Talk:Noam Chomsky

Road to FA, pt. II

Some remaining tasks to take this article to featured status, with some imported from the recent peer review:

• Review all citations for text–source integrity
• Replace primary sources with best-in-class sources
• Replace chomsky.info sources
• Bundle citations with {{sfnm}} where feasible
• Rewrite the parts that rely on "Brain from Top to Bottom"
• Rewrite the beginning of § Universal grammar and add a paragraph break
• Define "rationalism" as parallel to definition of "empiricism"
• Get a better source for Saudi Arabia political views; try McGilvray
• Get a better source for views on partition of Palestine
• Reduce hagiography in § In politics: remove quotes, pare second paragraph, expand on Srebrenica massacre remarks, consider page number for Rabbani 2012, consider paring re: Horowitz, Kay, ADL, Dershowitz
• Address history of controversial statements on genocide in the political beliefs section doi:10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1738
• Turn the achievements laundry list into readable prose
• Confirm with sourced prose or remove the flatlist items from the infobox
• Add commas after "in year X" clauses
• Consider whether to expand on his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Incorporate noteworthy anti-Chomsky critique into the Political views section so the final section can focus on Influence/Legacy
• Invite reviewers to the FA nom

czar 04:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hamas

I am shocked that Chomsky's long-term support of Hamas (and accompanying virulent antisemitism) is not even mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's been white-washed in recent days, but this is one of his most (if not the most) outspoken politcal views. He testified to the UN on the subject, and his views are even referenced on the wiki Hamas page. The genocidal repercussions (including infanticide by beheading) of his world views certainly now warrant at least a sentence? Gnyc18 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ above. czar 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Which in particular? That the article doesn’t cover all of his views? This is his most noteworthy cause. You can’t possibly be asking me for a reference. He’s been spewing the same hate for decades. Gnyc18 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has been stable for a long time. Chomsky is not mentioned on the Hamas page. If Hamas is his "most noteworthy" cause, then surely you can bring a reliable, secondary source germane to his general biography that says so explicitly. On Wikipedia, we discuss sources and there's nothing to do here until there are sources to discuss. czar 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is becoming a bit surreal. A statement that Mr. Chomsky has been a long-term supporter of Hamas is not in the least bit controversial. In fact, he seems to have always been a proud supporter and would take no issue with this addition. However, I will assume that you are just not knowledgeable in the subject (as opposed to advocating or working for Chomsky (or even worse)) and will play your game. Here are three such reliable, secondary sources, including a video of Chomsky himself!

“A Hideous Atrocity”: Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and U.S. Support for the Occupation

Noam Chomsky with Amy Goodman and Juan González Democracy Now!, Part I, Part II, August 7, 2014

Chomsky in his own words in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssIBGppyTlY

Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

Finally, as far as the reference on the Hamas page, I suggest you learn to use the search function and see Footnote 261.

I can understand why shills for Chomsky wouldn't even want the mere statement entered into the encomium, but it should be added and let the reader decide. Gnyc18 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The very fact that other editors disagree with your assessment of Chomsky's views is sufficient to establish that this is controversial, and the insistence that you provide reliable sources is a basic requirement of Wikipedia editing. And none of the sources you cite above establishes (nor even, as far as I can see, claims) that Chomsky is "a long-term supporter of Hamas". I challenge you to find even one sentence in all of these sources that states this. In fact, while recognising that Hamas is an elected government and a representative of the Palestinian people, with which Israel is obliged to negotiate, Chomsky is actually a critic of Hamas, as some of these texts show. The claim that you want to add will not be included without much stronger evidence than you have so far offered. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your answer is completely intellectually dishonest.

Wikipedia’s credibility has taken a terrible hit by your collective decision not to write a simple sentence indicating his historic support through the decades (hence “long-term”). In the several occasions of violence between Hamas and Israel he has consistently appeared in the record to fully condemn Israel without reservation. I would venture to say he is even proud of this position.

I suggest you also watch his address to the UN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoC7sRNkrlI

That said, I am not surprised that he/you would be humiliated by his position. I guess it was all well and good until his guys started chopping off babies’ heads.

Gary Curwin

NYC Gnyc18 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

His opinions of Israel regarding Palestine, Gaza has been documented in this and other articles. In fact, "Gaza in Crisis" (referenced in your earlier reply) has its own article already.

Meanwhile, this alleged support of Hamas has not been sourced satisfactorily. The youtube video you've posted demonstrates no such support, merely descriptions of a situation, and some criticisms. It should be noted that criticism of one side of a conflict is not the same as "long-term support" for a perceived representative of the other side. Reil (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pure double talk. Whatever. I pity your lack of moral objectivity. 138.20.184.11 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your position is akin to asserting that O.J. Simpson’s defense team didn’t “support” him. They just defended him and tried to contradict every accusation against him. 138.20.184.11 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I could easily find that O.J. Simpson's defense team defended him. It would be a much higher barrier to say they personally supported him outside of their professional duty.

If you had any objectivity yourself, you (or @Gnyc18, in case you are not the same person) would be able to produce a source of displaying actual support, like "This group is legitimate" or "I fund this group", not "I dislike some of the actions of this other group in opposition to them." Reil (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve clearly hit a defensive nerve for those who choose to defend the amoral human being. 138.20.184.1 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And it is the same person.

I chose to put my name on one of my posts as I have nothing to hide; as opposed to “editors” who have locked his entry 138.20.184.1 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge/Bosnian Genocide

Why is there zero mention of his genocide denial on this page? 2600:8805:D21A:F200:7C5B:3735:3600:1923 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate article regarding the subject's political positions. It's got a pretty extensive section about Cambodia.

Similarly, the Bosnian genocide denial page already has a full paragraph dedicated to the subject's position here. There's an argument to be made for adding an excerpt from that page to the aforementioned political positions page before anyone bothers filtering it up to the more biographical page. See FAQ at the top. Reil (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

zero mention

Both genocides (Cambodian and Bosnian) are already mentioned in the article, in two different sections. czar 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel

@SPECIFICO:

WP:DUE: "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Seems there is a misunderstanding on what WP:DUE says; it does not say that we have to weigh the prominency of a viewpoint to determine on its inclusion, but rather that differing viewpoints have to be reported on in proportion to their prominency. This is crystal clear from the quote cited above.

Chomsky has called Israel an apartheid state worse than the one that existed in South Africa, that is his viewpoint; did he give other viewpoints that made you determine citing this was "undue"? No he didn't, and the same goes for his other comments which you removed indiscriminately. I very carefully wrote the prose, ensuring that each of his comments were added in quotes, so there is no valid POV claim. WP:NOTNEWS in not valid since Middle East Monitor and DemocracyNow are not primary sources. COATRACK is an essay.

Please provide valid Wikipedia-based counterarguments or restore the sourced content you have removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I do not understand NPOV, but I have tens of thousands of edits in the most contentious articles on this site and I am confident in my understanding of NPOV and the finer points of how it can be misrepresented and mistreated. Since you don't accept my view, you are welcome to start an RfC and see whether you can convince the community. You would need to convince everyone that - in Chomsky's nearly century-long life story - his views on Israel and Zionism suddenly became much much more important and central to his biography, justifying your additions. I think it's a long shot, but have a try, if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Then as an experienced editor, with good faith, supposedly, you are certainly aware of WP:RFCBEFORE: “RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC.” I have already brunt the WP:BURDEN and demonstrated verifiability by providing reliable secondary citations. Your refusal to even discuss the issue and elaborate on your opposition to the addition of this reliably sourced material without guideline-backed reasons is quite telling. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

First off: if you wish to disparage or threaten me, that should be done on my user talk page, not here. Second, please slow down and consider the reason I gave to explain why this content should not be added. Third, please review WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk▪︎

@SPECIFICO: WP:ONUS links to WP:CONSENSUS which says: “Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.” You have not made any legitimate concerns other than throwing random non-fitting Wikipedia guidelines and making false accusations of alleged disparaging and threats. It’s your responsibility to articulate your concerns, and if there’s an inability/unwillingness to do so, then that’s frankly speaking not my problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, the ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for the content you believe should be added. That may take more time than you would prefer, but that is the standard we follow. I have given my resoning against this addition several times already, above and in my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There is no such thing as "demonstrating consensus"; consensus will be reached when you provide counterarguments based on WP guideline. The burden is on you to engage and express your positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ONUS, CONSENSUS, and seeveral behavioral guidelines. I have repeatedly stated my position and the reasons for it. Perhaps ask an Admin for help if you doubt my statement that you are misunderstanding policy. The reason I suggested an RfC is because that would be one way to demonstrate consensus. I recall you've initiated at least one RfC in the past (ignoring RFCBEFORE, as you know) so I thought you would find that suggestion constructive here. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please stop throwing false accusations that I have started RfCs having ignored RFCBEFORE. Consensus is a group effort, it is not a individual "demonstration". A group effort that starts by you explaining clearly what you object to, because you indiscriminately reverted all of my edits. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of the one that I removed and got you blocked. I don't know and didn't say about any other time, but that's off topic. I don't look at who made an edit when I read it. I do not indiscriminately revert anything due to which editor contributed it. If you wish to make further personal remarks please use my user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What an absurd statement, no one gets blocked for putting an RFC. Please abide by your own statements, and make further personal remarks on my talk page. Now you are welcome begin to elaborate your opposition in a clear manner to each and every edit, since you reverted everything. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Chomsky's views on Israel have been a matter of public record for decades, in 1975 Edward Said wrote Chomsky and the Question of Palestine. He wrote the introduction to The New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid, and along with Ilan Pappé wrote On Palestine and Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the US-Israeli War Against the Palestinians. The current material drastically undersells his views on this topic and the weight it is given in coverage of him. nableezy - 04:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Agreed although undersells is an understatement given that the current content just claims he was "raising awareness", with no mention of his actual views: anti-Zionism; his apartheid analogy; and other comments. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed all the material that was reverted that had been added about Chomsky's views on Israel, which I would broadly characterize as quite nuanced and varied, but include, strong opposition to the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, he's a non-Zionist or anti-Zionist left-socialist, almost communist, anarchist Jewish intellectual. He grew up a Left or Labor Zionist. He later turned to antiwar activism. He definitely did say all the stuff about Israeli apartheid, the reference to the famous Leibowitz Judeo-Nazi quote, which he didn't full-throatedly agree with, he acknowledged it was quite a loaded and controversial statement, so much as say he thought there were tendencies that were starting to develop in Israeli society. I do agree that that particular interview isn't necessary, it is cherrypicking somewhat. Also, I thought we were gathering evidence to get i24 deprecated. You can make the point in a better way. The book sources are probably better, but I couldn't check them for some reason. I'm sure, though, there's a wealth of material describing Chomsky's view in fullness on Israel. For example, he definitely said that he believed that the right to exist is a fiction and we already mention his 1983 book which is entirely about this topic. He's also talked in depth about people such as Nahum Goldmann who didn't want to exploit the Holocaust to oppress others. He's talked about how the two-state solution is the only solution because a one-state solution would be a pie in the sky solution. He's called Gaza a prison. Etc. So, there's plenty that can be said about Chomsky's criticism of Israel and anti-Zionistic views as a socialist Labor Jewish anti-Zionist, his father was a Hebrew scholar, he's a dying breed but such people were once common in the world. I'm sure you can cite the higher quality material such as the books, and the JSTOR and other journal articles, and leave out some of the lighter weight TV interviews where he's just rambling on about things and you're kind of cherrypicking specific quotes that aren't too important in the scheme of understanding his views. Andre🚐 10:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Well for a start, refreshing specific commentary on what is actually potentially problematic, and not just the throwing of random WP guidelines and ad hominem. While I agree with most of your points, I disagree on the cherry picking part: cherry picking refers to when you are taking something out of context, while avoiding contradictory evidence. Cherry picking therefore doesn't apply to these statements, this is merely picking, as there are no contradictory statements in which he says for example that Gaza is a utopia, or in which he says Israel is genuinely a liberal democracy. Chomsky said that the Judeo-Nazi claim was a loaded statement in Israel, he did agree with it, and even said that these Judeo-Nazi tendencies in Israel are growing stronger. I24news is definitely unreliable, however, we could simply offset that problem by attribution; furthermore, there are plenty of other instances where he mentioned this, including in his 1999 Fateful Triangle book, and is widely referenced in the media. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot negate our sourcing and NPOV policies by attribution. That is not how we use attribution. As nableezy concefes, Chomsky's view has been widely know for 50 years. This content did not suddenly become DUE for this mature and widely followed article. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It was always due, the idea that things were not covered so they should not be covered has zero grounding in policy or logic. Wikipedia is after all famously not finished. This material is due and I’ll be adding material with the sources I have found and will keep looking at. Chomskys views on Israel are not presented here, and they form a significant amount of his public advocacy. And of coverage of him. You can try to stand in the way if you want but nobody has to seek your permission for anything here, and if you want to edit war things out then that can be dealt with in the usual manner. nableezy - 17:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope that what you mean to say is that you will be presenting your sources and policy-based rationales for whatever edit you propose and pursuing consensus for your suggestion on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)