Talk:Noam Chomsky

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

"Criticism of intellectual communities"

you know i hate to say it, but this section is incredibly unclear in parts. needs a rewrite for clarity. good god, it discusses how chomsky values straightforward language and fails to make sense itself

"Criticism of Mass Media"

I don't know how all the criticism on Chomsky's critique of mass media bias got in the section on Media Bias, but with the numerous references to a "Criticism of Chomsky" it's rather unneccesary to put it in the main page. It comes off as thought someone really wanted to get their criticism in the main page, regardless of the NPOV. Perhaps it would be better served being put in the "Criticism" page. In comparsion, the part about BF Skinner's book and the criticism of Chomsky's review is very well done. Make fixing that section an objective?

Thank You

Thank you for presenting a well-balanced, warts-and-all portrayal of this "controversial" American figure. Most of the left-leaning pages on Wikipedia are full of self-congratulatory and uncritical assertions -- yours isn't. Thank you for presenting a balanced and encyclopedic entry. Morton devonshire 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

NAME

Why is there so much material on how to pronounce his name? It seems utterly pointless and the jargon employed to do so is meaningless to 99% of well educated people.

- A random Harvard student...

"controversial"

I'm going to delete the word "controversial" from the first sentence. Albert Einstein wrote socialist "peacenik" tracts which enflammed the sensibilities of some americans, yet his wiki article does not immediately slander him as "controversial" in its very first line. Obviously, some things-- both scientific and political-- have generated "controversy." But it seems inappropriate to use that word in the very first sentence of the wiki; it's extremely UNINFORMATIVE, essentially sensational, and seems intended to immediately discredit Chomsky as an entity upon whom the "jury" is "still out". It seems to cast immediate doubt on the man as somebody who can provide insights about the world like anybody else, and in fact has a great ability to do so. Practically any historical or contemporary figure could be described as "controversial"; it would seem that the only requirement is that somebody, somewhere, complains about them. But the truth is, the term "controversial" is totally uninformative, and if anything, misleading in the sentiment that it usually arises. If Chomsky has generated so-called "controversy", great--- let's let the facts speak for themselves throughout the rest of the article, which is what it's there for. Would anybody add "controversial" to the first line of George Bush's wiki? Or to Aristotle's? It strikes me as a silly idea, for any wiki. If there's so-called "controversy", then write about the specifics of it in the body of the article under a specific subheading.

Now, about the "grassroots" issue that you people are talking about: obviously, it depends on what you mean by "grassroots." however, if something can potentially be demonstrated, then it's not "factually incorrect" to simply declare it. If anything, it's merely unproven or unsubstantiated. So you're out of line. Anyway, more importantly, there are endless examples to show that what you said is inaccurate. The viet cong, among other communist movements, were armed and supported by soviet resources and technology, but functioned as its own command hierarchy. If you'd been in Vietnam, I think you would have realized this. Ho Chi Minh and the military forces were never under soviet nor sino "control" any more than churchill was under roosevelt's, or any more than osama bin laden and his marauders were under CIA/US-military control during the Afghan/Soviet war. It's even more true for the khmer rouge in cambodia. pol pot's regime was completely un-soviet in style; they did not need soviet nor sino control to cause the destruction and death that they did. these facts will clash with your ideas about the world, because you're clueless about history. These marxist/maoist movements never needed the soviets or the chinese to control them or to maintain. That's what they are: sustained movements that take over a country. Moreover, very illustratively, you seemed so eager to make your unsubstantiated, sensational claim, that you vaguely said "no major group" was independent from soviet/sino control. Obviously, there were hundreds of "major groups" (vague) that had nothing to do with the soviets, for example, the united states of america, which is a "major group" if there ever was one. Additionally, the soviet union no longer exists-- I'm sure you noticed this-- but several communist powers still do. You limited your comment to "during the cold war", but reality refutes the loosely-strung implications of your statements. "...or not heavily influenced by them" is clearly a weak and foolish thing to say, considering the political polarization of the world during the cold war, and that polarization doesn't mean that "grassroots" movements can't arise or didn't exist.

Your wild, sloppy remarks have contributed nothing to this discussion. At this point I hope we can agree on one thing: it's not productive to argue about how realistic the qualification "grassroots" is if we haven't even defined it. And your terms ("grassroots movements are by definition not influenced by [anything?]") aren't going to cut it. Feel free to keep trying. When you get a clue, then we can have a discussion about how careless Chomsky may or may not have been at various points when talking about the [insert an agrarian communist movement].

Please discuss

Trey and TDC are making some edits that I feel are mostly destructive and have been forced to revert. If they want to put forward some arguments for such edits, they can do it here. Until I see some justifications, I'll have to just revert them. — Chameleon 12:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the self-appointed censor.

Naturally you would feel these edits are destructive as they tarnish Chomsky's halo. I might also add tat this article is the one of the worst examples of creep around. As soon as it becomes balanced and well written, it slowly devolves into love fest for the topic.

At any rate, back to the matter at hand.

Communist movements in Asia that he believed to be grassroots in nature

Stating that marxist/maoist movements in Asia were "grassroots" is factually incorrect. No major group during the cold war was either independent from Soviet/Sino control or not heavily influenced by them. To simply call these grassroots, is factually incorrect, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Providing a biased description of the Hoover Institute on this page is nothing more than a subtle attempt to smear it. This article is about Chomsky and to a lesser extent what others have had to say about his works and opinions. This article is not the place to preoperatively label people who have had things to say about him. Descriptions of the organization and individuals belong on their separate Wikipedia entries, not here. TDC 17:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

First, the article no longer describes the Communist movements in Asia as grassroots, which I agree borders on POV. It mentions the "grassroots level" and "grassroots aspects." The American Heritage dictionary defines grassroots as "people or society at a local level rather than at the center of major political activity." I think it's fairly obvious that people at a local level were involved in Communist revolutions in Vietnam and China (just as ordinary Germans were active in the Nazi Party -- it isn't a normative definition), and it is their activities that Chomsky was praising, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my book, but that's beside the point).

Second, on the Heritage Foundation. Virtually all non-profit organizations, including most of those engaged in political advocacy on the right and the left, receive foundation funding which originates in corporate profits. Seeing as we're not engaged in an in-depth discussion of Heritage, I see no clear need to discuss their funding. What we do need to make clear, however, is that Heritage is a conservative think tank, so that readers understand that the critic being named is not without his own political motives.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. groups have to fund themselves, and if Hoover takes donations from corporations rather than personal fundraising then so be it. some corporations, anyhow, support Democratic candidates pretty strongly, so this is a red herring meant to smear Hoover as a "corporate tool" (i guess only far-left publications like Z-Mag and Democracy Now! would qualify as "independent") J. Parker Stone 22:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, so are we going to apply a label to everyone in the article, and if not, then why? TDC 19:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

TDC, here are the three points I can extract from your comment: (1) a personal attack (2) a misunderstanding about what the word "grassroots" means (3) offence at any info being given about the Hoover people. You then bring up (4) the question of whether people in the article should be described. Here are my replies: (2) you can alter the wording however you like, but the gist should continue to be that Chomsky was positive about some grassroots aspects (i.e. the ordinary people on the ground) of Communist movements in the Far East whilst opposing other things such as the authoritarian nature of such movements, their marxist ideology, and their various other failings, as is to be expected of any anarchist. (3) It is important to point out one or both of the following things about the Hoover Institution lest they be mistaken for something they are not (a) their position on the right of the political spectrum (b) the fact that they are bankrolled by big corporations. (4) Plenty of people are described and labelled in the article, especially Chomsky himself. The Hoover Institution is one described in virtually no detail whatsoever. Your argument about no labelling leads to the reductio ad absurdum that most of the content of the article should be stripped. The word "preoperatively" makes no sense here; I can only assume you mean "pejoratively". If facts about an entity seem pejorative (i.e. put it in a bad light) to you, you should examine the merits of the entity rather than attacking the facts. — Chameleon 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to question your thought process if you think that taking donations from corporations automatically affects an organization's politics. J. Parker Stone 22:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I may as well start by hauling out some evidence, there is lots (especially from Gabriel Kolko's Anatomy of a War), but for now I will stick to what is currently at hand. Starting with what Chomsky actually says because it JUST MIGHT be an important desiderata for authoring an article about him that people should have read a good-sized sample of his work, without preconceptions, having SINCERELY TRIED TO UNDERSTAND HIS ARGUMENTS.....

from the interview in the Chomsky Reader published in 1987. p.26-27

"Take the Vietnam War. It was clear by the end of the sixties that the United States had achieved its primary objectives. It had effectively destroyed the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam and the Pathet Lao in Laos, ensuring, as I wrote at the time, that only the harshest and most authoritarian elements in Indochina would survive, if any would. This was a major victory for U.S. aggression. Principled opponents of the U.S. war were therefore in the position of, in effect, helping to defend the only surviving resistance in Vietnam, which happened to be highly authoritarian state-socialist groups. Now I don't think that was a reason for not opposing the American War in Vietnam, but I think it's a reason why many anarchists could not throw themselves into the struggle with the energy and sympathy that they might have. Some did, but others were reluctant because they were highly critical of the regime that was going to emerge, as I was. Within peace movement groups, I tried to dissociate opposition to the American war from suppport for state socialism in Vietnam, as many will recall. But it was no easy task to undertake serious opposition to imperial aggression, with the very real personal costs that this entailed, on such a basis. This was easy enough for bystanders who were satisfied to cluck their tongues in dismay, but it was quite a different matter for those- primarily young- people who were really trying to do something to end these atrocities. In fact, the American movement tended to become quite pro-North Vietnamese, segments of it, at least. They felt that they were not simply opposing the American war, but they were defending the North Vietnamese vision of a future society.

jp: I think that there was the wish on the part of some to see a genuinely humane alternative society.

NC: Yes. And many felt that this was what the North Vietnamese, the state socialist bureaucrats would create, which was highly unlikely, particularly as the war progressed with mounting terror and destruction. It's worth trying to come to grips with these questions, but that is a very difficult thing to do, for one reason because we're not doing it in outer space. We're doing it in the United States, in the midst of a society which is devoting every effort to enhancing the most harsh and authoritarian and oppressive elements in that regime, or to destroy the country outright. We are doing it in a society which will use our very critique for destructive purposes. Those are facts which no honest person will suppress or fail to attend to. And this remains true today, just as it was during the war. The United States has never terminated its effort to win the war in Vietnam. It's still trying to win it, and in many ways it is winning. One of the ways it is winning is by imposing conditions which will bring out and emphasize the repressive elements which were present in the Vietnamese Communist movement..." (and so on)

Next something to consider from radical historian Carolyn Eisenberg, who you should be familiar with from the criticism section : "To take the case of Vietnam. It took the antiwar movement years to drive home the point that the NLF was an indigenous movement, and that rather than being a Soviet creation, the NLF was, if anything. struggling to get Russian aid." (Radical History Review, 1989). (Note: I do realize that indigenous is not synonymous with "grassroots", nevetheless take it for what it says, the NLF was not anyone's puppet."

Finally from Gabriel Kolko, who Chomsky has cited for amny years on Vietnam, an excerpt from his classic history, "Anatomy of a War.":

"The (NLF) Party always understood the crucial role of local initiative and mass participation, particularly as the increasing demands of security reduced the higher level’s quick access to grass-roots organizations, and adaptively strove to overcome any elitist, passive tendencies which existed, all the while defining a broad, common framework for action. The Peasants liberation Association was the largest of the NLF mass groups, and in many older revolutionary areas it was the real local administration. By mid-1965, according to the CIA, the various liberation associations had roughly half a million members. Other U.S. estimates for a later period showed that anywhere from one-half to three-quarters of the rural society in the NLF-controlled regions participated in the many facets of the local administration’s work – compared with one-fifth in "contested" areas and with less in solid RVN regions. The local Party branches, too, were instructed to assume as many key responsibilities and possible and to operate autonomously of the higher Party on local administrative questions. This made local Revolutionary government far move responsible to the masses than was the typically bureaucratic RVN system, as well as capable of surviving on local resources for military and for other functions." Anatomy of a War- Chapter 10 [user: BernardL]

once again, if the Viet Cong were "indigenous," WHY did they disappear after the NVA took over South Vietnam? J. Parker Stone 22:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To me it's readily evident in the excerpts what Chomsky would likely give as an answer. Just as an exercise, what do you think Chomsky would say in reply? [user: BernardL]

i don't care what excuses Chomsky would make. the Viet Cong were a tool of the PAVN. J. Parker Stone 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would Chomsky make an excuse? You do understand that he is an anarchist, right? — Chameleon 23:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes. an anarchist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for anti-American Communist dictatorships. J. Parker Stone 23:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you understand that that is rather unlikely (like "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists") and that the burden of proof is therefore on you. If you can find a quote by Chomsky supporting any régime, I'll be happy to add it to the article. — Chameleon 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you have to be seriously deluded if you really believe everything you just said. J. Parker Stone 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll take this as an exercise in patience. When I said I hope you do understood that he was an anarchist, I didn't just mean that I hoped you knew that the word was applied to him, but that I hoped you understood that he was actually an anarchist, i.e. someone opposed to all authority, in particular government authority. With me so far? Tell at what point you think my argument breaks down. OK, so if he is an anarchist, it is a priori unlikely that he would support a dictatorship, right? Before you answer that, tell me whether you agree that "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists" would also be an inherently unlikely assertion and one that would require a lot of evidence to back it up. — Chameleon 01:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that for Chomsky, pure anti-Americanism trumps whatever "anarchist" ideology he may possess J. Parker Stone 07:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you bring in a second ideology to explain it. Great. But you do at least see that "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists" or "an [American] anarchist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for anti-American Communist dictatorships" are assertions that seem rather unlikely and require a lot of proof? — Chameleon 08:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument that Chomsky support grassroots aspects of SE Asian Marxist/Maoist movements while simultaneously criticizing the authoritarian nature of such movements might be convincing had he done the latter. During the timeframe of the conflict, late 1960’s and early 1970’s Chomsky was silent on any authoritarian or totalitarian bent in these organizations or regimes. And once again, there are no specific “grassroots aspects” of theses movements spelled out in the article.

There are hundreds of adjectives that could be used to describe the Hoover Institute, describing them as “corporate funded” is not only POV, but is also inaccurate. The list of donors to the Hoover Institute clearly shows them to be foundations, not corporations. I realize that you may not see a difference between the two, but anyone familiar with the causes and organizations supported by the Ford Foundation can see that they are most likely not in line with the interests of the Ford Motors. At its core the Hoover Institute is a libertarian think tank, and if it to be described with any adjectives at all in the article this would be the most appropriate. TDC 15:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say he had criticised specific movements or governments. There is no need for him to do so. His anti-authoritarian ideology has already been clearly stated on numerous occasions. He has also explained on numerous occasions why he focuses the vast majority of his criticism on his own government. Even if he had never specifically criticised any government in the world except for the American one, that would not prove that he supported those governments. The burden of proof is upon those who claim he has specifically supported them.

That said, of course, he has criticised such movements in passing, which adds up to a large amount of condemnation over the years. For example, in the following:

If you look at all of the stuff I wrote about the Vietnam war, there's not one word supporting the Vietcong, [...] The left was all backing Ho Chi Minh: I was saying that North Vietnam is a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. But it wasn't my job to tell the Vietnamese how to run the show. My view is that solidarity means taking my country, where I have some responsibility and some influence, and compelling it to get its dirty hands out of other people's affairs. You give solidarity to the people of a country, not the authorities. You don't give solidarity to governments, you don't give it to revolutionary leaders, you don't give it to political parties. [15]

To this we can add the countless occasions on which he has used adjectives such as "brutal", "atrocious", "gruesome", "Stalinist", "authoritarian" etc. when describing (so-called) Communist organisations, leaders and actions in a variety of countries, including Cambodia and Vietnam. — Chameleon 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"So-called?" No, they were Communist (and communist,) plain and simple. J. Parker Stone 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I realise that we are talking about parties that were wont to use the word "Communist" in their names, and that it is customary in the West to call such movements and governments Communist, in my own writings I am careful to note that they are only "so-called" because these people never brought about any sort of communist society as theorised by Kropotkin or even by Marx; and furthermore I believe that such authoritarian movements are the worst enemy of communism (in the only meaningful sense of the term). — Chameleon 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, all well after the fact. All the adjectives you listed, Chomsky never applied to the Khmer Rouge (for example) until well after no one would dare deny what had taken place.

The quote you provided was interesting and would be relevant had he wrote it in 1964, or 1974, but for him to provide his condemnation of the Vietcong in 1984 (how ironic) does not live up to the burden of proof in this situation. His passing criticism the North Vietnam as a “brutal Stalinist dictatorship” was new in 1984, as he never made any such mention of it when it would have been relevant. Nothing I have found during the relevant time period, including the New Mandarins, even touches on the authoritarian nature of the North Vietnamese or any other Maoist/Marxist movement. Seems to me, that during the relevant period in the 1960’s and 1970’s the only thing had had to say about North Vietnam was cutesies and cuddlies about its glorious revolution.

And while I have to admit that you do have a point when you say that because he did not condemn them means he did not support them, actions often speak louder than words. Going to Hanoi as a guest of the North Vietnamese and making a sugar coated propaganda broadcast over the radio could be viewed in some circles as support for the North Vietnamese regime, because thats exactly what it was.

Or from his April 13, 1970 speech in Hanoi:

• While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements.

I also find it interesting how Chomksy tried to distance himself from this issue by claiming that he could not recall making a speech.

This is what Chomsky had to say about that speech, in an e-mail to me:

Something appeared in FBIS in 1970, purporting to be a transcript of 
a speech of mine over radio Hanoi.  I never gave any speech over 
radio Hanoi, or anywhere.  It's possible that informal remarks were  
picked up of mine, or someone, at a meeting of some sort after Doug 
Dowd, Dick Fernandez and I spent a day travelling through parts of 
the bombed out countryside and some villages in the neighborhood of 
Hanoi, a pretty shattering experience.  Can't say any more than that. 
My own report was in the NY Review a few weeks later, reprinted in At 
War with Asia. This particular item has been circulating for about 30 
years, at least.

So, one: he doesn't say he "could not recall making a speech"; he specifically says he did not make one. So, we have two pieces on his reaction to his trip to Vietnam: one, which bears his byline, is obviously his authorship, and is open for everybody to read. The other first appeared in a US government propaganda outlet during wartime in a war Chomsky was specifically opposing, which Chomsky disclaims. I don't think that that highly questionable single datapoint can truly establish a pattern of him "supporting" the North Vietnamese government. Especially when you compare to, say, many other activists at the time who really did support the North Vietnamese government DanKeshet 19:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

One of my opponents, a Chomsky defender & self-described "anarchist" of the anti-capitalist variety, Dan Clore, immediately denied that Chomsky had ever made any such speech, & called David Horowitz a "notorious liar". He also accused Horowitz of using a fabricated quote from the socialist historian Ronald Radosh about Chomsky's alleged policy of keeping quiet about the negative aspects of North Vietnam that Chomsky had seen on his tour of the country. Unfortunately, Collier & Horowitz didn't indicate what their source for Chomsky's Hanoi speech was, so I kept looking. I found the primary source in the book "POLITICAL PILGRIMS: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society", by Paul Hollander. Then, with the irreplaceable help of Stephen Denney, an archivist with the UC Berkeley Indochina Center, I was able to obtain a transcript of the entire speech, which I have provided above. [16] J. Parker Stone 20:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So? IIRC the original trascript comes from the FBIS; we've had this discussion some time back. The point is Chomsky denies it's genuine, so we should be fairly skeptical of it. Chomsky is pretty notorious both in politics and linguistics for sticking by more or less everything he's ever written, however unpopular. I find it unlikely he'd lie about this one speech, which isn't even very well known. Cadr 20:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I was right in the first place. Read your own post again (and I will assume that the email from Chomsky is legitimate). Although he claims to have not given a speech over radio Hanoi (in a sound studio with a microphone in front of his mouth) he does not discount the possibility that that “informal remarks were picked up” and apparently rebroadcast. I also do not understand the “propaganda outlet” remark. Are you claiming that the Foreign Broadcast Information Service made the whole thing up? And if you are, you better have some more evidence other than a hunch. The transcript of the speech can also be obtained from the Berkeley Indochina Center’s archives.

And as for your claim that one “single datapoint can truly establish a pattern of him "supporting" the North Vietnamese government” is not for either you or I to say. Fact remains is that this “one single datapoint” has been brought up on numerous occasions by his detractors, making it a notable criticism. TDC 21:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confusing another poster's comments with mine. The above is the first post I've made on this page since it was last archived (I think). Anyway, if "informal comments" were picked up, it's hard to be sure that this is actually a transcript and is at all accurate (presumably informal comments would not have been recorded?). Anyway I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn't be included in the article, but it should be clear that Chomsky (uncharacteristically) dissociates himself from it. Cadr 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read it again people, according to DanKeshet’s email, he does not deny that he said these things, simply that he did not make a broadcast over radio Hanoi. TDC 21:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's very interesting. I had thought that the style of writing was very different, but I hadn't realised it was actually a fabrication. One question: does anyone know what language this broadcast was supposed to have been in?

But let's put this aside for a moment, because it doesn't actually change anything. Even in the fabricated transcript, the closest thing to supporting leaders that Chomsky did was to allude positively to a book by a politician. There is nothing even as close as that in stuff actually written by Chomsky. As I pointed out above, the burden of proof is on those who make the improbable claim that Chomsky, a life-long anarchist, would support a particular authoritarian organisation or leader. Nothing approaching proof has ever been given. The article must therefore reflect the well-established fact that Chomsky is an anarchist, whilst duly reporting the insinuations made against him.

Let me point out again, in case it has been forgotten, that we do not need to find a quote from Chomsky written in a certain year, saying "I'm currently against movement/politican X" in order to understand that he was indeed against movement/politician X. It is enough to note that he has been against things like X his entire life, and has on several occasions specifically denounced X and even pointed out that he did indeed oppose X in the given period (e.g. "The left was all backing Ho Chi Minh: I was saying that North Vietnam is a brutal Stalinist dictatorship."). — Chameleon 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

people can deduce tacit support from your writings despite attempts to deny it. at most, Chomsky makes a parenthetical remark about the wrongdoings of America's enemies, then goes into a bashfest against American policy. J. Parker Stone 21:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Chomsky hearts Castro.jpg

[17]

the improbable claim that Chomsky, a life-long anarchist, would support a particular authoritarian organisation or leader. Nothing approaching proof has ever been given.

I know, I know, the picture means nothing. He was just there to ...... um ....... argue .... his ..... displeasure with the US embargo. TDC 21:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously what do I have to do, find a picture of Chomsky tossing Fidel Castro's salad? I mean come one people, he looks like he is going to felate the left's favorite thug for Christ's sake!TDC 02:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a picture of Chomsky talking to Fidel Castro. Perhaps the closest thing the right has to a Rummy-Saddam handshake video. Anyway, since we don't know what he's saying, I don't see how it puts him in either a positive or a negative light, unless you think that talking to bad men makes you a bad man. Cadr 22:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to published reports, Chomsky was in Havana at the 25th Assembly of the Latin American Social Science Council and spent most of his time attacking the United States [18], no doubt impressing his host Fidel Castro.

...Chomsky is not a policymaker worried about an Islamic takeover in Iraq. i think there's a little bit of a difference J. Parker Stone 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

seriously, i get the impression that nothing short of a makeout session with Castro or Ortega would convince you guys of where Chomsky's sympathies lie J. Parker Stone 22:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes no difference whether or not he's a policy maker...Anyway, this quote sums up his position on Castro's government quite well (and probably his opinion on the Asian Communist movements too).

yes it does. policymakers have to deal with unpalatable regimes based on strategic interests. ordinary citizens do not.

As a matter of fact neither politicans nor ordinary citizens have to deal with unpalatable regimes if they don't want to. Both may rationally choose to do so under certain circumstances. Anyway, Chomsky wasn't really dealing with the Cuban regime, he was just talking to Castro because they happened to be at the same conference. I guess most people would probably talk to Castro if they got the opportunity, wouldn't you? Cadr 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah, just so happened to bump into him. and policymakers can't really engage in foreign affairs without at times dealing with shady regimes. J. Parker Stone 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes he did just so happen to bump into him. Are you suggesting he went to that conference specifically to talk to Castro? I agree that policymakers often need to deal with shady regimes, but so do political activists if they want to change anything. And there's no evidence that Chomsky was "dealing" with Castro anyway. Cadr 23:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I do not pass judgement on what Cubans decide to do. I am in favour of Cuba’s successful defiance of the United States. I am in favour of them taking matters into their own hands. Exactly how they carry it out… I have my own opinions. A lot of things I think are fine, a lot not, but it’s a matter for the Cubans to decide. My concern is that the hemispheric superpower not resort to violence, pressure, force, threat, and embargo in order to prevent Cubans from deciding how to determine their own fate.

well, Chomsky is vague here, but he clearly seems to be favoring the Castro govt. over the U.S. (Cubans "decide for themselves" despite being repressed by the state apparatus) J. Parker Stone 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. He's favouring Cuban control of Cuba, and noting that the Castro government has successfully resisted capitulating to US interests, whatever its other qualities.

right, supporting the Castro govt. J. Parker Stone 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really, that's a distortian resulting from "with us or against us" disorder. He says quite explicitly that he's "in favour of Cuba's successful defiance". He doesn't praise the Castro govt, at least not in that quote. Cadr 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

are we going to get rid of the flag or not?

Origins of supposed "Radio Hanoi" speech

If you follow the webpage Trey links to above, it clearly states that the speech was first published in a journal of the FBIS, that is, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service [FBIS] of the CIA. The publication was therefore made at a time of war by the intelligence/counterintelligence arm of one of the belligerents. Just weeks later, Chomsky set out a piece under his own byline describing his time there, which was quite markedly different from the piece published by the CIA. These are just some of the many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the piece. DanKeshet 21:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

i have a hard time believing that the FBIS would just up and fabricate such a long speech about a (non-mainstream) antiwar activist. J. Parker Stone 21:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

but, i mean, there's a simple way to solve this -- say that Chomsky himself denies ever having made such a speech. J. Parker Stone 21:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And it is compeltely irrelevant Dan. You are trying to piece together an explanation for a question no one is asking. Provide evidence, or even a sourced allegation that the transcript is a phony, and no an unverifiable email will not do, or you are just spinning your wheels with original research.

Remember, Chosmky does not discount the possibility that "informal remarks were picked up" and possibly rebroadcasted over the Radio. TDC 21:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi TDC, the onus isn't on me to "prove" that it was falsified; if we were to use that as a source, the onus is on all of us to evaluate it as a source. We don't just believe things because they haven't been disproven; we try to find credible sources. According to Trey's link, the piece was written up by the FBIS after being broadcast on Radio Hanoi, supposedly a day after it had been recorded. We don't yet know whether the FBIS claims that this is a transcript of his English-language remarks or a re-translation of the Vietnamese (which, hence, would have gone through the intelligence arms of both belligerents before it reached us!). The point is not simply whether or not Chomsky denies making the speech; that is just one strike among many marking this source as non-credible. FWIW, this is a clear point calling for us to do more library research and find the original FBIS journal, to see what it says about the speech. DanKeshet 21:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Just weeks later, Chomsky set out a piece under his own byline describing his time there, which was quite markedly different from the piece published by the CIA'

This also brings up another interesting point. What Chomsky says on and off the record is quite telling. I will point you to the letter he wrote to Alexander Cockburn regarding Vaclav Havel, among other things [19]

I'd like to point out that we are writing an encyclopedia article about Noam Chomsky, not an authoritative biography. Seeing as we are not excerpting quotations from every speech he has ever given, I don't think it unreasonable to restrict ourselves to speeches and writings which are undoubtedly authentic, which I think will provide plenty of fodder for critics and admirers alike. The quote is being used to summarize Chomsky's views on Communism in Vietnam -- if it's authenticity is dubious, it can hardly serve to do that, disclaimer or no. RadicalSubversiv E 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that based on what documentable evidence exactly can you say to me that this source is dubious? Please be very specific and clear here. Secondly it is not being used to by me to summarize Chomsky's views on Communism in Vietnam, it is being used by his critics, (you know, real one that have documentable opinions and not wild ass conspiracy theories about the CIA faking a radio broadcast to smear ol' Noamy). This is also the way it was written the last time I made significant contributions to the article and it was nto watered down into another lovefest. TDC 02:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon, please stop RVing the changes. Nothing has been "shown" to be a fabrication. J. Parker Stone 22:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some more info

Check out the Virtual Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech. I found in the Douglas Pike collection of documents something which I've copied the OCR'ed text to here: User:DanKeshet/Chomsky in Vietnam. I haven't cleaned it up much, but the original .PDF is available at that site. Citation: Peace Offensive, 14 April 1970, Folder 06, Box 08, Douglas Pike Collection: Unit 03 - Antiwar Activities, The Vietnam Archive, Texas Tech University. DanKeshet 22:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

See also http://forum.zmag.org/read?58235,5 - BTW, obviously the CIA and lots of others were monitoring Radio Hanoi at the time, so if this "speech" is real, a recording of it exists somewhere... let's try a reward for delivering a recording that corresponds to the version of the no-treason website? If the wackos who believe that it's real weren't so lazy, they would just go and check the source given on the website ("published in the _Asia-Pacific Daily Report_ of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3") - I bet they won't find anything like this published there, i.e. the person who put it on the website is another lazy wacko who just used his imagination and made it up without looking anywhere else...

That link is broken. — Chameleon 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it's not. You should log in as a guest first.

It's not easy to access. I've copied the text here: Talk:Noam Chomsky/Zmag forum reply re Radio Hanoi. — Chameleon 15:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the only "wackos" i can think of are the people suggesting that the CIA would go through the trouble of fabricating something like this -- if they were gonna do it, why not for someone like Fonda? J. Parker Stone 03:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read again. I said that lazy wackos like you, and the guy who put the "speech" on the website, fabricated it - i.e., that neither the CIA nor anyone else related to the U.S. gov published it, but wackos like you are too lazy to actually go and check the source given on that website. I didn't take a stand at all on whether or not the CIA would fabricate such a thing - that's a straw man that you keep coming back to. Also read again the part about a recording that should be available if it were real.

I find it amazing that an Israeli would come here to defend Noam Chomsky of all people. But anyhoo, the source at the UC Berkley Indochina Center was given, and I am sure he can clear all this up if it is neccesary. TDC 04:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who fabricated this, and it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is an unverified source, clearly stated by the man himself to not be his words. Stop being so paranoid. The fact that we don't want to quote this dodgy source doesn't mean there is some great cover-up. I was happy leaving it in the article for months until we realised it was not authentic. It is also crazy to think that the fake speech somehow supports your thesis. You should look at the article that Chomsky actually did write about his trip. In it he is actually more positive about the way things were organised over there than in the fake speech.

I also think it's possible that little deliberate falsification has occurred. It is conceivable that comments made by Chomsky in Vietnam were summarised and turned into a speech in Vietnamese which was then read on Radio Hanoi, then transcribed and translated back into English, and then got back to us after passing through filters that removed the full details of its production. All rather like a game of Chinese whispers. In any case, since Chomsky has made practically identical comments in this article that we know he wrote, I don't see (a) any reason to use the speech that we are not sure is his, or (b) any reason at all to doubt him when he says that he did not give the speech (given that it would be utterly pointless to deny [20] whilst referring us to [21]). — Chameleon 04:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

of course he has reason to deny it -- to prevent conservatives from attacking him as a VC apologist and pseudo-Marxist hack. J. Parker Stone 04:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that doesn't make sense. How does the speech prove either of those things? What does he allegedly say in it that he doesn't say in greater detail in the article he actually wrote? — Chameleon 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC

A speech purported to be given by Noam Chomsky in 1970 while he was in Hanoi is now in question and some editors are attempting to remove it.

The following reasons are given for its being deemed a fake and for removed (these appear to be the major ones).

• 1. An email allegedly from Chomsky states that he never gave a radio broadcast, although it does leave open the possibility that he was recorded.
• 2. The FBIS, as an agent of the United States Government, has fabricated the speech.
• 3. The source for the speech, an article from a highly partisan source, concocted the speech.

My responses to the above.

• 1. An unsolicited and unverifiable email (although I have no reason to believe it is not from Chomsky) is hardly acceptable as a source in this case considering that he is subject of the debate and has considerable reason to deny these allegations.
• 2. No evidence that the FBIS fabricated the speech.
• 3. No evidence that the article fabricated the speech.

The logic and reasons given for the removal of the speech are entirely unverifiable and conjecture. These reasons hardly warrant the removal of relevant material whose inclusion was decided upon long ago.TDC 11:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

TDC, we don't include absolutely everything ever said by or about Chomsky. We select the best from the material available. You want to include a source that we have reason to believe may not be authentic. We are opposing that because almost identical comments by Chomsky can be found in documents whose authenticity is beyond doubt. You are just making trouble, which is your stated aim on Wikipedia. — Chameleon 11:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) - doesn't apply, he gave much more details in a public znet forum email, linked above.
(2)+(3) - well, there's also no evidence that there aren't pink elephants with 9 heads dancing on the moon, but without credible evidence we shouldn't claim that there are... If you're too lazy to verify the source, that's your problem... BTW, even though I'm willing to bet that you'd get stuck at (3), suppose for the sake of the argument that I'm wrong, what do you expect to find when you reach (2)? A claim that those words were spoken by Chomsky and broadcasted on Radio Hanoi in English, or a claim that some north Vietnamese broadcaster said those words in the Vietnamese language on Radio Hanoi? If it's the 2nd option, I would assume you do not wish to maintain a double standard by claiming that in this instance the north Vietnamese were telling the truth, while elsewhere they're liars...

Please log in and sign your comments. — Chameleon 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not say: "the CIA fabricated the speech". I said: this source isn't trustworthy. There's a big difference between the two. I gave reasons why the source isn't trustworthy: there's a lack of information about its origins: we don't have a copy of the FBIS broadcast, we don't yet know what language the Radio Hanoi broadcast was in, we don't know whether the Radio Hanoi broadcast was a summary of Chomsky's words, or whether it was Chomsky in his own words, speaking in English. For all we know, this is a word-for-word accurate translation of a Radio Hanoi speechwriter's propaganda.

I have gone out and tried to track the source down and verify it. I have found another source which purports to be a transcript of a Radio Hanoi broadcast about Chomsky's visit the same day, in English. That source does not quote Chomsky directly, but summarizes what the group of 3 Americans said. I would think you would be happy that we seem to be progressing toward the truth. Instead, you seem to be making the bizarre argument that we should not spend more time verifying the authenticity of sources.

Finally, there's two other points involved here: 1) there's a substitute source (Chomsky's article in the NY Review of Books) with a more direct pedigree (not unverified Chomsky->Radio Hanoi->FBIS->random website, but Chomksky->NY Review, which are both verified). The substitute source is a more typical Chomsky style, with pretty similar content. For what it's worth, I only got involved because I was worried about us using "dodgy" sources, to pick up a Britishism. There are many articles in which Chomsky says that there were significant grassroots aspects to the Vietnamese revolution, with the same caveats he gives after his visit: some of it was highly centralized and not grassroots. I think emphasizing one or the other (his distrust of the Vietnamese state's centralizing tendencies or his remarks about the grassroots nature of many parts of the Revolution) would be inappropriate. DanKeshet 14:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Dan, and would like to thank him for the research he's putting into this. RadicalSubversiv E 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we did NOT emphasize one -- I personally kept both in, to show that he viewed the U.S. as far worse than the PAVN and keep his criticism of statism. J. Parker Stone 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's nice, but there is really no need to quote the speech at all. — Chameleon 21:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice that since you have lost the argument, you have resorted to just reverting the page. You won't be allowed to do that. — Chameleon 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i only lost the argument if you think that some nut conspiracy theory about how the speech was completely fabricated is true (though i wouldn't put it past Chomsky supporters) J. Parker Stone 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey, the only editors who have claimed to know anything about the speech's authenticity with certainty are you and TDC. Everyone else is of the opinion that since Chomsky denies its authenticity, it should not be used until it can be verified more authoritatively than by a right-wing website. RadicalSubversiv E 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Stone, how is that possibly a conspiracy theory? It is perfectly possible that it was fabricated by Tim Starr. One liar does not a conspiracy make. Alternatively, the Viet Cong could have cobbled the text together from various things Chomsky said, and the proper attribution and history of the text could have been lost at some point, through malice or carelessness. The fact is that we don't know how the text came to exist; all we know is that Chomsky made no such speech on Radio Hanoi. Until further research is carried out, all we have is a text from an unconfirmed source on a non-notable website. I'm afraid that doesn't meet our criteria for reference material, especially when have a longer article actually written by Chomsky which says much the same. The only ones pushing a paranoid theory are you and TDC, who are somehow convinced that Chomsky is lying about this text, despite the utter lack of any reason to do so. You have been unable to respond to any of these points, so you should stop reverting. — Chameleon 20:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the "right-wing website" links to the Berkeley Indochina Center, smart guy. J. Parker Stone 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he links to the BIC's site, but the text in question is not on that site. So that's no use. We need to do more research before we know the full story about where the hell that text came from. Don't you understand that? — Chameleon 21:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to get the original FBIS documents with the transcript and see what they say about the source. I looked into this a few months ago, but it's very hard to get hold of them in the UK, and there seem to be lots of slightly-differently-named publications listed in libraries, none of which match precisely with the cited publication. I expect good libraries in the US have what we're looking for, right? Maybe Trey or TDC could find the original publications and help lay this to rest. Cadr 21:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My edits on this project have generally had to do with NPOVing obvious bias in various articles, rather than in-depth research additions. So I'll stay out of this particular dispute. J. Parker Stone 23:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Presumably then, you will not be pressing for the inclusion of quotes from this speech in the article? Unless someone else does the research. Cadr 23:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave that to TJive or TDC if either of them wants to take the time to look this up, though I trust that the Chomsky supporters and others on this page won't hold them to an impossible standard of evidence. J. Parker Stone 23:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a few points, at present limited to the "speech" itself, since this was posted in the requests for comment section:

• In regards to TDC's first numbered point, an email is inherently unverifiable and it constitutes original research, so for the purposes of this site may be disregarded in any case.
• There is no evidence presented to suspect the FBIS of forgery.
• Tim Starr lists a book by Paul Hollander, :Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society" as the original source for the speech, and claims that a certain Stephen Denney (now) formerly of the UC Berkeley Indochina Center provided him with a transcript. There is nothing objective to suggest that this source is "shady", "doubtful" other than that one's politics necessitate that they taken a partisan view of historical facts.

This link gives Starr's response to criticism of the authenticity, in which a quote of Chomsky's is mentioned:

The passage quoted is reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the time, touching on the very same topics...

I remember well at the time that this was originally published that Chomsky did not deny that it was authentic, in response to a question by Dan Clore, a fan of his. If the "Flag Blackened" link was the source of the remark, it has now disappeared. In any case, there seems now to be a different response altogether, as posted by DanKeshet. The date of this post should be given here, if someone would be so kind. It consists mainly of polemical and ad hominem attacks on US policy and those who mention this speech, respectively. However, there is a substantive claim:

In the chapter on NVN, I quoted a passage from a programmatic statement by Le Duan, adding only a brief skeptical comment. The alleged talk on Hanoi radio does not exist, as I mentioned, but the passage, which has been circulating among neo-Nazi clones for some years, could possibly be authentic. It's possible that some interchange during the visit was recorded and played on the radio. The passage has a few sentences describing a trip to the bombed-out countryside, then some polite and also noncommittal comments referring to the same programmatic statement by Le Duan. It's what I suppose any minimally decent human being might say in some interchange under such circumstances, which is, doubtless, why it so offends enthusiastic advocates of immense crimes -- "genocide," if the word is to be used at all -- with whom you are choosing to spend your time.

Which is to say, Chomsky does not at all deny that the words are authentic, or that they were broadcast, but denies formally making a speech for Hanoi Radio. It is worth mentioning here that though Starr, in his editorial content, characterized it as a "speech", the quoted passage reads as follows:

- Noam Chomsky, originally delivered on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi while he was visiting North Vietnam with a group of anti-war activists. Broadcast by Radio Hanoi on April 14, and published in the _Asia-Pacific Daily Report_ of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3.

That these comments were "broadcast" has not been denied, and he has repeatedly admitted that he said similar things in an "informal" context as well as that the words are similar to passages he wrote at the time. As for where they came from, it seems that others have suggested the event mentioned here as a source. The transcript is dated as April 14, 1970, with Chomsky's broadcasted remarks being on the day before. This is not a discrepancy, as they refer to two separate broadcasts, not the broadcast of a single event; therefore this is likely the to be the origination of the comments. There is one odd thing in reading the former however (which is difficult in the unclean presented format); it is this:

As Premier Pham Van Dong has said in his message to the American people on October 14, 1970

The transcript is dated as April 14, 1970 but it refers to an event which would not have taken place for months to come. I am not familiar with whether this remark actually took place in April (and is thus an error) or not. This, however, reflects merely on the authenticity of the transcript concerning the event, not the remarks as given by Tim Starr. If someone would also provide a direct link to this it might clear things up but this source seems odd in the date discrepancy.

The so-called speech therefore seems prudent to mention in a careful context--which is to say that specific allegations were launched against Chomsky by Tim Starr, David Horowitz, and Peter Collier (and probably Paul Hollander, if someone would get that book) about a speech given in North Vietnam, that the comments were published by the FBIS as being broadcast on Hanoi Radio, that Chomsky has himself denied that he had given a speech, but does not deny that such remarks may have been recorded, and believes the remarks could possibly be accurate as presented. How they are interpreted is a different matter, though it is difficult to portray them as innocently as many here would like to. --TJive June 28, 2005 16:54 (UTC)

According to the Washington Research Library Consortium, the Asia-Pacific Daily Report began in 1974. Of course the WRLC could be wrong. If anyone lives near Georgetown, you could run down and ask them. Frankly, I don't give enough of a shit to bother doing it. Perhaps the people advancing the claim do. Descendall 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Correction -- According to another page I found, the FBIS started compiling daily reports in 1966. Someone have a LexisNexis subscription? Descendall 17:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam's intro rewrite

First off, I think it's rather reckless to make a major change to an article that's being actively fought over, removing several important pieces of information, and only offer a one-word edit summary as explanation. That's just a recipe for an edit war.

Secondly, although I'd like to hear his reasoning, I think Sam's changes are inappropriate:

1. Whether Chomsky is best-known for his academic work or his political activism is, in fact, debatable. Certainly he has had a far greater impact on modern linguistics than he has on the operations of the United States government.
2. His political self-identification is obviously relevant to any attempt to briefly summarize his political activity.
3. The fact that he is by some measures the world's most cited living author certainly merits inclusion, and the intro seems like a fine place for it to me.

   Sam's intro actually retained this fact. Cadr 11:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   My apologies to Sam, I didn't look closely enough at the diff. I stand by my other points, however. RadicalSubversiv E 12:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv E 06:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Radicalsubversiv here. — Davenbelle 03:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I like the intro as it was. Unended 05:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

My edits have better flow. Sam Spade 03:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Better flow" is an inadequate explanation for removing factual information. RadicalSubversiv E 05:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What factual information was removed? Have you compared the two versions yet? Sam Spade 12:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It removes the info about his political affiliation, and makes the unverifiable statement that he's better known for his politics than his linguistics. He's pretty well known for both. I also think the second paragraph doesn't follow on very well from the first. Cadr 14:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I separated the two paragraphs by subject matter. The info a bout his political affiliation... his political affiliations are too weird for the intro, better they be discussed at length later on. As far as what people know him better for, I thought that was an obvious fact, but if not, that can be removed. Sam Spade 16:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Too weird for the intro". What do you mean by that?! Anyway, it certainly isn't an obvious fact that he's better known for his politics. One amusing fact about Chomsky critics is that those who criticise his politics tend to say "oh, he's only well known because of his linguistics", and those who criticise his linguistics tend to say the opposite. Cadr 16:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mean his ideas are so nutty I doubt many of his fans have a clue what he is talking about... sometimes I wonder if he does! As far as what he's known for thats so obvious I see no need to debate it. He's popular because he's anti-globalist and anti-american, and those are popuar ideas at the moment. His contribution to linguistics seems to be overrated, but we would be remiss not to give it comparable reviews to what can be found elsewhere. [22]. I'll ask my friend who is a linguist, and see what he thinks. Sam Spade 16:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that he is famous in different ways in his two fields. He has reached a larger absolute number of people with his politics, but a larger percentage of people in his field (probably 100%). But this question is original research. We should simply mention that he is notable in both fields without trying to push one or the other.

As for the "nuttiness", you're simply making an argumentum ad ignorantium which we'll ignore. — Chameleon 16:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm a linguist and I don't think his contribution is overrated. Even if you disagree with everything he's written in linguistics, his effect on the field has been enormous. The fact that you think his political ideas are nutty is obviously no reason not to summarise them in the intro. Cadr 16:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently I was wrong, my friend told me that Chomsky's influence in linguistics can't be overstated, particularly given the newness of the field. To be honest I was just assuming his contributions had been exaggerated, since I have heard precious little about his linguistics, and so much about his politics. Whichever, live and learn. Sam Spade 00:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political Views

A quote clarifying Chomsky's description of his politics from the essay "Goals and Visions" in Powers and Prospects/Perspectives on Power - an essay I cannot recommend highly enough for those interested in the values that guide his analyis:

"My personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Before proceeding, I have to clarify what I mean by that. I do not mean the version of classical liberalism that has been reconstructed for ideological purposes, but the original, before it was broken on the rocks of rising industrial capitalism, as Rudolph Rocker put it in his work on anarchosyndicalism 60 years ago- rather accurately, I think. .... When I speak of classical liberalism, I mean the ideas that were swept away, in considerable measure, by the rising tide of state capitalist autocracy. These ideas survived (or were re-invented) in various forms in the culture of resistance to the new forms of oppression, serving as an animating vision for popular struggles that have considerably expanded the scope of freedom, justice and rights. They were also taken up, adapted, and developed within left-libertarian currents. According to this anarchist vision, any structure of hierarchy and authority carries a heavy burden of justification, whether it involves personal relations or a larger social order..." (Goals and Visions, Perspectives on Power, p.71-73)

Some current edits

1. The given quote is misleading because it does not allow for any description of what an "ethnic homeland" is and how in some form Chomsky has always advocated it. What most would interpret this to mean is that he has always believed Israel to have a legitimate right to exist as it stood, when in fact he has always advocated not only the resettling of Palestinian refugees and their ancestors in Israel (which effects the demographics of the country) but for at least a time believed the whole of Palestine should be one bi-national state, obviously with a majority of Arabs and Palestinians. This could technically be an "ethnic homeland" for the fact that there are Jews and Jewish refugees allowed to live there, but it has never been a predominant position of Zionism at any point that he believed in it since it negates the possibility of any Jewish majority. The issue is thus more complicated than is necessary to expound upon in this section, and so there is no reason to mention the quote in any case; his view of Zionism has already been given.

2. The second hand verbs and digressing style make it so that the article takes a position on the meaning of terrorism and that the Afghan war is an example of it. There are multiple definitions of terrorism even among the agencies of the US government, and needless to say there is not only one possible view as to the Afghan war.

3. Example of Chomsky rationalizing a situations where terrorism is involved. The sentence after however causes the body not only to be redundant but it indirectly allows for his position on the Khmer Rouge and 9/11 to be presented as the only possible one, whereas the article goes on to mention how others have interpreted his remarks on both as uncritical, insufficiently or insincerely so, or relativizing and even rationalizing the acts. --TJive June 28, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

See talk history. This quote is taken out of context to convey the opposite of its intended meaning. Cadr 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Please, I read the entire debate. Elsewhere in the debate he talks about the ineffectiveness and immorality of political violence. This quote does not suggest that he is in favor of terror but he is presenting a theoretical case in which terror would be justified when certain criteria are met--in this case, the living standard of Vietnamese peasants. --TJive June 28, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

The last sentece of the paragraph -- which you deliberately elide -- says that in this case he didn't actually support the terror. 84.68.166.225 28 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

See [23]. I was wrong, in fact it's in another part of the article that he indicates that he didn't support the terror. Anyway, this shows why you shouldn't inlcude the out-of-context quote. This is Cadr, I keep getting logged out for some reason. 84.68.166.225 28 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

You yourself are the one that is stripping quotes from their context:

But, for reasons that are pretty complex, there are real arguments also in favor of the Viet Cong terror, arguments that can't be lightly dismissed, although I don't think they're correct. One argument is that this selective terror -- killing certain officials and frightening others -- tended to save the population from a much more extreme government terror, the continuing terror that exists when a corrupt official can do things that are within his power in the province that he controls.

Then there's also the second type of argument ... which I think can't be abandoned very lightly. It's a factual question of whether such an act of violence frees the native from his inferiority complex and permits him to enter into political life. I myself would like to believe that it's not so. Or at the least, I'd like to believe that nonviolent reaction could achieve the same result. But it's not very easy to present evidence for this; one can only argue for accepting this view on grounds of faith. And the necessity of releasing the peasant from this role of passivity is hardly in question. We know perfectly well that, in countries such as North Korea and South Vietnam and many others, it was necessary to rouse the peasants to recognize that they were capable of taking over the land. It was necessary to break the bonds of passivity that made them totally incapable of political action. And if violence does move the peasantry to the point where it can overcome the sort of permanent bondage of the sort that exists, say, in the Philippines, then I think there's a pretty strong case for it.

In other words, the first "argument" is that greater terror is being prevented (i.e. that of the South Vietnamese government). The second concerns the role of the peasants, where Chomsky says he doesn't "think" it can "be abandoned very lightly", which is to say, in the abstract that terror would lead to better conditions for Vietnamese peasants than Filipino peasants (which he repeats), terror might be justified. --TJive June 28, 2005 18:18 (UTC)

First, an apology. The first two times someone tried to include this quote, they were trying to make out that Chomsky supported the Viet Cong terror, which he says quite explicitly in the article that he doesn't ("arguments that can't be lightly dismissed, although I don't think they're correct"). He says explicitly that he didn't think the terror lead to better conditions for peasents (this is the last sentence of the paragraph which is deleted in your version of the quote). He only says that it might have been justified if it had done so. Anyway, I've put an in-cotext quote into the article and made Chomsky's views clearer. Again, sorry for misunderstanding you. 84.68.166.225 28 June 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this might be a good compromise as is. --TJive June 28, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

I have been having technical problems too, but not in logging in. I had trouble actually posting my edits because I kept getting errors. I hadn't even see any revert and thought it was being posted just once. I wouldn't have simply reverted it. --TJive June 28, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

4. Again, taking out the POV here, others attribute different motives to him. "Official enemy" is even a common term of Chomsky's.

---

Hold on, here we have one account that looks rather sockpuppetish, and one anonymous user. Can you both please sign on to your usual accounts if you have them? Things would be clearer then. Thanks. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)

The anon is Cadr, as was admitted, and I don't appreciate the ad hominems, though it is rather revelatory. --TJive June 28, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

TJive's been on Wikipedia for some time, and whether or not he's a sockpuppet he hasn't been vandalising the article. The anon is me (Wikipedia keeps signing me off today) as I noted above. 84.68.166.225 28 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Erm, it's signed me off again. Anyway it's Cadr. 84.68.166.225 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Go and learn what ad hominem means. Clue: it doesn't involve asking people to sign in. I went to look at TJive's user page. It has only one edit, and that edit was from another account. That situation should be rectified if TJive doesn't want people to wrongly think he might be a sockpuppet. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)

"Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley)."

You did not address any issue other than what you allege me to be.

"It has only one edit, and that edit was from another account."

I have no idea what you are talking about. My user page has an ASCII of Mario and Yoshi posted by someone else, which I rather enjoy. I have not bothered to put anything on it because vanity is of no concern to me. I have seen users who utilize discussion pages but never put up user pages. That is their choice, and this is mine. --TJive June 28, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Look, sorry if I'm short with you, but I've seen many an anti-Chomskyite pass through this article and attempt to destroy it, so anyone who seems to be acting like them is likely to be treated rudely. The solution: don't act like them. It is much the same with user pages like yours. They are characteristic of sockpuppets. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, people may think it's a duck. Been falsely accused of being a duck? Stop quacking. As for your long quotation, I asked you to learn what ad hominem was, not post such information here. Furthermore, the only conclusion that one can draw from your posting it here is that you agree with the gist of it, which is that there are several very different definitions of ad hominem, which, translated into an argument, means that you think that anything goes. If that's not an accurate description of your position, it's your fault for posting a quotation instead of arguing your point. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 19:41 (UTC)

I know what an ad hominem is. I posted the information for your benefit, as you seem to believe that vaguely probing into one's intentions is enough to determine the validity of what they contribute, to which "sockpuppet" (of whom?) has now been added "anti-Chomskyite". Does this then make you a "Chomskyite"?

I thank you for the apology. However, it is "my fault" that you have chosen to level these accusations because I do not meet expectations of behavior that were spelled out where, exactly? I have neither a duty to succumb to political interrogations or to post anything whatever on my page to qualify for editing; those are expectations of your own and so "it's your fault" for making the spurious charge in the first place based on nothing but prior prejudice. That is why I said it is quite revelatory; in your comments you attempt to attribute a motive but accomplish merely exposing your own. --TJive June 28, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bad idea for me to get involved here, but I think TJive is right on most points. Anyway, his edits should be judged on their merits, and they're actually perfectly NPOV (personally I think they're unnecessarily pedantically NPOV, but I don't mind if they stay). But this isn't meant to be an attack on Chameleon, we all seem to be a bit edgy today for some reason :S. Cadr 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

It may be in large part because of the lock, with some itching to get back to contributing as well as revert wars. It seems this is in the process of one. That is not my fault, of course, but perhaps I was a bit silly to get involved. I did expect better. --TJive June 28, 2005 22:28 (UTC)

There might be some wounded egos (?), but I think we can all see that everyone has acting more-or-less in good faith, with some unfortunate misunderstandings. Cadr 28 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

See just now it happened again (though I suppose it's possible you did it on purpose. This text was deleted (see here):

Also there is apparently a technical problem that has resulted in unnecessary reverts, reflected recently in the pink message on the edit screens. To clarify, for example, as I mentioned before, I received errors when attempting to post and only believed to have posted the disputed passage once, but apparently it also reverted it. I'm not quite sure how that all happened. --TJive June 28, 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Looking back through the edits it also appears that this happened during a revert of Chameleon's, which probably didn't help matters. --TJive June 28, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Removed subsection "Sudan,"

I've just removed a subsection called "Sudan," (in the section of "Criticisms of Chomsky's political views") because it is not a criticism of his views, it is just a criticism of him for having made a simple error in a telephone interview with Salon.com.

It appears that one of the central objectives of this article is to make sure to include "uncomfortable facts." It seems like this is an order to dig up dirt on Chomsky and include potentially embarrassing details that do not have much to do with Chomsky's views. Please help me understand the reasons for us doing this. It seems that the second stated objective of including "uncomfortable facts" contradicts the first objective of keeping the article in tune with wikipedia's NPOV standards. NietzscheFan

Facts are facts; to the extent that this applies, they are only "uncomfortable" to those with a partisan view of the topic. It is not appropriate to change an article to reflect this view. The criticism section, contrary to your assertion, is rather not substantive, mainly consisting of repeating a generic allegation and allowing Chomsky to respond at great length (where editors have not very openly ghost-written for him, as in the Faurisson section), which shows only that they refuse to seriously inform themselves about what is in dispute, and mainly prefer attacking the perceived motives of the critics (something which Chomsky himself routinely engages in). --TJive June 29, 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Facts are facts, but what is the significance in a fact that describes Chomsky erroneously attributing a number to a source during an interview which he did not do in print? If I correctly recall the phrasing, he actually cited two sources, only of one of which didn't actually posit an estimate of the death toll. And, as far as I can tell, there is no suggestion that the substance of the statement was wrong. If we had a section criticizing public figures on the mistaken use of sources during live interviews for every Wikipedia entry on a public figure, Wikipedia would be a tedious read. It seems to me not to be a "criticism" of Chomsky at all as there is no suggestion of fraud, intent to mislead, or routine errors in sourcing information. It's just an infomationless anecdote. (And, also for this reason, I disagree that the section on Sudan is an "uncomfortable fact." It's just pointless.) Is there any criticism of Chomsky on Sudan and his comparison of it to 9/11 that has any meat to it? Unended June 29, 2005 13:58 (UTC)

My comment was not in regards to the section on the Sudan, but his statement:

• "It appears that one of the central objectives of this article is to make sure to include "uncomfortable facts.""

Which is much more broad and necessarily applies to much more than the Sudan issue. If I had felt anything about the section as is, I would have reverted it. As far as criticism concerning the Sudan, it is mentioned in the context of the debate with Hitchens, though there has been no allowance of source for the dispute over the death toll mentioned. --TJive June 29, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

I think Hitchens' criticism of Chomsky on the Sudan comparison would be a legitimate inclusion (because a public mini-debate between the two ensued over it), but the section that got deleted (at least as it stood just prior to deletion) didn't have anything to do with that. It just said that Chomsky made a comparison and that he erroneously cited Human Rights Watch for a number regarding the death toll, which isn't much of a criticism. All the references to Hitchens' criticism are in other sections. Unended June 29, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I believe that I have been misinterpreted here, as I never said a word in defense of the Sudan section and made no attempt to salvage it. I merely mentioned Hitchens because you asked for essentially a notable criticism of his views on the same issue. Concerning the facts of the incident, I believe Hitchens is in agreement but others are not, but it has been far too long for me to attempt to recall the sources of such a criticism offhand. --TJive June 30, 2005 03:05 (UTC)

Anon user, please sign in! And feel free to ignore TJive's attacks. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 09:24 (UTC)

Hi, this is the formerly anonymous user, now signed in as NietzscheFan. Pay attention to the fact that the criticism section is called "Criticisms of political views." So, what constitutes a political view? If you were to include a section that says that Chomsky says that the US government is incredibly protectionist, and a refutation or a link to a refutation of this claim that Chomsky espouses in print, that would be appropriate. It is inappropriate, however, to include a section that simply criticizes Chomsky for his memory having failed him. You can only criticize him for his views that he has openly esposed (that means he has to have written about it). Furthermore, even if Chomsky had mistakenly cited Human Rights Watch as having said what number of people were killed as a result of the bombing in print, it would still be inapropriate to criticize him for that here because you would be criticizing him for having made a simple citation error. If you were to criticize Chomsky for being a libertarian-socialist, that would be an applicable criticsm (for this section, "Criticisms of political views").

In fact, the only thing you should be able to criticize Chomsky for is his being a libertarian-socialist (anarchist), because those are his political views.

Now, if you would like to have an section of embarassing blunders, you could try to make one. It would be torn down immediatly, though, because the idea of a section that criticizes Chomsky for his simple citation errors is absurd. Its analogus to having a section on some well known political figure and having a section devoted to how bad his or her math scores in high school were just for the sake of refraining from suppresing "uncomfortable facts." NietzscheFan 30 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Also: Yes, you're right Tjive, I am attacking your motives [alright, sorry, I am attacking the motives of the person(s) who decided to include the "Sudan" section. NietzscheFan 30 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)] because I don't understand why it is necessary to include these embarrasing facts. I'm sure you would attack my motives if I were to go to your user page and add "uncomfortable facts" about all the times you've made a mistake. [note text by User:NietzscheFan was deleted, restored by TJive; please do not delete text from the conversation]

NietzscheFan, I'm the one who put the reference to "uncomfortable facts" in the to-do list. I did not mean that we should try to defame Chomsky by including absolutely anything as long as it made Chomsky look vaguely bad. Of course there are things that should be omitted because they are irrelevant, untrue, unencyclopaedic, etc. I just meant that we should have truth and transparency as guiding principles in the writing of this article, and thus not shy from including facts that might be uncomfortable to us (rather than to Chomsky, who doesn't read Wikipedia) because they might not be in line with our personal points of view. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

I see. I think that objective needs to be reworded, because to someone who has not read your last response might think that what has happened here today is an allowance of "uncomfortable facts" (which could be interpreted as any irrelevant Chomsky blunder) to be "suppressed."

How about this: "Do not remove certain facts simply because they reflect badly on Noam Chomsky. (However, do not include embarrasing facts simply for the reason that they do reflect badly on Chomsky.)" NietzscheFan 30 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)

You are confusing me here, largely because it is not entirely clear who you are and you do not sign all of your comments. I do not see that you have anywhere attacked my motives, as I am neither responsible for the creation of the section on the Sudan or for the suggestion of showing "uncomfortable facts". To the extent that these are "uncomfortable facts", as I said before, only implies a partisan view of the topic which it is not appropriate to edit the article in order to reflect. This does not suggest that criticism of anything regarding Chomsky no matter how notable is appropriate to illuminate in the article, though I do not believe the article has done so completely properly as it is. In other words, my views are precisely as you seem to have now suggested (you, if I am right in assuming the anon and Nietzche editors are the same throughout this present conversation), that is, "Do not remove certain facts simply because they reflect badly on Noam Chomsky. (However, do not include embarrasing facts simply for the reason that they do reflect badly on Chomsky.)" --TJive June 30, 2005 03:05 (UTC)

Sorry, I've added my name to all of my posts. The anon user is me, NietzscheFan. NietzscheFan

I've reworded and revised our stated goals due to the consensus. NietzscheFan 30 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Deletion of talk content

Apparently much of the page had become duplicated at some point, probably when edit conflicts simply caused one edit to overrule another. If there is some other material deleted by accident please correct it. --TJive June 29, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Hitchens

I removed this content concerning Hitchens.... "Christopher Hitchens, who once defended Chomsky against charges of being a Pol Pot apologist in a 1985 article titled The Chorus and the Cassandra, has since changed his mind on the subject. He believes that Chomsky and others on the far left have become so determined to decry American policies that they are willing to overlook the true nature of America's enemies."

The political vacillations of Hitchens concern his personal biography rather than this article. He is at best peripheral figure in the Cambodia-Chomsky controversy. His one popular article is not indispensible for the Chomsky defence and he has certainly has never formulated a thoroughgoing critique of Chomsky on Cambodia. Moreover no source is provided for the final two-thirds of this paragraph, which is the main reason why this content has been removed to talk. (Although, I fully recognize that he has been spotted taking posh boat cruises with Horowitz of late.)

from the wikipedia guidelines on sources...

When there is a factual dispute

Disputed statements for which a credible source has not been provided may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material.user:BernardL

If you have a problem with the treatment of material, then improve the article rather than deleting content wholesale. The Hitchens article deserves treatment because it was rather notable then and remains so. His "vacillations" also deserve mention because they come in large part in the context of Chomsky and a very public dispute. That these criticisms are treated in a sub-anthropologic matter of listing, with little substance but a recalling of allegations flying back and forth, is no fault of facts which apparently pain you to recall. --TJive July 6, 2005 03:29 (UTC)

as far as "deleting content wholesale", this biographical article is over 14,000 words already and could use some deletion of content wholesale. What Hitchens thinks of Chomsky is mentioned in three different places in the article already. They had an exchange after 9/11, where Snitch mentions his disillusionment with Chomsky, which I will concede is notable. However, this exchange is already mentioned in TWO different places in this article, it doesn't have to be mentioned in THREE different places. Chomsky has had enough notable exchanges not mentioned at all in this 14,000+ word article, that this exchange is important enough to mention continually throughout the article. Twice is enough (perhaps too much, but I'll leave it be at only one repetition). Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

This makes a repeated appearance of the phrase "Snitch"; do the bandwagons imagine that in disseminating this turn of phrase they are either revealing a scrutinous intellect or at all imagine themselves to be cute? And from those who snicker at "Ayatollah of Anti-Americanism" and grimace at "Chimpsky", no less.

I will certainly agree to the assertion that this article needs cleaned up, but the fashion of this present deletion is not in my opinion the most appropriate manner. The Hitchens dispute is mentioned, of course, and I did not deny that fact. This, however would seem to irk BernardL as he believes, "The political vacillations of Hitchens concern his personal biography rather than this article." For him, Hitchens's dispute with Chomsky, as well as his prior defense, is completely irrelevant and therefore subject to deletion. This was reasoning given right above my comments so the contention is hardly unverifiable. So what is given as an argument in support of the deletion is in fact an argument against its pretenses.

What I believe would be best is, if this article is to remain (put simply) in the style of "Life, Work, Views, Criticisms" that the content concerning Hitchens should be merged into either a larger category regarding the Anti-Americanism angle (which would absorb others as well) or listed separately as in the case of Horowitz (which is itself terribly lacking in substance). It does not make sense to me to hash out his views and give criticism of them only to essentially (and in the case of Hitchens almost literally) repeat it later. --TJive July 6, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Disregarding TJive's flurry of insinuation and misrepresentation, I will reiterate what I indicated was "my main reason" for the incubation of the two sentences: no sources were supplied, particularly for the suggestion that Hitchen's "has since changed his mind on the subject" (referring specifically to Chomsky's views on Cambodia). "Vacillations" specifically relevant to the Cambodia controversy have not been verified. If there was a public renunciation I would be interested in reading it. I cannot rule out the possibility that this attribution reflects nothing more than heresay since I have seen no such renunciation in Hitchen's recent books, which have plenty of material on Chomsky, or on web sites dedicated to him. Secondly the phrase, "He believes that Chomsky and others on the far left have become so determined to decry American policies that they are willing to overlook the true nature of America's enemies," while it sounds far more plausible, should have a source too. If these statements can be verified, then my "factual" objections will have been resolved, and barring further reasonable objections from others the content can be considered for re-insertion, wherever it is deemed appropriate. If we condone the habit of not providing verifiable sources when writer's views are represented it is not difficult to imagine the kind of slippery slope we would be heading down. [BernardL] July 6, 2005

Regardless as to the question of if there exists "vacillation" specifically referring to Cambodia, it is literally true that you maintained such a matter is irrelevant to the article, whether or not this specifically has been sourced nor the broader assertion in the latter sentence. I'd hardly think it was my insinuation as I did little more than copy your recent words on the matter, and if I misrepresented them you have failed to point out where.

Does anyone object to a more careful treatment of Hitchens altogether moved to the criticisms section? --TJive July 6, 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want to believe. I deliberately "failed" to point out where because the likely prospects were a polemical quarrel that would be a waste of my time and energy, maybe yours too. The defence rests well enough on the fact that views were attributed to Hitchens without any sign yet of verification. In any case I have no objection to your proposal of a careful treatment placed in the criticisms section. "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." [user: BernardL]

To the extent that there is a polemical quarrel, which I agree is a complete waste, it is provoked by phrases such the casual reference to one's "flurry of insinuation and misrepresentation" without support for the charge in the first place. What I said was literally true, was verifiable, and I strongly implied disagreement with it but not in terms which I would believe could cause even the slightest offense in any careful read.

It does not appear that anyone else is interested in the issue, so I may allow it to bear upon myself for the inclusion of such a section, though if so may not be in the immediate future. --TJive July 7, 2005 06:32 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the conjecture regarding Hitchens changing his mind about Cambodia/Chomsky is perhaps interpretation of information regarding [Hitchens'] fall-out with Chomsky. The following is an example of source material for the idea, taken from -> http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/hitchens.htm <- which reads as follows:

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Hitchens and Chomsky parted company. Hitchens criticized what he regarded as Chomsky's attempts to rationalize the attacks (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens). Chomsky, in response, insinuated that Hitchens was a racist for refusing to accept comparisons between the 9/11 attacks and the American bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan: "He must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime"... (http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyhitch.html). Hitchens responded that "With his pitying tone of condescension, and his insertion of a deniable but particularly objectionable innuendo, I regret to say that Chomsky displays what have lately become his hallmarks." (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=hitchens20011004).

Closer examination is required to really discern to what extent Hitchens' disapproval of Chomsky relates to Chomsky's stance on Cambodia. As of yet, I have found no direct connections and agree that specific evidence is necessary to back this up if it is to be included.

As for the the phrase, "He believes that Chomsky and others on the far left have become so determined to decry American policies that they are willing to overlook the true nature of America's enemies," the issue of verification may be possible. Further reading of the same source cited above [24] reveals the following which may be useful for supporting the phrase in question:

Why the change of heart? In effect, Hitchens argues that his own position has never changed, and that Chomsky and others on the far left had become so determined to resist American domination that they were willing to overlook the true nature of America's official enemies. Hitchens' essay on this topic ("Stranger in a Strange Land," http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/hitchens.htm) makes this point quite effectively.

I can say nothing about any possible bias on mekong.net but do believe that some support may be available for the statement regarding Hitchens' belief about Chomsky/et al. with regards to America's enemies -- specifically, support in the form of Hitchens' own essay. --phreyan July 15, 2005 02:35

Rewrite of functional-typological criticisims section

This rewrite separates Chomsky's response to the criticism that generative grammar analyses are based on a small number of languages from the criticism itself, adds additional length to the article, and inserts lots of obviously POV wording (e.g. "with increasing amounts of 'wiggle room' in which apparently contradictory evidence can be unified through introduction of new assumptions."). It also has a few factual errors. G&B was never really any more a unified theory than Minimalism: it just seems that way looking back because we have a selective memory and certain papers have entered the orthodox canon over time. Kayne doesn't suggest that languages have underlying English word order, just underlying SVO word order. He absolutely doesn't suggest that all languages work underlyingly "like English". Then we have the claim that much evidence in generative grammar is "essentially anecdotal" -- true enough in a sense: any scientist reporting evidence could be said to be telling an anecdote. Falsifiability is a tricky issue. There's always wiggle room in any scientific discipline, which is why no philosophers of science believe in naive falsificationalism.

Major changes like these are supposed to be discussed in talk first, I think. Cadr 6 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

It sounds very POV to me. — Chameleon 6 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

You are right that i went rather overboard in this rewrite. however, many of the objections that inserted are things that i've heard repeatedly as a linguistics student. i've spent a fair amount of time speaking with professors about chomsky's theories, and there is huge polarization between those who love them and those who think they're unscientific [that is a charitable way of putting it]. the latter complaints often arise from typologists, computational linguists, and others outside of orthodox syntax who must nonetheless do syntactic work. there should be some way of expressing these -- criticisms are somewhat opinionated by their nature, and there is no doubt that chomsky is extremely polarizing within linguistics as well as politics.

you can certainly disagree over whether gb was more unified than minimalism; however, this is an assertion i've heard from many, including chomskyan syntax professors. there is certainly no unification within minimalism.

"anecdotal" is the wrong word but it is clear that most work in the chomskyan paradigm is based on in-depth studies of a small number of languages, most of them western european languages that have historically influenced each other closely; however, the resulting patterns are almost always claimed to be universal. all "cross-linguistic" studies i've seen are either based on one close-knit family -- invariably germanic or romance -- or on a handful of languages that appear to be chosen largely based on convenience. there is certainly nothing of the sort of explicitly cross-linguistic work, with explicit attempts to be representative across all of the world's languages, that has long been considered the norm in typology.

nb the few in-depth studies within P+P that are *not* based on western european languages often make claims widely at variance with assumed orthodoxy; cf. "the polysynthesis parameter" about mohawk.

as for kayne's theory, you are right that he does not assert "english" word order, but a recurrent theme within chomskyan linguistics is the tendency for its universal axioms to reflect the most-closely-studies languages. hence it is unlikely to be coincidental that svo word order is also that of english; similarly, that all languages are underlyingly assumed to be "configurational", like english.

as for "wiggle room", i don't know how else to express the fact that p+p theories have become increasingly abstract over time, with more and more concomitant assumptions being necessary to reconcile theory and reality. since no one agrees on which assumptions are correct, there is unquestionably more "wiggle room" for theorists to choose the most felicitous assumptions. typical chomskyan papers begin with a long list of the assumptions they are making, many of which are critical to their conclusions. an associated charge of non-falsifiability is not surprising in this context; this is obviously an opinion, not a fact, but it is an often-raised criticism.

as for "too long", this is hardly tenable. this whole article is long, but that is inevitable given chomsky's presence. chomsky is obviously more respected as a linguist and philosopher than a pundit, but 2/3 of this article is about his political activities, i.e. linguistics is under-represented.

Benwing 23:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree that linguistics is somewhat under-represented; in his 1994 book 'The Language Instinct' Steven Pinker goes to far as to say the following:

"In this century, the most famous argument that language is like an instinct comes from Noam Chomsky, the linguist who first unmasked the intricacy of the system and perhaps the person most responsible for the modern revolution in language and cognitive science."(8)

While I do not suggest the inclusion of POV to beef up sections that are otherwise under-represented, I think that additional NPOV information about Chomsky's linguistic contributions should be quite welcome. -- phreyan 3:09, 15 July 2005

[Rant followed by more constructive suggestions for the article.]

Thanks for the response, Benwig. I have to disagree on two points. You dismiss studies of non-European languages on the grounds that they make claims widely at variance with assumed orthodoxy. Now, first I think there are more studies of non-European languages than you think. As Chomsky points out in the quote in this article, native American languages were studied right from the beginning of generative grammar. Japanese and Chinese have also been studied extensively, for example in Auon and Li's work on quantifier scope, which is partly based on data from Chinese. Second, some of the most famous studies of non-European languages within generative linguistics have both maintained and remoulded orthodox theory. The obvious example of this is Baker (1988). This paper attempted to show that facts about incorporation in native-American languages could be explained by principles limiting movement which had been developed mostly in connection with European languages, and at the same time set up the UTAH as part of orthodox Chomskyan linguistics.

Your other criticisms seem to be criticisms of science in general, so there is no real response. Like any other science, generative linguistics can only attempt to account for a finite subset of an infinite amount of data. Since languages have to be studied in depth in generative linguistics, it is inevitable that certain languages will be concentrated on to the exclusion of others. The alternative is a broad but superficial study of a wider range of languages. Such a study will not necessarily produce better results, and is certainly no more scientific than the generative approach. I don't understand your point about assumptions. First off, the number of assumptions required has steadily reduced -- this is what P&P and Minimalism were all about. The assumptions that remain stand out more because they have become very abstract, but better to have one abstract assumption than 15 separate rules for 15 separate grammatical constructions. Of course, no-one agrees on which assumptions are correct and any given theory depends on a set of non-provable assumptions. Again, this is what you find in any science: assumptions are justified if they can be used to build interesting theories (and to a lesser extent if they are aesthetically pleasing and/or intuitively plausible). There is "wiggle room" whenever you move from a mere description of data to an actual science, where hypotheses are massively underdetermined by data and it is not immediately clear what kind of theory has the most potential.

Sorry for the rant. I agree that the article could use more on:

* Criticisms based on the idea that Chomskyan linguistics is non-falsifiable. These have to be presented in context however. There are serious responses to this criticism, and moreover even non-naive falsifiability is far from universally accepted as a way of demarcating science within the philosophy of science.

* Criticisms based on the range of languages studied. I think this criticism is straightforwardly false if you look at the entire generative literature. It is reasonable if you're talking about the range of languages within individual books/papers.

Cadr 10:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky only encouraged voting for Kerry in swing states

I believe this is an important point. I changed it earlier, but someone reverted it. Does anyone have an objection in inserting the "swing state" fact? cihan 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think the additions were good. I went ahead and re-added them. I don't think they were reverted intentionally, but to correct the preceding vandalism. Unended July 7, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

In this case I was aware of the vandalisms but did in fact object to the edit. That his support was limited and qualified does not mean that it is only "perceived" by others--he made a statement to the effect and that is verifiable, and I would rather that his reasoning be stated for his own part than to be attributed by others. I do recall the instance but not the point on swing states. Do you have a good reference at hand? --TJive July 7, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

It makes sense to say "limited support", not "perceived support" or "support". — Chameleon 7 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

Sorry, TJive, I thought the revert was inadvertent. I don't really like "support" at all, although if it is used maybe "tactical support" is best, since Chomsky's "support" for Kerry was limited to his belief that Kerry would be slightly less harmful to Americans than Bush. Is there not a better word for his position than "support"? Unended July 7, 2005 13:09 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. I believe that including Chomsky's political stances in an article about him is perfectly reasonable. The question is, are specifics like this really central to the character? It seems natural that, were Chomsky to take a 'lesser of two evils' approach, he would endorse Kerry with reserves. However I feel this sort of thing is implied enough by a description of Chomsky's political leanings. Edward Grefenstette 11:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that so much detail about whether he supports Kerry or not might not be necessary. My problem was the statement that he supported Kerry, which was way it was phrased before I made the edit. I think the current edit uses 'tactical support' which is also fine. I just thought it is not accurate to flatly say that he supported Kerry, that's all. So, to wrap up, I am fine if that whole paragraph is taken out, but it is inaccurate to say anywhere without qualifiers that he supported Kerry. As it is now, it reads fine by me. cihan 23:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

that npov again

npov tags need *clear* discussion indicating why; otherwise they will proliferate in every controversial article.

Benwing 23:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Short article

This article is on 38 page-downs. History of the world is on 8 page-downs. May I suggest Noam Chomsky to pioneer for a new type of article called Noam Chomsky (short article), Noam Chomsky (summary) or something similar; where the contents of the main article is summarized in actual article length instead of chapter ditto. --Salleman 11:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article is WAY WAY too long. I mean, look at AIDS. I am a hearty contributor and monitor to that article, and it is an important, complex, world-wide disease/issue, and it is 10 pages. And we've been trying to trim it more. 38 pages is a bit much. Break up the article into different views or whatever. For example Homosexuality and morality and Homosexuality and religion, etc., not all just in Homosexuality. See what I mean? Or we could just do what Salleman here is proposing. But really, needs to be shortened. A 38 page novel is NOT accessible to a passively learning scholar, know what i mean? JoeSmack (talk) 15:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dvorak shows his ignorance...

"Wikis and any public reviewing or consensus processes have to be regulated and closed to the public at large for them to work effectively over time. While the Wikipedia does have great value at the moment, it has been worked on mostly by idealists rather than vandals. But you can already see the first stages of entropy as self-serving entries begin to appear. The enormous entry on Noam Chomsky is a perfect example." [25]

A perfect example of what exactly? Apparently, it's not the neutrality of this article that's at stake here: it's the length.

I might point out that this is a man who calls Kuro5hin a blog. That hardly inspires confidence. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

...On the other hand, this article is pretty long. The authors of China managed to use summary style to keep the main entry on the world's most populous country down to 38k. If this article could be broken up into subarticles, that probably would be an improvement. Dave (talk) 16:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The recurring suggestion of breaking up this article is starting to seem necessary. Perhaps a summary-style article with connections to more specific sub-articles would work better. Specifically, linked articles about "Chomskyan Linguistics" or "Chomskyan Politics" might work. In the event that these two categories -- or any others, those are examples -- were created, it would not be necessary to strip Chomsky's own article completely but merely provide an overview of these sections with links to the subarticles. Hell, you could even create subarticles to address things like "controversy over documents falsely attributed to Chomsky" (which seems to be a recurring theme on this talk page.) phreyan July 18 00:40 2005

Dvorak somewhat hits the mark. I've only looked over the intro pagraph but I've found the descriptions of his achievement far too superlative, moreso than in any highly collaborative article I've ever read on this site. Please find a way to express his enormous impact without veering into fulsome praise. Avoid excessively sprinkling words such as landmark, revolutionary, etc. lots of issues | leave me a message 18:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE DISPUTE?

What is currently the precise dispute about the neutrality? Can anyone please point this out? If so, please let's work to figure out if we can revise the parts creating the dispute. If not, let us please remove the "neutrality is disputed" thing in the beginning of the article cihan 00:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I am kind of new, I don't know... Is it possible to mark a section rather than condemn the whole article to be non-neutral? Actually, the proposition about breaking the article up into other pieces, and/or summarizing it might also remove this problem, so that we would know what small portion is disputed. How would we go about summarizing, or breaking the article up into pieces? Has this been done for any of the biographies here before? cihan 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the dispute is Chomsky acolytes against anti-Chomskyites. nothing new. J. Parker Stone 07:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

if christopher "i was a luxemburg-trotskyoid-marxist" hitchens isn't a leftist i don't know who is. J. Parker Stone 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How about Noam Chomsky?

yeah, and? J. Parker Stone 03:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we close this issue now? After all, the "neutrality disputed" tag is gone now, which was what this section was originally about. --MarkSweep 04:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Self-appointed censors own this page?

This page is becoming a fan page. These fans seem to immediately censor/delete any criticism, rather than adding alternative views. Chomsky's most controversial quotes and positions are thoroughly white-washed on this page. They should be presented clearly and addressed clearly, not buried in pseudo-"analysis" whose only purpose seems to muddy the waters. They "delete" and refer you to "talk", while "talk" never results in any "consensus" (ie. their permission), essentially delaying any criticism on the page forever. Why is dissent so unwelcomed? Talk about "manufacturing consent".

It's because most of the people that lord over this page are very overt "fans" of his, as you say, and they simply chock up any criticism of the man whatsoever to either willful misinterpretation or at worst a deliberate conspiracy to "marginalize" him. When most of his writings concern the actions of the "elite" whose intentions are to keep the focus of discussions narrow so as to not let self-evident facts into the matter, those who fawn most strenuously are going to be paranoid about critical discussion not on their own terms. So the criticisms are not represented very fairly in anything but a format of "they said [few words], but Chomsky [long quotation]"; even where it is a point of fact that Chomsky has been harhsly criticized regarding something such as Cambodia as being callous they will not allow those terms to enter the discussion simply because it can't possibly be a correct interpretation. Meanwhile the vast majority of this article before I came simply took up his characterizations of economics and foreign policy as presumed truths.

I moved this to the bottom as is custom. Also please sign your comments. --TJive 14:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Frequently people read one of the squillion Chomsky-bashing articles on the internet, then come and hack some third-rate criticisms into the article in non-neutral language. There's an awful lot of rubbish written about Chomsky, and since this article has been more or less complete for some time now, there's an understandable resistance to major changes. In fact, with this sort of article (a featured article for some time) it's generally polite to discuss changes or additions on talk first, if they're major. Cadr 08:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

man, i wonder why Chomsky attracts such "squillions" of criticisms... J. Parker Stone 08:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ignorant right-wingers. Cadr 10:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

lol. didn't i have a pointless argument with you on anti-Americanism a while back? don't wanna get into that again J. Parker Stone 10:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Then don't tease me ;) Cadr 10:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see why the "criticism" section of Chomsky is so large in the first place; already, the criticism section is larger than any other section in this article. I agree, I think this article should be a neutral review of Chomsky's scientific contributions as well as a mention of his critical analysis of US foreign policy. Why is the Faurison affair even in here? That ad-hominem has been proven ridiculous numerous times. What does it have to do with his political theories, Chomsky the man, or his Linguistic theories? That is why Wiki will never be taken as seriously as Encarta or other online Encyclopedias, they don't include such rubbish.

Second, why are basic facts left out of the Faurison affair? Such as how Chomsky came to sign the petition, and the fact that dozens of other professors signed it as well. Why isn't Chomsky's analysis of the Faurison affair posted, if you're going to include it? We're only getting one side of the story here, maybe some of it should be deleted.

Well, most of those facts are included. The article mentions that Chomsky was only one of many to sign the petition. Cadr 08:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On the "Moss-NY Times" canard

Here is a quote of the full paragraph showing the context:

“In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation.” (C&H- Distortions At Fourth Hand)

The last line clearly refers specifically to the article written in NY Times Mag by Robert Moss. The article claims a slaughter of a million people by the Khmer Rouge as of 1976! Moss’s figure is based on a distortion of Barron and Paul’s reference to an interview that took place in 1976. Needless to say there was no credible evidence for a slaughter of a million people in 1976, nor in January 1977 when Barron & Paul’s book went to press, nor in May, 1977 at the time Moss’s article was published, nor in June 1977, at the time of the appearance of “Distortions at Fourth Hand.” One of the commonly held estimates of excess deaths (above the norm) for the total period of the Khmer regime (1975-1979) is 1.67 million advanced by the Cambodia Genocide Project (Ben Kiernan). Kiernan’s position is that the worst atrocities attributable to the central direction of the Khmer Rouge occurred from May to November in 1978. One can only conclude that Tjive and friends are so blinded by their hatred that they cannot even fathom the most elementary points concerning a chronology of events. User: BernardL

Are you trying to argue that the KR were not responsible in any way for any deaths before 1978? Please don't call people "blind" if you are, thanks. J. Parker Stone 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree. In fact, the quote was previously mentioned without any context at all, until my recent edit . I'm not sure what your problem is with the sentences you deleted (which I wrote). The Chomsky-Herman article (correctly) argued that there was no evidence for millions of deaths due to genocide and reviewed a number of sources for this claim, concluding that they could not be substantiated. Despite this, the "Moss-New York Times" statement has generated a lot of criticism, right or wrong. Cadr 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The point on criticism in relation to the sentence stands regardless of how it was contextualized by Chomsky after the fact, and who was right. As it existed, the selection was worded by Cadr and it will be returned, as will the other deleted text.

You are also not going to allow the article to qualify the claims of particular scholars based on stated views of them, particularly ones unrelated to the substance of the article. --TJive 15:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Contextualized by Chomsky after the fact"? Maybe I misunderstood, but BernardL seemed to be talking about the context of the quote within the article. Not sure if Chomsky has said much or anything about that specific quote after the fact. But as I said above, I thought that my wording did present the quote in context. Cadr 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a fuss-bucket Cadr but the claim that the "Moss-NY Times" quote has generated alot of criticism remains to be demonstrated. I read all the stuff by critics like Ear and Sharp about five years ago, I did not remember this specific quote being prominent; so just this afternoon I skimmed their essays and found nothing. Perhaps you know of some examples? If you enter the phrase into google you will come up with several comments from blogs and message boards, as well as some tripe on the Frontpage website which seems to be one of the strongholds of the Chomsky Hate Brigade. This alledgedly prominent criticised quote is not addressed in Chomsky's "after the fact" responses to criticisms in The Chomsky reader, or Manufacturing Consent. Nor is it touched upon in defenses by the likes of Albert, Herman or Hitchens. Defending the quote in its context is not difficult, maybe that's why it is seemingly hard/impossible to find criticism which deals with it in its original context. In "After the Cataclysm" C&H elaborate in more detail on the alledged interview with Khieu Samphan. First, it turns out that Moss sent a letter to C&H admitting that his source for the "slaughter" claim came from the Reader's Digest version of Barron and Paul, although he offered no response to the allegations of its distortion. Next, we learn that the authenticity of the interview itself is questioned, notably by both Father Ponchaud and William Shawcross. Later, Sophal Ear was to call it a "fake interview." I suspect that this particular quote gets ripped out of context primarily by the most reactionary or vulgar critics who have a strong pre-disposition to loathe Chomsky. They are not so much interested in reading and understanding what he is trying to say as in finding the perfect sound-bite, which in their deluded minds conclusively "proves" that Chomsky is an apologist, morally depraved, ayatollah of hate, blah blah blah. That particular sentence, when taken out of its original context, serves their purposes beautifully. User:BernardL

You have a point, I was overestimating the significance of that particular sentence. Cadr 22:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What is so hard to understand? Chomsky engaged in apologia for one of the most deranged regimes of our time, and after the scale of their madness was revealed he refused to retract any of the 1977 work. You may be right that this specific quote hasn't generated a lot of criticism, but people have very legitimate reasons for criticizing this man based on his official ideology and the positions he takes -- something you don't seem to get. J. Parker Stone 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky and Herman condemned the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Up to 1977, they had only questioned the evidence for atrocities, which was indeed questionable. His emphasis was the way in which questionable or non-existant evidence was used as the basis for propaganda in the media, not on the atrocities themselves. And what do you mean by "official ideology"? Last time I checked, Chomsky's ideology was entirely unofficial, insofar as he has an ideology at all. Cadr 22:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

they condemned the atrocities only after reminding us that the mass starvation and overwork was all the fault of U.S. bombing. and by official ideology i mean whatever-the-f he describes himself as -- libertarian socialist, no-paid labor society, brilliant mind that Chomsky J. Parker Stone 22:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You've completely changed your argument now. So Chomsky did condemn the atrocities, but he also criticised the US? Boo-hoo. How dare he suggest that a massive aerial bombardment might have negative consequences. By the way, libertarian socialism is a broad church, nothing especially official about it. Cadr 22:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

lol, i have seen no real condemnation of the KR, only how they were sometimes "harsh" in their goals for "egalitarianism" and "independence," and how the starvation and overwork was a natural consequence of U.S. bombing, which of course is a fantastic lie. This [26] is a good article on the whole matter, though I suppose it could just be another cog in the sinister U.S. propaganda model. J. Parker Stone 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen any real condemnation of the KR because you haven't read After the Cataclysm, Manafacturing Consent or any other of Chomsky's books/articles where the KR atrocities are discussed at length. Even the blurb on "Manafacturing Consent" mentions the "genocide" of the KR. Apparently, you've only read kooky internet critiques based on out of context quotations and flat out lies. Cadr 08:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

look comrade, my problem with Chomsky is simple, and it is that any condemnations he makes of anti-American leftist regimes during the Cold War are always pro forma and he has never condemned the KR ideology as psychotic, instead trying to blame the starvation on U.S. bombing. end. J. Parker Stone 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If he called the KR genocidal, what more do you want? I really can't think of a much stronger word than genocidal. I am serious about this: please give me a word worse than genocidal. Because I cannot think of one. Descendall 17:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Chomsky isn't really in the condemnation business. If you want someone who studiously condems every atrocity in recent history he's not your man. His focus has always been on analysing the foreign policy of the US. Anyway, sorry this always gets so heated, I don't actually dislike you personally, lol. Cadr 08:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

it also became known that the brilliant Hilderbrand and Porter book they relied on used plenty of official KR sources for chrissakes. but anyhow. i'll continue to think of this man as an intellectual kook, and you can continue to sing his praises. in the meantime, i hope that any attempts at Chomsky apologia on this page will be quickly editted or reverted. J. Parker Stone 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article, I don't see that Distortians at Forth Hand really relies on Hilderbrand and Porter to any great extent. Bear in mind that it was a review of that book (along with two others) so it is bound to include a fair number of quotations from it. Cadr 22:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

you jez can't criticize anything chomsky can ya? J. Parker Stone 23:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither can you, at least not competently. Cadr 08:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

well it's always tough to criticize a cult figure when around the cult. J. Parker Stone 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Some users seem to be under the impression here that I am interested in entertaining their replays of semantic disputes which have raged over the most intellectually sophisticated of....internet blogs for literally several years now. This is not so. What is pertinent here is that a charitable interpretation of Chomsky's words is vastly inappropriate when in fact it is precisely what engendered so much controversy in the first place. --TJive 23:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are not even interested in a accurate "in-context" interpretation of his words either. Nuff said. User: BernardL

All the "context" shows is that Chomsky thinks that even if a million deaths had occurred by 1976 (I personally am not aware of year-by-year statistics, just the 1.7 million total figure,) it is not attributable to KR policy. We know now that the mass starvation and death from exhausation is attributable to KR policy, a fact only a few continue to deny and blame on U.S. bombing. J. Parker Stone 01:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Trey, you're obviously not worth responding to because you can't read. Don't waste my time. user:BernardL

OH SNAP BL got me there. "illiteracy" and "misinterpretation" of the Great One's words, yes, i apologize deeply. J. Parker Stone 01:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

no evd for significant amt of criticism

This, too, speaks for itself. --TJive 01:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In light of the thorough demolition I have provided above, it certainly does. User: BernardL

Morris info

I have voluntarily removed background info on Morris from the article. Here is some representative background info on Morris's disputes with Cambodia scholars for those interested....

[Cambodia Scholars disown Morris] [Ben Kiernan responds to an attack on Chomsky implicating him] [Cambodia scholar Michael Vickery responds to attack by Morris on Chomsky implicating him]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the general concept of argumentum ad hominem. Given that you are a fan of Chomsky's I would have expected you to identify them immediately. Also given that you are a fan of Chomsky's I would not expect you to much care.

What you are trying to force the reader into accepting by inference is that Morris's ideas should not be seriously entertained as Morris the man has been disassociated. That is an appeal to the qualities of the person speaking, not his argument, and a classical example. It is also a red herring. Morris is being cited on the question of media coverage, not the relative merits of Ben Kiernan as to his position in the genocide project.

I'll give you another example of an ad hominem.

The links you gave should be discounted and deleted because they come from a web site collection which is "compiled and edited" by Serge Thion, a notorious denier not only of the reality of crimes in Cambodia but in fact of the Holocaust.

In the manner above, I have (accurately) questioned the credibility of Thion without addressing the substance of the material that is in dispute. Incidentally, Thion is a friend of Chomsky's and appears in the embarrassing Faurisson Affair. --TJive 00:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I was not presenting arguments. There are no arguments necessary because the one sentence which mentions Morris here is not an argument and is actually incomprehensible. The information about Morris is for people to judge for themselves along with whatever else they want to find out. Fine, go ahead call Thion whatever names you want. Those who wish to read his own words for themselves, or for that matter some of Morris's too, can check his website. user:BernardL

I was not presenting arguments.

Please; the plainly obvious intention is to discredit Morris's words with an inference regarding a totally unrelated issue. That is regardless as to whether the mention of Morris is itself in the context of an "argument" (which it is not, but is your intention in response).

I see you're a fan of Thion, as well, then. --TJive 01:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a Thion "fan" but I realize that his writings are more nuanced than your unsubstantiated accusations. I also think it is entirely legitimate to present background information about the actors in this play. Just as it is relevant to present information that certain papers are products of corporate funded think tanks, news reports are suspected of being plants by state agencies,etc. user:BernardL

I think your comment speaks for itself. --TJive 01:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

TJive wrote: "Incidentally, Thion is a friend of Chomsky's and appears in the embarrassing Faurisson Affair."

Well also incidently Thion is a good friend of Ben Kiernan's whose figure of 1.7 million is the one you happen to be employing. In fact they co-authored a book together in 1981- "Khmers rouges! Matériaux pour l'histoire du communisme au Cambodge." He also condemned the Khmer Rouge as barbarians as early as March 1977. The difference is that I presented a referential link to a straightforward fact- namely that Morris has been publicly disowned by a majority of the leading specialists on Cambodia. For your part you repeated insinuating lies based upon hearsay from reactionaries. It's perfectly par for the course. User:BernardL

You presented a link to an irrelevant matter in order to discredit an author by inference. Your political epithets, rather than changing that, serve to strengthen the point. --TJive 13:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Chomsky on False Consciousness

For those interested last week I asked Chomsky in his forum some questions concerning criticisms associating his media analysis with the Marxist theory of false consciousness. If anyone wants to ask a credible related follow-up question I would be happy to forward it. I think it's safe to say that the critique based upon the "false consciousness" line of argument is a pretty spurious case of guilt by association.

Q: Some critics from the right (ie:Victor Davis Hansen) tend to dismiss your and Herman's media analysis referring to it as just a recycled version of the Marxist theory of false consciousness.

NC: You'd have to ask Hansen what perverse line of reasoning -- more accurately, free association -- led him to his conclusions. Any sane and rational person can see that the analysis is just what is described: an institutional analysis that relies on relatively uncontroversial guided free market models -- in fact, those that Hansen probably professes himself, even if he goes berserk when their consequences are exposed.

Q: While I realize that the term "manufacturing consent" actually originates from early American media theory,

NC: The term "manufacturing consent" is taken from Walter Lippmann. He was not in this case constructing any media theory, but rather recommending what the "responsible men" (always including the author himself) should do to ensure that the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" (the public) don't interfere with the decisions of the responsible men for the public good (by definition).

Q: I would still like to know if you accept the comparison of your work to the doctrine of "false consciousness." And if not why?

NC: I don't know of any doctrine of "false consciousness," apart from the trivial and uncontroversial fact that the doctrinal institutions of any society (including, for us, media, educational systems, churches, etc.) articulate and present systems of belief that commonly reflect the interests and goals of those who dominate the institutions -- hardly a surprise. If that's the comparison that is intended, sure. What question could there be?

Q: I think Marcuse deserves much of the credit for developing some passing comments by Engels into a more substantial theory of ideology he terms false consciousness. On the face of it there are some similarities with your views. Marcuse adhered to the views of the young Marx who felt that capitalist social relations alienated humans from expressions of their "species-being", views for which you show some affinity in your "Notes on Anarchism" essay.

NC: I don't know of any substantive theories of ideology. The ideas of the early Marx on alienation are pretty much drawn from the Enlightenment-Romantic intellectual environment of his day, often in very similar words. I think these notions have a lot of value, and have written about them, in the essay you mention and elsewhere.

Q: For Marcuse, capitalism engendered "false" consciousness and "false" needs in the sense that they are unnatural. Do you agree with this line of argument?

NC: Putting aside Marcuse's contributions, there is a rich literature about the ways in which market systems and "created wants" were imposed, often by violence, on the general population, which bitterly resisted them, and still does. Meanwhile the masters devised numerous ways to protect themselves from the destructive impact of the systems they were imposing on others. That's a good part of the history of the past several centuries. What is "natural" depends on unknown facts about human nature. We do, however, know a lot about the resistance to the doctrines and institutions imposed by force. I don't know what line of argument there is beyond this.

Q: Finally critics seem to think that people who hold this position must be automatically and inevitably elitist. Implying that your views mean that "the masses have been so manipulated that they have neither the perspective or intellect to see beyond the propaganda and require superior intellects like Chomsky's to point out to them the real truth." How would you respond to such a charge?

NC: Since I've consistently and extensively written precisely the opposite, and detailed the reasons and the record at length, the charge can only come from someone so irrational and blinded by ideological fanaticism that they cannot read simple sentences. There is therefore no reason to respond.

Three cheers for a hilarious read. However, if you are entertaining the insertion of any of this material, please take a gander at research policy. --TJive 01:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Of course not but i would suggest the spurious "false consciousness" argument as a candidate for deletion. Or do we have no interest at all in the quality of criticism presented? user: BernardL

That's the problem. To you "Chomskyites", there is no such thing as, or extremely rarely is there, "quality" criticism of Chomsky's, and if the standard for inclusion of criticism is that Chomsky objects to it then the article might as well just copy a hagiography, which is what you would prefer of course, but it is still most unconsidered. --TJive 02:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Earlier you were suggesting the criticism here is weak, but when a "Chomskyite" suggests the same you begin to change your tune. Besides, the fact is the number of words here devoted to criticism is far greater than most articles of its type- so stop whining. You want to try a "fawning" article, try Reagan - hazard a word of criticism, or even a link, and it gets deleted. user:BernardL

I suggested only that most of the criticism section of the article is weak, not that there are not substantial criticisms to be made of Chomsky, or that there exist none.

and I never suggested that there were no substantial criticisms of Chomsky, although you assumed that I did. user:BernardL

I suppose you are unaware that the Reagan article for many months contained the nonchalant suggestion that he wished to poison a number of people with botulism. --TJive 02:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It should have been erased, but the page since I showed up has been "fawning." Incidently I just tried to access it and all I got was the following:

"PIECE OF SHIT. ASSASSIN, HYPOCRITICAL AMERICAN.

HE PAID HIS PRICE BY DYING OF PAIN AND SUFFERING."

It was not me! ...but you guy(s) better go rescue your hero. user:BernardL

Gotta love the language Chomsky uses with regards to his critics. Right-wingers are the only ones who use ad hominem attacks, no? J. Parker Stone 02:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

back on point (sorry I can't help but take shots at this loon cult) there is no reason to delete the "false consciousness," for reasons TJive stated above. So Chomsky defended himself against it. Good for him. J. Parker Stone 02:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure! Leave it then. It's a fitting testament to the standards of the "critics". user:BernardL

lol. J. Parker Stone 03:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Cuba section

"Since his visit to Cuba in 2003, Chomsky has failed miserably to denounce the repression against peacefull opponents of Castro's regime and the application of the death penalty agianst 3 negros as did Jose Saramago, the Portuguese intelectual, member of the Portuguese Communist Party. Some much for Chomsky's anarchist credentials."

Can anyone substantiate a word of this? --TJive 21:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

all I can say is ATTACK OF THE IPs J. Parker Stone 05:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

-There isn't a scratch of evidence to suggest that Chomsky is pro-Castro. It seems unfair to leave the photo up; I'm sure Chomsky has met many intellectuals and political figures and has been friendly even though he disagrees with them.

Search problem

A conservative (possibly TJive or J. Parker Stone) has made it so that when you search for Chomsky it redirects you to Stalin can anyone fix this?

Oh? You have evidence whose IP that was? --TJive 19:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky Article Revisions, Revisited

I'm posting here in an effort to circumvent the convolution of this already massive talk page, and what appears to be bickering -- good-natured or otherwise -- between supporters and denegrators alike of Noam Chomsky. The bottom line that I can see is this: Chomsky's article can be further augmented for the better with regards to size and content.

Make no mistake -- this is an encyclopedia, and more information is always beneficial, provided it is NPOV and accurate. However, at some points the need to divide articles arises, particularly in the event that an article's size becomes a discouraging factor to the "casual scholar." Specific to this article, I realize that its size and subject matter have become a point of pride or derision for many involved; I would propose that everyone take a step back and consider the entire article objectively. What has been written as an article on one man, Noam Chomsky, now encompasses many subjects that -- although related to Chomsky -- are not necessarily integral to this page. That does NOT mean they should be deleted, but that a reorganization should be considered.

I have a couple of suggestions for trimming the article -- some more applicable (or implementable, as it were) than others: [Due to the nature of this particular talk page, I must state ahead of time that none of these suggestions are attacks on the methodology of any other Wikipedia posters -- only suggestions based on comparison of this Wikipedia article with alternate sources on the same subject.]

1. Avoid "book reporting". In any article about an author, a line must be drawn between the works and the writer. While some explanation of a publication's subject matter is necessary, we should relegate, where possible, information specifically about a book to its own article. Look for example, at the articles on Henry Thoreau or Steven Pinker. While we can introduce an author's works, the article is indeed about Noam Chomsky, not "Manufacturing Consent" -- though he wrote it.

2. Consolidate similar subcategories. Instead of scrolling pages and pages, why not create an article called "Criticism of Chomsky" and have the subcategories there? While it is important to note that Chomsky has been criticized, we can do so without discussing these events in great depth on the same page that lists his name and birth-date. Creating articles like "Criticism of Chomsky" and "Chomskyan Criticism" (which would be his own criticisms) would not mean deleting any mention of them as a whole on this page. In many ways, this diversification of articles would help by making these individual subjects the central item in their own pieces as opposed to being consigned to notes or sections in a larger work. This reorganization would also apply to the myriad of links at the bottom of the Chomsky page, which could then be moved to the appropriate articles. Whether or not "Criticism of Chomsky" is referred to in the main text or listed as a "related article" -- or both -- would be at the editors' discretion. Another benefit of article diversification like this would be the ability to mark individual articles as "Neutrality Disputed" instead of stamping such on the entire Chomsky piece. [While I understand said stamp has since been rectified, the fervor with which this article is maintained could easily give rise to such objections again.]

I understand that many of you know more about the subject at hand, as well as more about Wikipedia editing in general. My intent here is to provide some objective ideas -- take them or leave them -- about what could be done with this article to ease some of the controversy found on this very talk page and, perhaps more importantly, make [the article] more readable or less intimidating for the average Wikipedia user. I do not claim to understand the subtle dynamics of who is supporting Chomsky and vice versa, I just think that we have the opportunity to refine what is already an impressive Wiki article. phreyan August 1 2005 1:12 PM

== N.C. ==

Any characterization of Chomky´s work in Linguistics in terms of just 'influencing the field' as was proposed in a recent reversal is wrong and essentially misguided.

Let us start with his doctoral dissertation. It was so atypical of the work done by the linguistic establishement that it found no publisher, and it was only by intervention of R. Jakobson-- another outsider and one of the founding fathers of XX century formal linguistics--that a short version was eventually published in Holland in a rather obscure series ,Janua Linguarum.

Secondly, it was necessary an almost book-lenghth review of Syntactic Structures by Bob Lees to begin to give a glimpse of the inportance and revolutionary character of his work to the outside world, meaning the structuralist-descriptivist establishment, who largely ignored it .

In fact it was the change in attitude that was simmering in some areas outside mainstream psychology, like cybernetics, information theory, and early artificial intelligence that was to frutify in what we now call the cogintive revolution -- bombastic or not -- that made Chomsky´s own ideas about language acceptable . He himself contributed to this by a celebrated review of Skinner´s work that revealed the limitations of any behaviorist approach to mental phenomena.

This is all plain today and was assimilated into mainstream academia. It was at the time a complete break from the established methodology and goals of linguistic research. In fact it was so new that no linguist educated in the structuralist tradition ever came to appreciate the novelty of Chomky´s work.

That´s when we -- bombastically or not -- talk of scientific revolutuion. Or you might prefer to use kuhnian vocabulary of 'paradigm shift', or Bachelard 'epistemological break'. In fact only a new generation of young scholars was able to appprecite the scope of the ideas originally developed by C., and to pursue his basic insights into a rich mesh of new contributions.

Wiki-correctness must not be a pretext to accept a mellow and uncharacteristic representation of what is work of originality and depth that radically changed a whole field of research and became a 'de facto' approach against which all competeting or dissenting opinion continually have to measure up.

~~pete

I agree. Chomsky almost single-handedly set up an entirely new approach to linguistics which spread all the way across American academia (although there have always been competing approaches of course). And the Chomsykan revolution in linguistics was a vital element of the broader cognitive revolution.

The fact that Chomskyan linguistics departments were set up in many major universities is a fairly objective way of showing that Chomsky really did revolutionize the subject. Or at the very least, you could say that he colonized it with his students.

However, I do understand why people might want softer language. One compromise would be to weasel word it: "...ideas which many regarded as revolutionary" or some such. I think this would be one case where that's justified, since even most anti-Chomskyan linguists would agree. My personal opinion is that the level of controversy here is about the same as it is in "Einstein revolutionized physics" or something like that. You don't even have to agree with anything Einstein ever said to agree with a statement such as that. Cadr 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it help to find some linguistics reference works (dictionaries etc), text books etc that can be cited as testifying to the importance of Chomsky's work? For example, Newmeyer, FJ, "Was there a Chomskyan Revolution?" Language, Vol 62, p1-18. The use of the word "revolution" is of sociological interest, however: [27]--Dannyno 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox for "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky"

I've set up a sandbox for a "Criticisms of Noam Chomsky" article. To start with, I've just copied the text and external links from the main article. If nobody objects, I'd like to add the article to Wikipedia and delete the corresponding sections from the main article. Russil Wvong 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've created the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky article, and linked it from the main article. Russil Wvong 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky and "the French"

This section appears to have grotesque POV problems. Chomsky's teach-in remark about the French press covering a cough is a caricature, but it's not nearly treated as such. The comment appears is an exchange called "anti-intellectualism" in which Chomsky is deprecating the intellectual elevation granted to the academy, and he uses France (he remarks that the comparison is generally valid in Europe) to make a contrast and pushes it further by turning the "French intellectual community" into a caricature of itself (although it would probably be valid to say that Sartre, the example he then names, was often that very caricature). French writers (were in any case making these remarks long before Chomsky. There isn't the slightest attempt to note that Chomsky's own experience of the French press in connection with intellectuals was largely formed by the Faurisson affair, which does put a lot more of his skin in the game than the article lets on. The whole treatment seems to accumulate a massive irony: Chomsky trying to lecture Voltaire to a French historian telling him that there's no argument about free speech, only about Chomsky's going beyond a defence of its exercise to statements taken to be an apologia for an antisemite revisionist, forgetting to mention the historical significance of a French intellectual accusing the French state of antisemitism and failing to mention the French philosophers (even the one he liked) remarking that this model of intellectual was already in the grave, even when there was one last such figure still walking around Paris.

As for the remarks about Derrida, let's recall the kind of caveats Chomsky has attached to discussion of Derrida: "Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so." So: no evidence, and if pressed, I'll drop the matter for lack of interest. This isn't exactly Chomsky staking any of his credibility on the anything that follows. This doesn't seem to rise above the level of criticism one was likely to find on the pages of Lingua Franca, yet no attention is given to this seeming inattention. This would appear to elevate Chomsky on this matter to the level of authority he finds so upsetting in the French, which would appear rather more a matter of sycophancy than fidelity.

In short: this section would appear badly in need of a rewrite. Buffyg 23:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow your argument as to why this section is POV; however, I have gone through and edited the section to remove anything that could possibly be considered such. AFAICT, the section scrupulously describes Chomsky's opinion (which is notable, and interesting -- didn't know he felt this way), and distinctly avoids stating opinion as fact. The remarks reported in this section are not isolated statements from a single speech, but seem to be spread out amongst his writings. You may think Chomsky's criticisms are facile (and if you can find direct responses to Chomsky's remarks, definitely include references and quotes) but that's not a reason not to include them. Sdedeo 21:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If it does not, for example, make clear that Chomsky states his disinterest in substantiating his opinions, that's not a scrupulous description and therefore insufficient POV management. This problem is, I believe, pervasive in this section of the entry, which is why I added the tag in the first instance. To put it differently: it isn't simply that I think Chomsky's remarks facile, it's that Chomsky fairly well stamps his remarks with a warning label that they may be so and that nothing of that stamp is reproduced here in the interest of NPOV or other encyclopaedic scruple (hence "more a matter of sycophancy than fidelity"). What Chomsky presents in most cases is something of an anecdotal sociology of French intellectual life, although in one of the passages quoted France is used as an exaggerated example used to support a tenuous remark about the intellectual elevation of academics. If the evidence is anecdotal (or at best anecdotal) and sociological, one might at least note who Chomsky's associates in and occasional guides to French intellectual life are or have been: groups like la Vieille Taupe whose antifascist credentials are not burnished as Chomsky liked to pretend in the midst of the Faurisson Affair or Jean-Pierre Faye, whose criticisms of Derrida are at times downright loony. These people have their own places in the sociology of French intellectual life, as does Chomsky. (Please have a look at Thion's "A Matchstick on an Ice Flow" here for an indication of one side of the history.) If we're going to do sociology, let's do a reasonable sociology that gives us some indication of where all the players stand.

One might also note that, however much Chomsky credits Foucault, you'll find Foucault commentators who claim that Chomsky didn't particularly understand what Foucault said in their debate (I believe it was Rabinow who said as much, but I don't have the text at hand). Whence the respect for Foucault and how ought one to weight it? As for Chomsky's characterisation of Derrida, I'm not sure that the gloss fits the quote. The closest Chomsky comes to saying that Derrida is insubstantial is in objecting strongly to Derrida's reading of Saussure in Of Grammatology. Chomsky's larger argument is that he suspects much of "theory" isn't comprehensible to him and that, unlike other fields of advanced research, he doesn't have anyone available to him to help him understand. He therefore raises the possibility that the work is simply gibberish, but one needs to exercise a great deal of caution in characterising this remark, as it not offered as definitive. Although I think this does deserve treatment here, I find it difficult to credit this as criticism in the substantive sense of a well-considered and incisive product of thought supported by determinate references, which is apart from the consideration Chomsky gives to most of the things in which he declares his interest. My point is that, setting aside how one decides to weight Chomsky at the end of the day, the context of many of these remarks is so poorly researched and presented that it doesn't meet NPOV with or without presenting counterarguments. This would all be basic fact-checking necessary to encyclopaedic presentation and nothing as adventurous original research. Buffyg 19:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wrote the section on Chomsky and the French and I am definitely a fan of Chomsky. If the section comes across as negatively biased I certainly did not intend it to be so. I think Chomsky's point of view on this matter is intelligent and noble, as it relates to his belief that the intellectual should be accessible and open to the common man. H.R.

I've got no problems with the section on the French, and i've read more than my share of Derrida, Althusser, Foucault, et al. FWIW -- i largely agree with Chomsky's opinions, and i think he did a respectable job of voicing his ideas in a casual, unembittered way. Klipklop

I think the "France" section should be fused with the bit about his opinion on postmodernism, it's the same issue. The fact the godfathers are from France is immaterial. Chomsky's own leftist critiques are significantly grounded by rationalist principles and set him apart from the mainstay of academic scientolog-, I mean, postmodernists. --Urb

Glad to see evidence that we don't have to worry about managing POV injection where we are not content to substitute insinuating a point for actually making one. Buffyg 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd that this section has been flagged for neutraility issues. These *are* Chomsky's views on French intellectuals. That a reader does not like these views doesn't make them any less Chomsky's views. Indeed, Chomsky's views are even stronger. He has written:

"So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood."

And:

"Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones --- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."

And:

"As to 'posturing,' a lot of it is that, in my opinion, though I don't particularly blame Foucault for it: it's such a deeply rooted part of the corrupt intellectual culture of Paris that he fell into it pretty naturally, though to his credit, he distanced himself from it. As for the 'corruption' of this culture particularly since World War II, that's another topic, which I've discussed elsewhere...."

Additionally, a few years ago, after a talk at he gave at MIT, I asked Chomsky about Foucault. He was basically dismissive, and went on to say something to the effect of, "I don't really read anything that comes out of Paris."

In sum, Chomsky's views on postmodernism and French intellectuals and French intellectual culture is accurately represented in this section, and there should be no neutrality flag appended to it. Simply because one does not like Chomsky's views on this topic, or does not think Chomsky's views are based on methodology appropriate to the task of arrriving at such views (an ironic objection, n'est-ce pas?), does not mean that they are not Chomsky's views.

Buffyg, you ought to allow Chomsky his views and stop trying to suppress them simply because you perceive them to be tarnishing your idols.

DM 9/28/05

And again with the sycophancy. That's well wide of the mark as to what I'm suggesting by way of POV and context. My point is not to argue that Chomsky's views should not appear here but to argue that you've amply cited what is forceful about Chomsky's view but completely neglected what qualifies Chomsky's view, either in terms of relevant facts that establish context or qualifications that he offers himself to mitigate the selective forceful quotes you've offered. What you omit is telling. In the work you've cited, Chomsky's declares at the outset what he would command his attention from theoretical work:

if there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret," despite much "pseudo-scientific posturing."

Chomsky allows that he failure to discern the value of "French theory" may be a personal failing that remains uncorrected for lack of interlocutors:

It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years, when similar charges have been made -- but without any answer to my questions. Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these things, but apparently little else).

Chomsky further stipulates that, because he does not perceive any value in engaging Derrida's work to the point that he will not stipulate his objections in more specific terms than the broad and generally schematic sociological argument he has already offered because that is consistent with his level of interest in the matter:

He then asks, reasonably, why I am "dismissive" of it. Take, say, Derrida. Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so.

You have cut the paragraph about Derrida "the grand old man" to drop a further significant qualification of this sort:

Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.

All of this is consistent with what Žižek identifies as a failing essential to Chomsky:

With all my admiration for Noam Chomsky, I partially disagree with him. It's an underlying premise of his work that you don't have to do any theory - just tell all the facts to the people. The way ideology works today is much more mysterious - not more complex, one can always say this, things are always more complex, it means nothing just to say this. People just do not want to know too much. There's an active refusal to know. If you ask average citizens with enough of their own worries, they'd say, "Don't even tell me this. We pay taxes so the government can do all the dirty things that I don't want to know about.

The question isn't of any real link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. I remember a debate on TV where some viewers' calls made their point clear, which is: we are not talking about empirical links. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda hate the U.S.. That's enough of a link. You cannot really help by making factual refutations. The key factor is not that people are duped - there's an active will not to know. Remember the Reagan presidency, when the media pointed out his factual mistakes. That only raised his popularity. This was the point of identification. With Bush, you have an almost ideal image for how things worth: a naïve, unknowing president, and a sinister figure of knowledge, like Dick Cheney, the operative, who really controls him. This is really quite a nice metaphor for how things work.

People like to identify themselves. "I can be stupid but I'm still at the top. The wiseguy is my vice, he is doing all the dirty jobs for me." There is something appealing in this, I think. Again, my basic position is drop the point that people want to know; people don't want to know. I'm not engaged in any conservative psychology of, you know, "People prefer ignorance, it's only for us, the evolutionary or spiritual elite to lead them." I'm not saying this is an eternal fact. I'm just describing how specifically today's ideology works, through a direct appeal to the will of ignorance.

It is not simply, as Chomsky would have it:

Unless someone can answer the simple questions that immediately arise in the mind of any reasonable person when claims about "theory" and "philosophy" are raised, I'll keep to work that seems to me sensible and enlightening, and to people who are interested in understanding and changing the world.

Johnb made the point that "plain language is not enough when the frame of reference is not available to the listener"; correct and important. But the right reaction is not to resort to obscure and needlessly complex verbiage and posturing about non-existent "theories." Rather, it is to ask the listener to question the frame of reference that he/she is accepting, and to suggest alternatives that might be considered, all in plain language. I've never found that a problem when I speak to people lacking much or sometimes any formal education, though it's true that it tends to become harder as you move up the educational ladder, so that indoctrination is much deeper, and the self-selection for obedience that is a good part of elite education has taken its toll. Johnb says that outside of circles like this forum, "to the rest of the country, he's incomprehensible" ("he" being me). That's absolutely counter to my rather ample experience, with all sorts of audiences. Rather, my experience is what I just described. The incomprehensibility roughly corresponds to the educational level. Take, say, talk radio. I'm on a fair amount, and it's usually pretty easy to guess from accents, etc., what kind of audience it is. I've repeatedly found that when the audience is mostly poor and less educated, I can skip lots of the background and "frame of reference" issues because it's already obvious and taken for granted by everyone, and can proceed to matters that occupy all of us. With more educated audiences, that's much harder; it's necessary to disentangle lots of ideological constructions.

It's certainly true that lots of people can't read the books I write. That's not because the ideas or language are complicated --- we have no problems in informal discussion on exactly the same points, and even in the same words. The reasons are different, maybe partly the fault of my writing style, partly the result of the need (which I feel, at least) to present pretty heavy documentation, which makes it tough reading. For these reasons, a number of people have taken pretty much the same material, often the very same words, and put them in pamphlet form and the like. No one seems to have much problem --- though again, reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement or professional academic journals don't have a clue as to what it's about, quite commonly; sometimes it's pretty comical.

Which brings us to what I believe is the crux: the ideological determinants of Chomsky's rejection of "theory" and its inherent relation to what is wholly inadequate in Chomsky's attempt at a critique of ideology. If you want an explanatory framework for the conduct of international relations in the case of the invasion of Iraq, it would be a farce to argue that the intellectuals (Chomsky's mandarins) are the most thoroughly indoctrinated, the most invested in the ideological frame established in support of globalism. Insofar as Chomsky suggests that such an argument should be axiomatic, he's got nothing on the "theoreticians" he derides. I may not agree completely with Žižek, but by the point that Chomsky admits that he can find people who agree in principle to what he says but find "heavy documentation" "tough reading", this particular point about a will to ignorance is conceded and that principled agreement is just lip service about democracy coming the mouths of the demos, all the way to the ballot box (or just as likely not making it that far). Chomsky's approach begins to look a lot like strategic suicide when this commitment to simplicity becomes an ideological unthought, not even an analytical commitment, to the simplism of facile sociological determinism and a sincere disinterest in the more nuanced theorectical argument necessary to unpack ideology, whether one's own or of others. Chomsky's enlightenment is never going to arrive because it is yet another illusory product of ideology; this is the double-blind of Chomsky's theoretical commitments that falls short of the dignity conferred on a regulative idea or teleologically projected norm. In this respect one could paint a bullseye on Chomsky with the following remark by Derrida:

These things are difficult, I admit; their formulation can be disconcerting, But would there be so many problems and misunderstandings without this complexity and without these paradoxes? One shouldn't complicate things for the pleasure of complicating, but one should also never simplify or pretend to be sure of such simplicity when there is none. If things were simple, word would have gotten round, as you say in English. There you have one of my mottos, one quite appropriate for what I take to be the spirit of "enlightenment" granted our time. Those who wish to simplify at all costs and who raise a hue and cry about obscurity because they do not recognize the obscurity of their good old Aufklaerung are in my eyes dangerous dogmatists and tedious obscurantists. No less dangerous (for instance, in politics) as those who wish to purify at all costs. ("Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion", in Limited, Inc., p 119)

Chomsky's most famous intervention in the French intellectual scene can be found wanting on the basis of the Enlightenment values he invokes, but the dogmatism of his resort to these values, even where he cannot demonstrate his own thorough fidelity to them, is precisely what Derrida has just diagnosed as dangerous and obscurantist in its own right, however plain the language pretends to be. We are right to refuse to disbelieve Chomsky when he offers the clear misdiagnosis of an intellectual defect on his part, just as we are right to refuse to believe Chomsky when he suggests that the work he is denouncing is non-sensical: its difficulty is of an altogether different nature, which is perhaps properly linked to the problem of style to which he takes recourse. It is this specification of complexity that is required to understand interest in an ideological sense that provides a meaningful description of determination and decision. Chomsky clearly signals his avoidance of this difficulty and an altogether less forgiveable failure, alluding as though triumphant to his previous disastrous encounter with Parisian intellectual politics in the Faurisson affair:

As for the "corruption" of this culture particularly since World War II, that's another topic, which I've discussed elsewhere and won't go into here. Frankly, I don't see why people in this forum should be much interested, just as I am not. There are more important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty unininteresting circles. That's a broad brush, and I stress again that it is unfair to make such comments without proving them: but I've been asked, and have answered the only specific point that I find raised. When asked about my general opinion, I can only give it, or if something more specific is posed, address that. I'm not going to undertake an essay on topics that don't interest me.

More minimally, however, what happened to Chomsky's acknowledgement of a "broad brush" and "unfair"? And why exactly has no one bothered to quote or even reasonably characterise Vidal-Nacquet's most trenchant criticism of Chomsky in that uninteresting episode here or elsewhere on wikipedia? More to the point: who's suppressing the presentation of information and views that might be perceived as tarnishing an idol? Buffyg 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try again.

The fact that one does not like the fact that Chomsky regards Parisian intellectual culture as corrupt and many of the leading lights of postmodernism as frauds does not make Chomsky's views *not* Chomsky's views. The fact that Chomsky issues weak qualifiers and sarcastic caveats before dismissing work whose value one might see differently does not attentuate Chomsky's opinions as opinions .

Again, one may not like his opinions, or like how he arrived at his opinions, but they *are* Chomsky's opinions and should be recognized as such.

If a reader would like to debate Chomsky's views and the methodology by which Chomsky arrived at them, perhaps he should call Chomsky's office and see if he's available, or set up a new page on Wikipedia entitled, "Why I Disagree with Chomsky's Views on French Intellectuals". I'm sure such a page would make for reading that would be, if nothing else, lengthy.

If all of this is beyond a reader's understanding, or frustrating, or both, well...perhaps some policing action on other pages whose subjects take a dim view of the French intellectual scene and postmodernism's leading lights would be a satisfying outlet.

DM 10/3/05

You're tenaciously missing the point. I'm suggesting that it is the presentation rather than the inclusion of these opinions that violates NPOV. I'm not suggesting that the specific form of argument attenuates opinions as opinions; I'm arguing that it specifies them and that this specificity, among other things, has not been given in the entry. In this sense they are not entirely recognisable.

What you've extracted certainly makes good sound bite, but my argument is that this is not a neutral or otherwise accurate representation of Chomsky's views or their context. My larger point is that the way in which the views are presented Chomsky's view is doctrinaire rather than critical, excluding some of the most reflective moments in Chomsky's own remarks, those where he delimits his own thought most precisely and on his own terms. These are the places where Chomsky says "I don't want to think about that" or "I'm not going to back that up" and tries to explain why. It's not a matter of not allowing Chomsky his views, it's a matter of obscuring the terms of the disagreement by selective presentation. Your soundbites cut off right before Chomsky gives the why rather than the what of his opinions, which I've indicated already is precisely the side of the story that makes Chomsky most open to critical objection. Buffyg 19:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I saw Chomsky's discussion on this topic in two books, Understanding Power, and Anarchism and I have seen him express the same opinion on the matter elsewhere. The article I wrote uses direct quotation from Chomsky's talks, this discussion of POV problems is absurd. If there are any recorded statements from Chomsky that contradict the one I have cited please incorporate them into the article and get rid of the flag please. HW 10/3/05

HW, you are right on. Buffyg, please direct your attention to my above entry. Perhaps a little more reading and a little less writing will help you understand.

DM 10/04/05

It is the selective quotation so well exemplified in your above entry that has prompted so much of what I've said. As for your last remark, there is more progress to be made in making edits to amend the defects I see rather than to chacterise them further here for the benefit of those thus far involved in this exchange.

In any case, is it a coincidence that your IP has since taken to blanking the Derrida entry? Buffyg 01:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Buffyg, two things (read before you write, please!). 1) Reread my 10/03 entry above. 2) Read the following, from the NPOV guidelines. I have italicized the relevant sections for your benefit:

"Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy.

"By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.

"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral."

So, if Chomsky takes a dim view of your idols, why don't you make your edits instead of indulging your logorhea on this page? Or, if you would like to indulge your hollow logorhea, why don't you set up a link to another page in which you discuss all the reasons why Chomsky's views on this matter don't conform to your own.

I realize that it's reasonable to assume that you've flagged this article because you do "not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said"; after all, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "temporary", which is far less complex than the NPOV policy. In any case, a quick trip to a dictionary ought to bring you up to speed on the meaning of the word "temporary" (unless you're too far down the signifying chain to accept standard definitions?), which, once understood, should persuade you to follow my advice and remove the flag (assuming you want to play by the rules of the community).

Then, as I've said above, you can go on to other policing actions-- perhaps you'll go so far in your sanitizing efforts that a comfortable online fantasy world will exist for you in which no one has ever actually said anything bad about your heroes.

DM 10/5/05

Although noting the lack of response to my previous question, I refer the honourable member to my previous responses. Buffyg

Buffyg, five items:

1) Why do you assume I am male? Are you making assumptions based on language use? Should you be making these assumptions? (I hope you're not priveleging!)

2) I see your hero-worship extends to the Habermas page. You did a fine job making the last two paragraphs of the Habermas article focus more on Derrida than on Habermas (or, at best, focus only on Habermas qua Derrida interlocutor). Perhaps you'll eventually make all of the pages on Wikipedia have Derrida at their center! (What do you suppose Derrida thought about the red/green binarism of the flag of Belarus?) You certainly seem to have the time and logorhea necessary for such a task. In any case, you without question possess the skills required to help transform Wikipedia into a resource one turns to when one wants information courtesy of domineering hacks. Keep at it, mate! (Stricken as personal attacks by Buffyg 18:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

3) A definition of temporary I pulled out of a dictionary, for your benefit: "Lasting, used, or enjoyed for a limited time; impermanent, transient"

4) Reread my entries from 10/3 and 10/5.

5) Remove the flag, in accordance with the community's guidelines.

DM 10/07/05

I do not assume that you are male, I am using a customary answer given in Parliament for arguments that do not take [any] account of previous answers. Although "member" seemed incorrect in speaking to an IP address, I have provided an alternative form of the answer if you are concerned about gender neutrality.

As far as the mention of Habermas-Derrida relationship, it does have some bearing on Habermas. In the interest of NPOV, I made a point of not quoting at length the harshest comments of either side and tried instead to offer an explanation that accounted for the sharpness of both sides without promoting either. At the same time, I made an effort to show that the argument may merit further exploration because most of the terms used to describe it appear inadequate. If I was interested in putting Derrida on a pedestal, I might have quoted some of the kind words Habermas said on Derrida's passing. In short: mentioning Derrida in a context where he has considerable significance that cannot be argued away doesn't equate to hero worship or anything flavoured by POV. Your subsequent remarks go from confusing this point to making personal attacks. I have stricken them accordingly.

I've read your entries several times and refer you again to my previous responses. Let's recall the part of the NPOV policy that tells us that good research always helps address POV issues. That takes a little time. Rather than investing further time arguing without reference to edits, let's revisit issues after I've had a chance to do some editing this weekend.

If you're going to argue about community standards, are you going to comment on the blanking of the Derrida by your IP address? Buffyg 18:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've offered an initial edit. I believe it more thoroughly represents Chomsky's views both in their generality and in some of the specifics of the French case. I've also made an effort to show where critics (I used Žižek as exemplary) find Chomsky's views on these matters to be fundamentally weak or insufficient (which I think goes a long way to providing NPOV). I don't offer it as a perfect edit; some of the language isn't as smooth as it could be. Please feel free to make improvements. Buffyg 23:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Care to justify your revert, DM, as per the revert guideline? I notice that you've offered neither an edit summary or even a referral to this page for a longer comment we might yet hope to appear. Buffyg 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

DM, I see you've reverted again without comment, which reinforces my suspicion that it was you who repeatedly blanked sections of the Derrida article. This commitment to unargued suppression, contravening various Wikipedia standards, is the surest measure of your respect for those you've invoked previously. Buffyg 15:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a third revert without comment. To reply to your previous gratuitous citation of the NPOV policy with a gratuitous citation of the NPOV policy:

The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

If we can discuss on these terms or at least the adequacy and applicability of the terms, it would be an improvements. I don't think it would be unfair to say that there is no greater violation of NPOV that reverting edits without explanation or blanking articles whose subjects appear to be related to disputes; we are obliged to discuss to determine the extent to which we can arrive at an NPOV account. Please explain your objections to my edit. Buffyg 19:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For my part I do not think it thoroughly represents Chomsky's views, aspects of which are, at best, only implicitly represented in the selection from the interview in "Understanding Power" being used as an example. I think that in order to further understand Chomsky on this matter one should recognize that he has long had a comprehensive engagement with methodological issues in the sciences and he has written much about them in the areas of linguistics and related philosophies of mind. What has he written about it, Mr. Zizek? It is interesting to note that Zizek's descriptions of Chomsky's "anti-theoretical" bias are not based upon careful or comprehensive textual evidence. Zizek admits that his view of Chomsky's position is an interpretation that comes second-hand from a friend who had lunch with Chomsky. (Zizek, a smart man, but always something of a windbag, is famous for this type of chattiness.) In reality, Chomsky is not anti-theory per se, instead he is more accurately described as a minimalist who advocates critical, non-speculative theory when it is appropriately grounded. Lacking deeply grounded theories in social affairs, he believes it better to proceed pragmatically, with moral principles and the relevant truisms to guide us, rather than engage in speculation that so often lends itself to befuddling, sometimes destructive, illusory constructs. Chomsky's so-called linguistic revolution was itself a methodological paradigm shift based upon theoretical constructs as much as anything else. So why is Chomsky underwhelmed (and often confounded) by the theoeretical constructs of post-modernists concerning ideology, or by neoclassical economics concerning marginal utility, or freudian psychology concerning the "subconscious", and many other realms of the social sciences? I think it is because his test of a social theory employs a similar methodological criteria as he would employ in relation to the natural sciences, in particular the desiderata of precision, richness and non-trivial explanatory power; and in looking from that perspective he finds most theory outside of them lacking in comparison...."outside of physics and mathematics and now maybe biology and a few things in other fields, there really hasn't been any work that one would call intellectually deep. We don't know whether it is because of, as you suggest, historical conditions, or because of something intrinsic between the problems and the nature of the human mind. Maybe we can understand just that kind of problem and not some other kind of problem." (Language and Politics, 95)...Is there a theory of ideology that coheres with the best of what we know from the natural sciences and about human nature that contains a non-trivial account of how the elements of ideology emerge and evolve? Finally, I would like to ask whether the work of Derrida, Foucault,or Zizek have had an appreciable impact on activists? Or this a case where "theory" is a closed shop, forever beyond the comprehension of the unwashed masses, and a leninist class of derridean sheperds is required to herd them towards the "communist" utopia? [user:darwin76]

That's a lot to comment on. I will try to be brief:

1. I can agree with Žižek on this point but still think he's a windbag or what have you. When I say Žižek is exemplary for his remark rather than in some less qualified sense. (I do not, for that matter, think he needs to be utterly original in saying this to be exemplary.) Chattiness may in case be sufficient for laying out the parameters of an argument that we do not intend to settle here. When Žižek says that Chomsky is anti-theoretical, it is "theory" as we have elsewhere suspended it in quotations: not that Chomsky is against method (he's very clear about he wants to render methodical) but that he is does not reference to a particular set of positions that he would only call "theoretical" with cautionary punctuation.

1. I think it important in any case to note that Chomsky's reason for rejecting these positions is not formulated in the language of the academy but are deliberately formulated in a non-academic language to reinforce a political commitment. Chomsky claims that academic critique is possible, but the need for it is obviated by political expediency ("interest"). If the distinctions supporting this line of characterisation seem to you insufficient, please specify how. You've cited Language and Politics. Is what I've said inconsistent with the following quote from it:

QUESTION: There is the Chomsky who is a scientist and linguist and the Chomsky who engages in political struggles. What do they say to each other when they meet?

CHOMSKY: There is no connection, apart from some very tenuous relations at an abstract level, for example, with regard to a concept of human freedom that animates both endeavors.

Perhaps the remark about Foucault seems apt in response to the qualifier Chomsky offers?

1. As to talking about the impact of Derrida and Foucault on activism, I'm not sure that any such discussion would have a direct relevance to the article at hand and may therefore be making even more a debating society of this page than is within Wikipedia's rationale for them. This seems to me an imposition of a non-trivial discussion that I cannot imagine shoe-horning into the article. If you think this needs to be considered for reasons of NPOV, please say why. Reply is certainly possible.

This still may not exhaust what could be said on the matter of "theory" or Chomsky contributions or objections to it. The question is what needs to be done to outline the matter consistent with the NPOV policy. I remain open to suggestions for improvement. Buffyg 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

IPA for Russian

It's incorrect because unstressed vowels are reduced. See Russian Alphabet

Picture of Chomsky & Castro

I wonder whether it is appropriate to include the picture of Chomsky meeting Castro. By including the picture, the article may suggest that Chomsky has a special liking for Castro by suggesting a personal connection. Chomsky has stated in his open letter to the Guardian that the picture was taken during an annual meeting for an international society of Latin American scholars. The meeting was held in Havana and Chomsky only met with Castro as part of a group (see http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm).

I swapped the images in "Criticism of United States government" (the Castro img) and "Views on socialism" (Chomsky speaking to US citizens) based on the above comment and my opinion that a picture of Chomsky and Castro under "Criticism..." serves to give a false view of a "political agenda" behind Chomsky's work. Having the img in this place serves to give false connotation, whereas the img of Chomsky speaking to people in Boulder seems much more befitting. Putting the Castro img under "Views on Socialism" likewise seems more appropriate to me.

Thank you for your consideration. -Boo 16:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the image of Chomsky with Castro under the "Views on Socialism" section as I think it is an attempt to play on standard anti-socialist propaganda in the US and and associate Chomsky with a non-capitalist leader who is hated in the Western world. Yes the image is real, but it is deceiving. Chomsky has commented on the images use (not in wikipedia, but he might as well have been):

Turn to the Castro picture. In this case the picture, though clipped, is real. As the editors surely know, at least if those who located the picture did 2 minutes of research, the others in the picture (apart from my wife) were, like me, participants in the annual meeting of an international society of Latin American scholars, with a few others from abroad. This annual meeting happened to be in Havana. Like all others, I was in a group that met with Castro. End of second story. [28]

In my view, the picture of Chomsky and Castro is not appropriate under this section either. If I am not mistaken, Chomsky attended the meeting as a scholar, not as a political activist. Thus including the picture under a section titled "Views on Socialism" is at best uninformative, and at worst misleading (for reasons already stated). Furthermore, since the picture is also uninformative for Chomsky the scholar, I don't think the picture is appropriate in this article.

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)

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.