updated very often. Over a year? Wyatt Riot 09:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it hasn't even been updated since 2005. It is an nn blog and I will remove it again if you continue to add it. Anyone can make a "blogspot" blog and we have certain standards here at Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Criticisms of 9/11?

Nothing on the "criticisms" page, nothing here apart from the vague and unverified remark in the "bio" section.

I added a "citation needed" tag, but feel that these criticisms either need to be documented (linked to other page) or this reference should be deleted.

I think you were being too cautious, and that bit about "Chomsky coming under increasing criticism from liberals" should probably just be deleted. For one thing, the "increasing criticism" phrase is pretty weaselly (what, were there 3 and now there are 7?). If there's a lot of criticism it should be easy to at least put in a link to some of it. -- Doom 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the lines "He has a devoted following among the left, but he has also come under increasing criticism from liberals as well as from the right, particularly because of his response to the September 11, 2001 attacks."

The Right will certainly criticize him, but I don't think one can say that he's getting "increasing criticism" from the Left.

one common mistake americans make, is that internationally, their "left" is actually Right-wing, while Chomsky is truly a left wing partisan, i wouldnt know if he would care a lot if liberals criticized him, all left wing criticize liberals and conservatives equally (although sympathize with the liberals in a few matters here and there).

Removed a line, explaining why

Removed line was "* He finds "terrorism" to be an easy label for use by governments which fail to acknowledge their own questionable activities. "

This is simply not true, and shows a lack of understanding in what terrorism is, or why Chomsky would call a government a terrorist nation. I do not have a problem if someone wants to restate what they are trying to say, but this is definately not true.

He finds terrorism to be a label (not sure how easy comes in) for governments who commit terrorist acts. It can't be any more simple than that, and stating that just seems silly.

I would say that Chomsky does not "find terrorism to be a label" at all. Chomsky frequently refers to acts committed by the Contras in Nicaragua for instance to "terrorist attacks" and acknowledges the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist attacks". Rather, Chomsky argues that U.S. foreign policy encourages terrorists attacks against the U.S. and that the U.S. by changing its "hawkish foreign policy" would thereby reduce terrorist attacks against itself.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So you would agree that as a statement, it should not be in the article? It is incorrect in a few ways, and seems biased.

Confusing structure of articles

The main article is too long, I see people agreeing, but shortening it is not in the to do list. Then there are two sub-articles: Politics of Noam Chomsky and Criticisms of Noam Chomsky. All of these go into the controversies about his politics. So in all there are three articles that go over the same ground. This is fertile ground for endless and fruitless discussion about POV. Can I suggest that the basic Noam Chomsky article carries the biography, bibliography, and summarises his thinking in politics, psychology and politics. Then a sub-article "Chomsky's linguistic theory" goes into all his linguistics writing and the psychology dimensions and the various criticisms of both. Then a second sub-article "Chomsky's political views" goes into all his political writing and activism and all the criticisms of them.Itsmejudith 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

For this sentence from the Bio section:

"From the age of twelve or thirteen, he identified more fully with anarchist politics [citation needed]."

I am rather sure this can be found in (at least) his three hour "In Depth: Noam Chomsky" BookTV interview, which aired first On Sunday, June 1 (2003) at 12:00 pm. It can be viewed online here: http://www.booktv.org/indepth/index.asp?schedid=195&segid=3562

I think you might find a few other needed citations in it, and it is quite an interesting interview in general. O.T.C. July 16th 2:20 EST

Crit Removal

I removed the Srebrenica genocide remark from the Crit. Section until it has better proof and citations:

"Chomsky has also been criticized for his alleged denial and/or failure to recognize Srebrenica genocide and ever close association with Srebrenica genocide deniers, such as ZMag where he actively publishes his writings. [16]"

How can Zmag, a print and online publication with many (hundreds?) contributers be labeled wholly, and simply, "Srebrenica genocide deniers," with no citation. That tipped me off at first. Also, Chomsky has repeatedly responded to this charge, for example see the Guardian newspaper debacle, including Chomsky's letter in response, and their retraction. Much better proof is needed for such a serious (and answered) charge, besides a biased blog (and none was given for the Zmag accusation). Wikinote: I know this isn't formatted right, sorry. 24.115.241.23 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Just to let those Noam Chomsky editors know, there is a heated debate over at: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America that Chomsky does not meet WP:RS. In the spirit of WP:CON, I have conceded to keep Chomsky out of the conversation, with no concentions in return, but maybe some of you could find a convincing reason to keep him in. Travb (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverse order

It seems that this page is in reverse order. It is my understanding that Chomsky is best known as a controversial critic. But this is not mentioned in the first paragraph, and you have to get all the way to the bottom of the page to find out that there are other pages about his controversial ideas.

Perhaps the discussions of the controversy can be moved towards the top of the page, so those interested in the controversies can more quickly learn that:

• this is the right guy, but
• the good stuff is on other pages

-The Gomm 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky became well-known as a New Left critic after the release of American Power and the New Mandarins back in 1969. But before that he revolutionized the, then small, field of lingiustics with Syntactic Structures in 1957 and the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy. The structure of the article is correct, it is in chronological order as an encyclopedia is suppose to be. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia.--Jersey Devil 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If he had limited himself to linguistics, he would have been lucky to get a page as big as Marcel Schützenberger. (Note: no big bio section on the Schützenberger page. Just his science). I am just thinking that a reader should not have to read to the bottom of a big page to find out that the guy is important. -The Gomm 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"If he had limited himself to linguistics..." This is not true. When Chomsky became the world's most cited living author according to the Arts and Humanities citation index it was far far more by virtue of references to his linguistics that to his political analysis. The Chomsky-Schützenberger hierarchy is considered only a minor part of the overall contribution to linguistics typically attributed to him. The major achievements concern his reformulation of linguistics as the study of language as a natural species-specific object utilising precise formal models, and his emphasis on creative language use based on recursive generative functions as a fundamental characteristic of this biological system. This work had undeniable implications extending well beyond linguistics into psychology, philosophy of mind, epistimology, etc., just at a time when fields such as philosophy, biology, and anthropology were recognizing/rediscovering the centrality of language to notions of human nature and cognition. Hence the explosion of references in the social sciences to Chomsky's linguistics work. I happen to think that Chomsky's political analysis is equally important and that therefore he should be treated similarly to other multidisciplinary thinkers such as John Locke or Bertrand Russell. BernardL 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez's U.N. Speech

What if any has been the reaction of Chomsky on Hugo Chavez's United Nations Speech. Is this not a major problem we face in this nation when we (non-republicans) agree with our "enemies"?

There was a NYT article about it today in section C. I don't think it's accurate to say that Chomsky "agreed" with Chavez on particular points.--csloat 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not argue over the semantics my usage of the word "agree". Thank you for the source. I highly doubt that Chomsky would agree with Bush Sr.'s failed foreign policy of assasinating Chavez. He might disagree that Bush Jr. smells like sulfur and is the devil incarnate. I look forward to a debate or discussion between Chomsky and Chavez because Bush's White House has refused to enter into any meaningful discourse.

Out of Mainstream Politics

" Within the United States, many consider his views to be on the far end of the political spectrum, and thus outside the mainstream. Chomsky has in turn argued that his views are those which the powerful "don't want to be heard" and for this reason he is often termed and considered an American political dissident. "

I would like this to be edited. Who are many? Perhaps it should read that "Chomsky's views are outside the mainstream political spectrum. Chomsky has argued that his views are those which mainstream politicians "don't want to be heard" and for this reason he is often termed and considered an American political dissident." References also need to be cited here Candy 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The first version is better in my opinion. Chomsky's views are not necessarily outside the mainstream of the international political spectrum, it is more accurate to refer to the more narrow US political spectrum. He is also generally referring to the US media and powerful private interests rather than politicians when he argues that his views "don't want to be heard".--Zleitzen 15:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Zleitzen.--Jersey Devil 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We could do with some sources here (I don't doubt it, but sources are always useful.) Especially since the phrase "alleged" is shot throughout the topic of his marginalization by mainstream media. Sdedeo (tips) 22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims?

Specifically, he denounces what he considers to be the "double standards" of the US government, which he claims results in massive human rights violations.

That statement concerns very varifiable questions. Has the US government committed massive human rights violations. Certainly that would be unambiguous. If it's true, it should read "which he points out massive human rights violations". Calling every action anyone commits that is not main stream, but is verifable as a claim, or considers is not being unbias. It's just being biased towards anything that is not within the indoctrinal structure.

Faurisson affair mischaracterized in summary

The summary of the Faurisson affair misstates the criticism leveled at Chomsky. He isn't being attacked for defending Faurisson's right to free speech. He's being criticised for going even further and defending Faurisson's (dubious) credibility. The linked-to article makes this clear. The claim that Chomsky was just defending Faurisson's right to free speech does not reflect the claims of his critics. Rather, the claim of defending free speech is part of Chomsky's defense against such critics. --Ryan Wise 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not have to be reminded of the content of the box that serves as the heading for this page entitled "Biographies of Living Persons." Therein it says: "Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The claims that Dershowitz makes about what Chomsky is supposed to have said are not in the least well-sourced. And in fact, since I know that material quite well, they are easy to recognize, in the first case, not, as Dershowitz claims, something that Chomsky said or wrote himself, but something written in a petition emphasizing free speech rights that he signed onto. And in other cases selective quotations by Dershowitz yanked out of their original context. Dershowitz's diatribe is -transparently-poorly sourced.BernardL 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Chomsky was accused of defending free speech assumes Chomsky's innocence rather than proving it. It's like saying "OJ Simpson was accused of murder when someone else killed his wife." The claims that Dershowitz makes are one of the criticisms of Chomsky. Chomsky is not criticized for "defending free speech." He's criticized for lending support to Faurisson's credibility, as the article dedicated to the discussion of the Faurisson affair makes clear with referenced citations. It is disingenious to provide a dishonestly summarized link to criticism of Chomsky, with said criticism then removed from the main page. I altered the summary to more accurately reflect the content it attmepts to summarize. I'll change the language to "Derchowitz accuses Chomsky of..." If you want to provide sourced information refuting Derchowitz's accusations, you're more than welcome to.

--Ryan Wise 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear. No where does Chomsky "lend support" to Faurisson's "credibility". The referenced citations do not show that, and I'm trying to keep my addressing this to one page.

You are slandering a Professor of Linguistics. If you can not do better than he is "lending support" to his "credibility", then you need to retract your statements. Show evidence of what you are asserting. --User:Notque

That Chomsky is lending support to Faurisson's credibility (i.e. passing off academic dishonesty and fraud as free speech issues, calling Faurisson an apolitical liberal and selectively citing his work to make it appear that he's not antisemetic, defending fraudulent research as 'findings' and then claiming that 'findings' is a totally neutral term which can include fraud, as well as maintaining contact with Faurisson and helping him defend himself in other ways etc.) is exactly the criticism leveled by Chomsky opponents. If you think it's invalid, you can give reasons why. I've showed evidence of Chomsky's actions repeatedly in this thread and they've simply been ignored. --Ryan Wise 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The text does not actually say that Chomsky was "accused of defending free speech" as you claim, it rather says he was accused of lending support to those accused of having anti-semitic views. Check it. And it is only balanced to provide his stated position that he was defending free speech. What we have at the moment is far more balanced than your attempts to insert unsourced insinuations by Dershowitz. These are serious accusations which are probably best left to the more in-depth pages providing fuller context. This section should constitute a succinct and balanced pointer to the controversy. Even if you say "Dershowitz accuses Chomsky" if it does not contain valid sources for Dershowitz's particular accusations it would still invalidate WP:BLP.BernardL 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally, the text stated that; "Despite his Jewish heritage, he has been accused of lending support to those accused of expressing anti-semitic viewpoints for his defense of Robert Faurisson's right to free speech." Saying that the accusations resulted from Chomsky's "defense of Faurisson's right to free speech" assumes that Chomsky's detractors were wrong about Chomsky's charactierisation of the incident. It implicitly assumes Chomsky's view, i.e. Chomsky defended free but unpopular speech and it was wrongly interpreted as lending support. Faurisson's work is demonstrably fraudulent, not just morally unpalatable. Chomsky deliberately concealed Faurisson's neo-nazi sympathies as well as Faurisson's fraud and defended his character. (for whatever reason) Explaining this more accurately explicates the criticism of Chomsky than does the original passage, which implies that Chomsky's defence of freedom of speech was simply misinterpreted by critics as advocacy.

I'm fine with the current wording. But I'll go over Chomsky's stance (For the sake of future edits) so that it's at least clear that those who think Chomsky went too far and defended Faurisson's character and academic credentials despite his fraud have a valid stance.

“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”

W. D. Rubinstein, “Chomsky and the Neo-Nazis,” Quadrant [Australia], October 1981, pp. 8-14. A reply by Chomsky and a rebuttal by Rubinstein are published in the April 1982 issue of the same journal. (citation taken from [17]

Corroborating Dershowitz's claim that Chomsky is mischaracterising Faurisson, there's the article "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression" from Chomsky's own website which is the article which touched this whole thing off. "As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."[18]

The petition Chomsky signed states "Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question." Most people interpret words like 'research' and 'findings' to confer legitimate research, though Chomsky views the term as one which can include forgery. Forgery or misrepresentation is not a finding. If you make somthing, you haven't found it. While claiming to be unfamiliar with Faurisson's work, Chomsky makes the claim that "though it is irrelevant to the civil-liberties issue, (Faurisson) writes of the "heroic insurrection of the Warsaw ghetto" and praises those who "fought courageously against Nazism" in "the right cause"" [19] Additionally, Chomsky was part of the protest that sought to see Faurisson not lose his university position, which would have been fair in some other case of intellectual dishonesty, and not be censorship at all.

That may be fair to you, but what does Noam Chomsky say on the topic? He has discussed this topic, and does not agree with you. I'd suggest some research.

You don't really present any evidence here, nor do you make an argument. Chomsky disagrees with me? About what, specificaly? The point is, Chomsky has defended Faurisson on the grounds that Faurisson was being persecuted only for what he said. While Chomsky has, at times, claimed he isn't capable of judging Faurisson's work or that he isn't familiar enough to judge it, he has simultaneously defended it against critics and defended Faurisson's character. Chomsky has repeatedly ignored and covered up the ehtical violations which Faurisson has committed. It is this deliberate cover up that Chomsky is being criticized for, since it mischaracterizes the situation and deliberately obscures the context. If you can find any passage where Chomsky specifically addresses Faurisson's ethical lapses rather than simply ignoring or whitewashing them, please post. --Ryan Wise 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"My own views in sharp opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said." [20]

This is evidence that Chomsky diagress with Faurisson's position. It is not evidence that he disagrees with me. Again, it doesn't even address what I've said, or what Chomsky's critics have said. You're attacking a strawman here. The point is that Chomsky is defending deliberate academic fraud.

--Ryan Wise 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vidal-Naquet had even written letters to Chomsky regarding Faurisson so that Chomsky would be unable to plead ignorance. Chomsky clearly read them, and refered to them, but did not acknowledge their content saying that the correspondance was 'private.' Vidal-Naquet has since said that he's more than happy if the contents are

disclosed to the public. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol_1.html

I'm curious whether you have any sources showing that Chomsky has actually acknowledged Faurisson's ethical lapses, which are conspicuous by their absence. This would be noteworthy, since Chomsky's defense of Faurisson's character and persistant deliebrate deception as to his nature is at the heart of the criticisms against Chomsky. Likewise, do you know of any instance where Chomsky has taken issue with the wording of the petition he signed? He's had plenty of time to do so if he disagreed with it. Instead, he has defended it literally to the word.

Chomsky has stated many times that he did not agree with Faurisson. There are many more, and if you need them I will provide them, although they are are easy for you to research yourself if your intent is to find the facts.[21]

Yes, I know Chomsky has said he disagrees with Faurisson. You're not even addressing my post, or the criticisms being leveled against Chomsky. The point is that Chomsky claims that Faurisson is a legitimate, honorable, and credible researcher.

My understanding is that Chomsky does not claim that Faurisson is a legitimate, honorable and credible researcher. And the article I linked to states his claims, and not that one. Will you provide evidence that Chomsky beileves Faurisson is credible. He states that he didn't know of his work at that time.

And critics of Chomsky have good reason to dispute this. Chomsky has done everything that he can to avoid the issue relating to Faurisson's ethical lapses and to defend Faurisson's character and credibility.

Because it wasn't relevant to what he was saying. He says it very clearly in Freedom of Expression.

Faurisson's ethical lapses were directly relevant to Faurisson's being removed from his post for fraud. And Chomsky defended the wording of the petition. In Freedom of Expression Chomsky says The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies which is straight out prevarication on Chomsky's part. The petition DOES comment quite clearly on the validity of Faurisson's work. It is not what Chomsky makes it out to be.

Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.

Extensive research? A respected professor? Findings? These are not neutral terms. They imply a certain standard of academic honesty at least. Faurisson was only barred from one private archive. Never public librarires.

--Ryan Wise 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have any source from Chomsky discussing Faurisson's proven ethical violations, please post. Simple disagreements with Faurisson don't address the issue. The citation you give only indicates that he "questions Faurisson's motives", which is not the same thing as acknowledging Faurisson's academic dishonesty.

And Again, I do not beileve it's whatsoever relevant. He states why he wrote what he wrote, and why he beileves that. He does not state he is credible.

Given that it has been over a decade since this event has occurred, and that Chomsky is more than capable of researching the matter, ignorance of Faurisson's lapses seems a remarkably tenuous defense.

I don't beileve it's ignorance, I beileve it's not relevant, which is his point.

Furthermore, Chomsky notes in the article you cited; In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue. However the hypothetical subject here is someone who is "ignorant of modern history." However Chomsky has never given the indication that he thinks that Faurisson is, like his hypothetical subject, "ignorant of modern history."

Agreed. He was making a statement, and defending that exact statement. He has made it several times, in a variety of ways included in that Article. He is defending the right of free speech, and nothing more.

On the contrary, Chomsky has supported Faurisson's credibility which is the lion's share of what his critics are attacking him for. I'm beginning to seriously doubt that you understand what you're trying to argue against, since your citation doesn't begin to address it.

And I seriously doubt what you are trying to argue. Chomsky has not supported Faurissons "credibility". Please show otherwise.

Even if you say "Dershowitz accuses Chomsky" if it does not contain valid sources for Dershowitz's particular accusations it would still invalidate That Dershowitz has accused Chomsky of certain things is easily proven and not libelous. The antagonistic relationship between the two is noteworthy in its own right, as it goes back for several decades. --Ryan Wise 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Faurisson critics' description of affiar vs. Chomskys

My interlocuter has consistently failed to log in or sign their posts, much less condense their posts into a single block. So it's hard to tell whose comments are whose and respond with a single coherant post. Thus, this subtopic. Please log in and sign your posts so I can tell whose comments are whose, or at least write your name after them. Thanks. Chomsky has defended Faurisson's character, even when Chomsky clearly notes that he (Chomsky) received warnings from other academics of the nature of Faurisson's writing. Chomsky has been dishonest not just by claiming that Faurisson was an 'apolitical liberal' but also by citing passages from Faurisson's work that would paint a picture of a non-antisemetic Faurisson (Faurisson's calling the Warsaw Ghetto uprising 'the good guys'). Why would Chomsky do this if Faurisson's work or character is truely irrelevant, as Chomsky claimed? Chomsky says in one breath that Faurisson's character is irrelevant. In almost the next breath he contradicts this by misrepresenting who Faurisson was and what he was accused of.

Chomsky has seriously misrepresented the trouble that Faurisson faced and why. His omission of relevant fact which he knew and understood full well are glaring, and calculated to create a false impression. Please read through [this essay by Oliver Kamm, a critic of Chomsky's role in the Faurisson affair. It provides some background which casts Chomsky's actions in a slightly different light than what Chomsky claims and makes clearer his evasions and omissions as regards his role in the Faurisson affair.--Ryan Wise 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of writing from Chomsky that he has defended Faurisson's character. If you wish to do this properly, you are going to need to show hard evidence of what you are asserting. I will address each of your claims, but as your argument centers on Chomsky defending Faurisson's charcter, I need evidence. I do not see evidence in the blog you linked to. Thank you. --User:Notque

I've already provided several links documenting Chomsky's actions, including writing from Chomsky and other people. You're welcome to go back and read them. --Ryan Wise 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not posted any evidence what so ever that Chomsky has ever defended Faurisson's charcter. Not one link, not one word aside from your assurtions. You are either intellectually honest about this or you are not. Provide some of Chomsky's work where he defends Faurisson's charcter. That's the center piece of your argument. Show your work. --User:Notque

Reread the thread and address my criticisms individually or don't post. You are wasting my time. Could you summarize the points I've made? Judging by your responses, it doesn't seem you've read them. --Ryan Wise 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I disagree with you plainly. You have been rude in regards to it, but I will try again. I disagree with you. I do not beileve, regardless of the links you've posted of other people asserting what you are trying to assert, that Chomsky has "defended his credibility." I think that because Chomsky refuses to state what he thinks about Faurisson's "credibility", you are taking that as defending it. I think the reason why he hasn't responded to it, is because he thinks it is irrelevant. And I agree with him. To repeat, so this is clear, it is entirely irrelevant if he defended Faurisson's "credibility", because you should not need to like or dislike the person who you are defending their speech. You either defend everyone's speech or you are not for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech needs to be protect at the times where you agree the least. This is the point that you fail to understand, and no ammount of me repeating it is going to help. It is elementary that you must defend speech you dislike. Chomsky was doing what was elementary. He did not know it was going to be on the front of the book, but that doesn't matter. He was stating something that he beileved in, and it doesn't change the fact that he beileves in it, and Faurisson's freedom of speech should be defended. Would you defend his freedom of speech?

I would be more willing to engage in a debate if the topics you've linked had been credible whatsoever but they are not. They are just more arguments for me to counter. The very reason some of us stop is not because we cannot repeat your argument, it is because frankly it isn't fun. I've stated the issue. I've came back and tried to get you to do one thing. Quote Chomsky where he has defended his credibility. You can't, because that's the center point. I had hoped you'd understand that. It is irrelevant if he did or did not, so the issue is mute. Comparing or connecting people to smear them is one of the oldest smears. You can see it all throughout history, and that is what you are saying. At the end of the day, Look at Chomsky, he think Faurisson is a rational, intelligent, reasonable person and agrees in principal to the basis of his arguments. That those arguments are good because he defends this mythical "credibility." I get it. I do not wish to waste any more time on it. 70.162.42.37 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky's support for fraudulent scholarship

It's worth mentioning that Chomsky's support for blatantly fraudulent scholars. He's also given his support to Ward Churchill. - Ryan Wise

It is not worth mentioning. It is worth mentioning Chomsky's arguments. You can make a case for the Farussian affair as note worthy. But mentioning every accusation on every person that Chomsky has read some articles from, and thought it was compelling is stupid, and demeaning. If you really wish to attack his arguments than do so, but this by association smearing is below wikipedia.

Ironically, Here is an article from Ward Churchill on the denial of the Holocaust in Context. Maybe this is the article Noam Chomsky has read, and liked. [22]

I just read your "9" link: Ward's essay fully supports the facts of the Holocaust. It absolutely is not "denial of the Holocaust in Context." Your Neocon Fox News "swiftboat" style of propaganda, providing links yet hoping no one takes the time to read the links, can be dismissed as "swiftboat scholarship" worth no more than any Rush Limbaugh "dittohead" rant. Taking the time to read the link you provide, it appears you are "blatantly fraudulent," since there is nothing wrong or controversial in anything Ward Churchill says in the link you provided.

Chomsky's tenet is the All-American assertion: "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Chomsky is right. We cannot force university professors and scholars to adhere to certain "truths" deemed unquestionable by prevailing power. If prevailing power says, "of course African slavery was not as bad as the Holocaust," or "of course God exists," it is the right and duty of scholars to question these "truths" and conclude the opposite. It is a scholar's right to conclude: "African genocide and slavery are just as bad as the Holocaust" or "God does not exist," no matter how much it may upset prevailing power. Telling professors certain "truths" must not be questioned is simply Orwellian totalitarianism. Chomsky wants scholarship to be subject to the same peer review process that science and medicine require: A Holocaust denier should be allowed to say something crazy, then real scholars can tear apart the paper in peer review.

*sigh* Chomsky claims that this is what he was saying. But that isn't, in fact, what he was doing. The controversy is that Chomsky defended the character and legitimacy of someone who had not just given an unpopular opinion, but who had committed outright fraud. I assume you understand the difference? Faurisson's fraud was sufficient for Faurisson to lose his teaching position, which Chomsky protested and still protests. Even American law, which is among the most liberal in the world, recognizes libel and academic dishonesty. But lets put that aside for a moment. If you commit academic dishonesty you can still publish. You can still research (Chomsky falsely claimed that Faurisson had been barred from researching. In fact he had only been barred from one private archive.) Chomsky claimed that he didn't know the details of the case when in fact he had been informed in confidence. And there's some evidence to believe that he continued to help Faurisson after the whole affair had been uncovered. There's no question that Chomsky tried to portray himself as acting according to the words of Voltaire. His side of the argument deserves mentioning. However the facts, and even his own statements, argue against him. Incidentally, the 'Ward Churchill/holocaust' link above was not mine (though the original 'Ward Churchill' comment was). The link was a different poster who didn't sign his post. The comments which followed suggest that someone has conflated us.--Ryan Wise 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiserd911, you are correct to say that the various points of view need to be aired. The problem is, they already are - in two seperate articles : Criticism of Noam Chomsky and Faurisson affair. All we need here is a brief sentence and a link to those pages where all your points are (or should be) explored in full.--Oakhouse 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My concern is not with the present text. My concern is with future revisions. --Ryan Wise 20:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have been badly named. Ward Churchill is most certainly not a fraudulent scholar, please try to at least hear both sides of story before attempting to form an opinion.Palenque 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and Israel

Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of antisemitism for his views on Israel's foreign policy Chomsky has criticized Hebrew as a 'secret language' and taken stances regarding what Israel's demographic composition should be, among other things. This is why I wrote that Chomsky's views on Israel earned him criticism rather than trying to debate what was "domestic" and what was "foreign" which would is a tricky area, especially in a place whose borders are so hotly debated. --70.162.72.237 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ryan Wise)

Chomsky and the Left

Cut from article:

He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics.

I put this back. He is arguably the most influential intellectual in the U.S. left, whether he thinks so himself or not. --Uncle Ed 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

better known = more widely known

I changed "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become better known for his radical politics than for his theories of language" to "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his theories of language". It's a minor but I think important change: "better" could imply more highly thought of, which is not the case regarding his lingusitic work. Instead, "more widely known" is a plain descriptive term about knowledge of Chomsky in the popular culture, which is what I think we want to say here.PaulLev 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky's reputation: deleted sentence

User:FeloniousMonk has twice removed the first sentence from the following: "Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his linguistic theories. He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW)."

I am not the initial author of any of the above - I just refined the first sentence a bit, changing the original "better known" to "more widely known" - see above.

User:FeloniousMonk has shifted the stated reason for deleting the sentence - first, saying that a reference was needed; and then, when a reference was provided, saying it needs to be more objective.

Before I take this to Dispute resolution, I thought I would see if we might be able to reach some consensus among some of us here. Thanks in advance for any views on this you may provide.PaulLev 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it not well-known that Chomsky's popualrity comes from his politics rather than his linguistics? Does Chomsky even write linguistics books anymore? Did Hugo Chavez hold up a Chomsky linguistic text at the UN? I'm not sure the sentence that's being removed is at all false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What Chomsky is best known for is a matter of perspective, more akin to subjective opinion than objective fact. As such the passage (which was lifted nearly verbatim) needs to be attributed to a source. And a publisher's marketing blurb for a book on Chomsky is simply neither authoritative nor neutral. Find a credible, neutral source for the statement and the issue here evaporates. FeloniousMonk 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a matter of perspective at all, and I'm rather surprised that the sentence is being challenged at all. If you do a search on Chomsky, you don't get results based on his linguistics. Salon calls him an "the world's most important intellectual" while not even mentioning his work in linguistics outside of his being a professor. The best I can find is this WSJ piece, which appears to assert that his popularity/notoriety today is due to his work in linguistics before, not because of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the accuracy of the passage, only its supporting cites. As a sweeping statement, it needs stronger support if it's to survive serious scrutiny, that's all. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Those who want to keep this sentence need to remember that, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, you need a reliable source or any editor may remove the passage at any time. Simply not finding information in a search isn't proof that such information does not exist. I'm sorry, but that's policy, especially when it involves a biography of a living person. Wyatt Riot 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be about a 50/50 split between those who think the sentence was fine as it was, and those who think it needed more references. In the spirit of compromise, here's what I've done: (a) provided a second reference (although, for these purposes, I think the publisher's blurb is fine - it's not saying that Chomsky is great or terribe, it is merely describing a state of affairs), (b) reworded the sentence to provide additional info, make it even less like the line from the publisher's blurb (again, I was not the one who put in this line in first place), (c) under the assumption that this is acceptable to a majority of us, I have reinstated the sentence - amended, with additional reference. If not acceptable, let's continue to discuss.PaulLev 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would question how reliable the new source is, as well as how he came about his information. From the context ("But he is perhaps even better known..."), it seems like he's only guessing or asserting his own opinion. Wyatt Riot 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was published in a well respected, scholarly journal. At very least, this means that not only the author of the article but the journal's editor vetted it. The "But he is perhaps even better known..." is a standard scholarly locution.PaulLev 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction for clarity of meaning

It is stated:

"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, though Chomsky himself states that he does not agree with the police protection.[8]"

This struck me as an awkward contradiction for someone so ideological. In actual fact, according to the reference, Chomsky receives UNDERCOVER police protection, (rather than overt protection) precisely because he does not agree to the protection. As opposed to the implied contradiction of accepting protection in spite having principled grievances with doing so.

It should be rewritten, for clarity, as follows:

"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree to it.[8]"

One use of the verb 'states' is enough to render the whole sentence 'stated'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.33.143 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ thanks. RWV 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dean Acheson and Chomsky

Someone just e-mailed me this:

My favourite Chomsky moment is something I heard on the net. During a speech mentioning Cuba, Chomsky was waxing lyrical about JFK and Dean Acheson in his usual manner. When questions from the audience were introduced, up stood Arthur Schlesinger Jr - the historian who worked extensively with JFK in his administration and worked on all the Cuban projects - who tore him apart on every point. Schlesinger was right and I'd read all the material Chomsky was supposed to be quoting from, Chomsky was way off and was flapping like a fool.

...The Chomsky speech was at somewhere like the "Kennedy centre"? Or some such Kennedy related college probably in Boston, where Schlesinger was an inhouse professor. I've had a look for it on audio but can't find it now. Schlesinger's opening gambit was something like "I've heard a lot of things here tonight which I don't agree with and haven't paid much attention to, but when I hear the name of Jack Kennedy my ears pick up". Before bickering with Chomsky about Acheson's role in the Cuban missile crisis (at least I think it was that - it was some time ago). Schlesinger's politics may be contentious but he's not a liar, and he's a fastidious chronicler of detail - Chomsky didn't really know what he was on about.

Anyone know anymore details, where and when this speech happened? Any details they can provide?

I also posted this question at the alt.fan.noam-chomsky site.RWV 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I listened to it last night. Chomsky quoted certain people in regards to issues. Schlesinger responded saying that the quotes were incorrect, and Kennedy didn't say what he was suggesting. Chomsky responded that he didn't say Kennedy says it, he said an aide did. Then there was an issue over if the CIA is in control by Kennedy. Chomsky says it is, Schlesinger says it's not, the CIA went over it's bounds. Chomsky the CIA is used by the president for plausible deniability, and the audience appluaded. I agree with Chomsky's statements in regards to the matter, but could see how someone could differ. It was not Chomsky being foolish, it was a difference of opinion, and a reasonable person could agree with either. 70.56.179.97 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great anon, please tell me when and where this happened. I would love to listen to the speech myself, and decide for myself. Thanks a lot for posting this message. RWV 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know which exact speech it is from. I have an absolutely enormous collection of Chomsky audio/video. I attempted a mild google search, and didn't come up with anything immediately. 207.105.30.44 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for more details anyway. I appreciate you adding more information. Have a good day. What is the title of the audio file? Thanks again.RWV 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the name of the audio file because I was listening to a very large playlist, and letting things go while I listened. I have decided to do more research on the matter for the fun of it. This is an interesting interview from 67 where Chomsky gets on Schlesinger's case which may partially explain his tone when questioning Chomsky. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm . Another Quote, http://san.beck.org/GPJ32-Chomsky.html . Another http://lanr.blogspot.com/2005/11/cuba-in-cross-hairs-near-half-century.html . Another http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=166&sid=f87ef073a656f747d7fe7483d881d113 . I didn't realise this until now, but now his tone, and what sounded like bitterness is probably from what Chomsky has said about him. I am not trying to mischarcterize how he felt, and this is just my opinion, but it makes sense to me. I will try and find the audio file and date, but the most likely event is that I will stumble upon it in the next two months. 70.162.42.37 04:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds like they hate each other. Appreciate your time. RWV 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: "word count" should not be wiki-linked

Why is "word count" wikilinked in the following Chomsky quote:

Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count.

The "word count" article is about: 1. Programs that count the words in a document (like "wc" in Unix), and 2. How many words are required in different kinds of documents (e.g. "epics" and Ph.D. theses).

The phrase "word count" in the Chomsky quote is not related to these. In fact, it's not a lexical unit; its meaning is just the composition of the individual meanings of "word" and "count". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.51.164 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~, thanks RWV 03:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of criticism of linguistic works

Like most writing about Chomsky, this article mentions how controversial his political ideas are, but not how controversial his work in Linguistics is. A large number of linguists think the whole generative project is deeply flawed. This ranges from traditional structuralists to computational linguists, and certainly deserves inclusion. I will only mention the names of some linguists with whom I am more familiar: Roy A. Miller, Anna Wierzbicka, G. van Driem.

Kind of interesting.

I didn't know this existed. It's interesting, shouldn't it be linked somewhere if only from the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky/Comments_from_Chomsky 70.162.42.37 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is great, thanks for posting it! Palenque 07:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Political views.

I changed a part here because it was simply badly constructed. Candy 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Nim Chimpsky

Puellanivis edited my rewording re: the naming of the chimpanzee "Nim Chimpsky". The previous entry reported that he was named "to mock Noam Chomsky because he believes animals other then humans cannot learn/communicate via language." I changed this because there is no indication whatsoever that the researchers conducting the study intended to mock Chomsky for his belief. Indeed, Herbert S. Terrace initiated the study because he was skeptical that chimpanzees could be taught to communicate in a manner resembling the sophistication of human grammar. Not because he believed it possible and intended to mock the great detractor, Chomsky. Thus, I edited the paragraph to say Nim was named "playfully" after Chomsky.

Puellanivis essentially reverted to the previous edit and deleted the work "mock". This to me seems to give the same indication; that the organizers of the study fundamentally disagreed with Chomsky and were intent on disproving him. Quite the opposite is true and the study confirmed Terrace's suspicions. Nim Chimpsky was playfully named after Chomsky. Also note that the entry for Nim Chimpsky describes him being named "in honor of linguist Noam Chomsky — the father of modern generative linguistics and a strong critic of animal research into language acquisition." Inoculatedcities 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say "named in honor of" I'm fine with that. But changing a subjective wording of "mockingly" to "playfully" is just as unencyclopedic. If Noam disagrees that a Chimp can be taught language, then that's somewhat important to mention, but you can mention that the researchers suspected agreement with Noam. Either way, "playfully" or "mockingly" are both POV. --Puellanivis 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "in honor of". I fail to see how "playfully named after" is "unencyclopedic" while "...cannot learn/communicate via language." somehow is. A slash between words is shorthand. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who is talking. Inoculatedcities 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because if Noam Chomsky actually believes that animals cannot learn to communcate via language, or at least that the researchers naming Nim had the perception that Noam believed as such, and this was the reason why they named Nim in honor of Noam, then it's a factual basis giving reason for the action, while saying "playfully" is a coloring of the phrase which ads no denotaional meaning, but only connotational meaning, and is ths subjective information. --Puellanivis 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you should mention that they were proven wrong, and Chomsky was proven right, at least per the researchers who named Nim Chimsky 70.162.42.37 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the Nim experiment was essentially a failure in terms of language acquisition. I guess the joke is on Nim.

Religious Views

Is Chomsky agaist religion, even though he grew up Jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Science Views

So was Chomsky against Darwinism?