Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Someone needs to remove the warning signs. They are rude and a bad joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.115.67 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

What are you referring too?--Jyffeh (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A mention came up that this article is slanted a it..... someone wanna take it with a fine tooth comb -- Tawker 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First quote in the Opinion on criticism of science culture does not have a source. The quote does not come from the Activism, Anarchism, and Power interview. --Fseth7 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fseth7 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

This is rather curious. Someone who isn't logged in accused me of vandalizing the Noam Chomsky article. I check my edit, and it shows exactly what i did-- added the IWW category to the article, because Noam Chomsky is a member of that organization. It doesn't show any other changes.

But i look at the next edit, where the vandalism was apparently undone. That shows vandalism that *appears* to come from the previous edit (my edit.)

Is there a way that someone is able to edit, and hide what they've done?

I don't know who posted to my talk page without signing, but if you have any more information, please weigh in on this. Richard Myers 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard Myers -- I looked at it and sure enough it looks like you did the category & the random edit. I doubt that someone spoofed your address -- more likely, wikipedia was having a database sync hiccup of some sort. However, if this happens again on this article or to you, you should certainly let an admin know at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --lquilter 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist and yes I noticed that vandalism has been up a little lately, but this article has always been prone to vandalism and the recent vandalism hasn't reached levels where the article needs to be protected. If vandalism starts getting out of hand then I'll protect the article myself.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I added to your talk page because it looked like you had vandalized. You did not. I apologize. I do not choose to login for anything I do on wikipedia, and that will not change. I saw a lot of vandalism, and someone was named in the history after a few reverts I did that day and decided to tell them to stop. Little did I know, it must have been a database hiccup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.105.30.44 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

My first edit. I'm surprised that there isn't much discussion on this page. I removed the following remark: "Chomsky has made connections between his linguistics research and more political topics. An example is a 1971 debate with French philosopher Michel Foucault on the question of human nature, where Chomsky used the idea of innate linguistic capacity to criticize the idea that all human values and knowledge are entirely conditioned by societal conditions."

Firstly, the characterization of that element of the debate is incorrect. In the Foucault debate, he used the idea that we have an innate capacity for sympathy (not language), to criticize the idea that human values, our sense of right and wrong, etc. are entirely conditioned by society. Secondly, this has nothing to do with politics. I left the subsequent sentence which gives a quote of Chomsky from 1969 describing the "tenuous" connection, although I don't think it's right to leave this in. There are a few instances where he has described a very tenuous or abstract connection, but there are hundreds of articles and interviews where he says that there is "absolutely no connection", or that the connection "is approximately zero". I'll let others decide if it should be removed. MJM72 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not entirely sure on the specific debate but I know that Chomsky frequently disavows any connections between politics and linguistics in various interviews he does. So I would tend to agree with you.--Jersey Devil 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The new wording is problematic: the phrase "regularly admits" seems to imply that he is "admitting" something that he's accused of. How about replacing that with "frequently states"? Cgingold 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call Cgingold. MJM72 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

if he is athiest, why is he listed as a jewish scientist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.83.66 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Because being "Jewish" means that one is a Jew, which is an ethnic term in this context rather than a religious one. Many Jews, like Chomsky, do not practice Judaism but they are still Jews. Merenta 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That is complete nonesense and was a reason Nazi Germany was able to pursue their genocidal campaign against jews. Truth is you aren't born a Jew, you choose to be one. It's a religion, not a race.

While the unsigned comment about the Nazis is well taken, I must add that, although I am also an atheist, I consider that I am a Jew because I am the child of a Jewish mother (who was herself an atheist). I do object, however, to the practice of always pointing out that someone is a Jew when it is not appropriate. Chomsky is obviously a name with a Slavic source; why then is it spelled out in Hebrew and Yiddish? His politics are not typical of most Jews. His scientific position was unique when first developed. Perhaps there is a subtle anti-semitic agenda? I have a mind to point out the ethnic and religious backgrounds of non-jews in similarly inappropriate situations so as to emphasize this point. Clinton? Rove? McCarthy? Mondale? Gore? Boss Tweed? Walter Reuther? Alberto Gonzales? Too Old 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky being Jewish is relevant to the article since Chomsky himself highlight's it as an important part of his life. You can see the Brian Lamb BookTv interview where he talks about how he grew up in a Jewish neighborhood split into "Hebrew" and "Yiddish" sides, how he grew up with an "irrational fear of catholics" because of being Jewish and his father's background as a Hebrew scholar. Chomsky considers himself a "true zionist" in that he associates the origins of Zionism with that of the kibbutz movement in early Israel.--Jersey Devil 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To the above statement in regard to Naizism. You are a fool. I suggest that you delve further into your history books and read of the 'Jewish diaspora'. After the siege of Jerusalem, Jews fled from the 'Holy Land' and thus fled to Europe and so forth. Therefore, every European (or Slavic) Jew is a descendant of the Israelites.

Virtually the whole section entitled "generative grammar" consists of unsourced criticism, parts of which are masked as objective, supposedly uncontroversial statements. While many of them do sound "truthy" to me (I'm not particularly interested in the field), it is unclear where the "objective" part is supposed to end and where the overt criticism is supposed to start, as they form a single line of reasoning. It's obvious that Chomsky's own quote disputes the accuracy of the preceding generalizations (and was indeed written as an objection to them, as apparent from the wiki page cited as a source for the quote). Finally, a section entitled "Generative grammar" should begin with a neutral and clear explanation of the basics of generative grammar, and criticism and "advertisement" of competing trends should come afterwards. --91.148.159.4 14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed "184th Class" to "184th in class". Later will look for the size of the class. One of the greatest problems for human progress is how would-be progessive elements become dispirited and even eventually reactionary. Noam Chomsky is an inspiration and much needed if not irreplaceable light is a generally dismal social scene. Lycurgus 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

184th Class does not refer to Chomsky's grade point average or class ranking, it refers to the year of his graduation. Please see Central High School (Philadelphia). Organ123 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged, now that the text is a link to the schools numbering convention the situation will be clear. Lycurgus 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

doesn't he support speech codes in universities? and he is actually considered libertarian-anything or anarcho-anything? i haven't done much research on him (and don't plan to), but does he actually identify with these? limiting free speech anywhere doesn't seem very libertarian or anarcho- to me.

BTW, if i'm wrong about him supporting speech codes or about libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism being opposed to limiting freedom of speech, i will gladly eat my words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.138.123.95 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

doesn't he support speech codes in universities?

No, don't think so. Cadr 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i remember on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! he said something like "my freedom of speech doesnt go that far". and the way this statement was presented it made it sound like in his opinion people should have unlimited freedom of speech except on college campuses because it is basically "extending into that person's home". but now that i think about it, it can be taken to mean the exact opposite of how P&T presented it (if i remember right i think they specifically included him in a group of photos of the "assholes" that support speech codes. (quoting P&T when i say assholes)

That interview completely misrepresented what he was saying. I have multiple articles on Chomsky discussing freedom of speech as it concerns colleges. It's much more intricate than anything listed there.

Ah, I knew it didn't sound like Chomsky. I wonder if they've been confronted about that interview. If any of the articles are online I'd like to see them. I don't doubt what you're saying is true, but before I eat my words I want to be 100% sure.

To my knowledge no one has "confronted" them, although there were articles on it. I believe Chomsky may have commented on the misrepresentation as well. Regardless, you can look up the information you are looking for by going through the record of his writing. I understand this is difficult at times because he has written so much, but it's a topic he's discussed more than once.

The editor Jersey Devil has removed[1] this sourced material. "A 2006 study finds that binding theory, a central element of Chomsky's theories, fails when emperirically tested.[2]" His only explanation is "no contex". I have asked him to then provide the context he claims is lacking, but his only response has been to repeat himself. Please explain what context is lacking.Ultramarine 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me first state that I understand that there are those within the field of linguistics whom disagree with some aspects of Chomsky's work and that such valid concerns should in fact be placed in this article. The problem is that from your edit history on various such pages (and the political advocacy on your userpage) I have honest concerns that material may be being used selectively to support a view point. As such, I would like context to explain the relevance of this material. Is it a view held by a significant portion of linguists? Is the journal cited a prominent journal within the field of linguistics? etc... Perhaps the best solution would be to confer with someone at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics about the relevance of these additions?--Jersey Devil 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not very interesting. I have cited a peer-reviewed study. You insinuate, without presenting any evidence, that the study is dubious. Using this argumentation, anything can be removed from Wikipedia by any editor who himself feels, without anything more needed, that the source may not be reliable. If you want to dispute the study, it is up to you to present such evidence.Ultramarine 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know about your use of talk pages for extended debates. I will not follow through with that and this will be my last comment with regards to this topic on this page. You have a history of this kind of behavior in articles. Either confer with the linguistics wikiproject or I will continue to remove the material from the article. Good day.--Jersey Devil 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are disputing a peer-reviwed study, so the burden is on you to give evidence. However, I will allow some time for the linguists who frequent this page to comment. After this, I you continue to revert sourced peer-reviwed material, I will ask for the opinons of others regarding you actions on the Administrators' noticeboard.Ultramarine 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You've totally misinterpreted the study. It just casts doubt on the complementary distribution of pronouns and reflexives withing picture NPs. This isn't a refutation of the entire "binding theory", insofar as there is a single binding theory, and it's not particularly damaging to Chomsky's position. To describe it as a refutation of binding theory is totally inaccurate. I suggest you read it. Cadr 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry for the tone of the previous comment. I'd just ask you not to reinsert this right now. If you want a more detailed explanation of the implications of the study you've cited, I'd be happy to give it. Jersey Devil: I'm in the linguistics wikiproject, FWIW. Cadr 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a pdf of the paper, if anyone wants to read it [3]. Cadr 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. He disagrees with Chomsky's political views and so then selectively uses material to discredit his academic credentials. This is precisely why I wanted members of the linguistics wikiproject to review it.--Jersey Devil 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cadr, by all means if you can provide a detailed explanation of the impact of the study with regards to Chomsky's work on the article please add it on.--Jersey Devil 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's some context on binding theory and the paper.

Binding theory is a term coined in the late 1970s for a theory which was intended to explain certain facts about the distribution of pronouns, reflexives and reciprocals (e.g. "him", "her", "himself", "themselves", "each other", etc.) Many researchers have worked on binding theory, and Chomsky himself has revised his theory of binding a number of times, so the term "binding theory" no longer really refers to any single theory. For this reason, saying that something contradicts binding theory is pretty much meaningless unless a specific theory of binding is referenced.

In published work, Chomsky hasn't really said anything about binding theory for the past decade, so it's hard to know what he personally thinks about it these days (and even those who know his views won't be able to cite anything). In a recent paper he has vaguely endorsed some work by Eric Reuland on binding, which is actually pretty compatible with the results of the Runner-Sussman-Tanenhaus paper that Ultramarine has cited.

The specific issue relevant to the paper is the binding of reflexives such as "himself". Reflexives have to have a local antecedent:

Good: John saw himself

Bad: John knows that Mary saw himself

In most cases, reflexives and ordinary pronouns are in complementary distribution. That is, you can't use a pronoun in place of a reflexive or vice versa. So for example, "John saw him" can't mean the same thing as "John saw himself". As has been known for a long time now, reflexives in "picture NPs" don't obey all of the generalizations I've outlined above. They can have non-local antecedents:

OKish: John knows that Mary saw pictures of himself

And they are not in complementary distribution with pronouns:

Also OK: John knows that Mary saw pictures of him

Chomsky has taken a number of positions on these issues over the years. In some of the earliest formulations of the binding theory, it was assumed that reflexives in picture NPs didn't obey the conditions of binding theory. Then from 1981 to around 1992 it was pretty widely assumed that they did (with some rather complicated additions to binding theory to explain their behavior). From 1992 onwards, it's become more and more widely acknowledged that binding theory does not apply to reflexives in picture NPs. Chomsky hasn't commented specifically on this in his published work, so it is difficult to say what he thinks at the moment.

Two concluding points. First, the paper Ultramarine cited is only relevant to the behavior of reflexives within picture NPs, not to the entire binding theory. Second, in the 90s, binding theory started to become less important in the overall scheme of things than it was in the 1980s. Cadr 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of the intro praises Chomsky's scholarly achievements and their influence, having no mention of opposing views. His political criticisms are also described as well as proclaiming him to be a "a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics." There is a great deal of controversy, especially regarding the accuracy of his political writings. In order for the intro to be NPOV, this controversy should be at least briefly mentioned.Ultramarine 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a controversial right-wing writer, Ayn Rand, this controvesy is mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much controversy that Chomsky is a key intellectual figure within the left-wing of US politics -- and I don't see that sentence as praise either. If you don't like left-wing politics, that sentence might lead you to make a negative association with Chomsky. To say George Bush is a key government figure in right-wing politics wouldn't be praise, it would just be an uncontroversial statement of fact. Can you please point to specific text in the intro that is praising Chomsky? I don't think Chomsky is praised. I think the intro is simply stating facts that explain Chomsky's notability. Organ123 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive statements: "considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology""a key intellectual figure""is widely known for his political activism" Again, completeness and npov requires at least a brief mention also of the controversy, not only positive statements. There is a great deal of controversy, especially regarding the accuracy of his political writings. Looking at a controversial right-wing writer, Ayn Rand, this controvesy is mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't require that. Regardless of what you think Chomsky is a largely important figure in the field of linguistics. Since you disagree with Chomsky politically you seem to be trying to add on commentary to discredit his academic credentials (see above issue on binding theory). You are making your own interpretation of policy so that you can add your views into articles. You have done this continuously on this and other articles. If you try and edit war in this article as you have done in various articles in the past I will seek community action against you. Good day.--Jersey Devil 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not very interesting. Please respond to the arguments in my post above. Ultramarine 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning against edit warring on this or any future articles. All edit warring you do in the future will be reported and the proper action will be taken. Good day.--Jersey Devil 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not edit warring. Again, please the arguments raised in my post above.Ultramarine 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit war on Flynn effect has already had to be protected by an administrator. You are a user whom has habitually edit warred on articles. I am just giving you a warning for all future articles that all such edit wars will be recorded and reported and the proper action will be taken. I am sure that you will now abide by Wikipedia policy and refrain from edit warring on articles. Good day.--Jersey Devil 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Returning to intro of this article. Is there any objections to adding a brief sentence mentioning this controversy? Ultramarine 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a change, as such it will be reverted if changed. Use this talk page to discuss any possible change to the intro.--Jersey Devil 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your objections.Ultramarine 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS.--Jersey Devil 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental policies such as NOR or NPOV are the most important principles, as WP:CONSENSUS stress.Ultramarine 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Undent. The (non-living person) Ayn Rand article does not appear to have consensus on that part of the intro, as recent reversions of it have occurred. In any case, I do not think the items listed above constitute praise; rather, they state uncontroversial facts about Chomsky that explain his notability. Some of Chomsky's ideas have sparked controversy, but I like the intro as is because it doesn't get involved with the reaction to Chomsky's work, either positive or negative. It simply states why he is notable. He is not notable because he is controversial (like, say, Paris Hilton); he is notable for the reasons listed in the intro. I do not think the intro will be enhanced by stating that Chomsky is a controversial figure. Organ123 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'll add that someone made an argument relevant to this topic in Archive 6. Organ123 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He is primarily notable for his political writings. Few people have read his linguistic works. As for now, the intro only states positive things. The controversy surrounding his political writings is an integral part of this subject, and should therefore be mentioned if we have an intro of this length. An alternative would be a very short into. How about "Avram Noam Chomsky (Hebrew and Yiddish: אברם נועם חאמסקי) , Ph.D (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, theorist, and political activist" and leave the details to the body? Ultramarine 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is controversy surrounding Chomsky's political viewpoints. However, my main contribution to this discussion is I do not think that the current introduction states anything positive or negative, but only uncontroversial facts related to Chomsky's notability. I think that the current intro is neutral in accordance with WP policies and does not need to be modified for the sake of neutrality. I think that the neutrality tag should be removed. As I do not currently accept that the intro is biased, I do not support modifications for the sake of neutrality. Additionally, I am bringing to light comments by the editor in archive 6. He/she stated regarding use of the term "controversial" in the introduction: "it's extremely UNINFORMATIVE, essentially sensational, and seems intended to immediately discredit Chomsky as an entity upon whom the 'jury' is 'still out'." Organ123 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this will clarify the issue. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."Ultramarine 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for including that quote. I still do not think that the current introduction suffers from a lack of neutrality, based my statements above, and I think the tag should be removed. If and how the intro should be appended to include mention of controversial information per Wikipedia:Lead section, that is really a second discussion to be had. Again, I am primarily stating that the intro section is currently neutral, and that the tag should be removed. Other editors may have more to say about how to go about including controversial material. If controversial material is included in a NPOV manner, I would not necessarily be opposed; however, I do not believe that the previous insertion of "His writings have in turn been widely criticized" accomplishes that goal. I hope editors will help arrive at a consensus-based solution. Organ123 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your alternative suggested text? Ultramarine 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

These articles should represent global perspectives. Based on the sources for the criticisms given, which are not primarily academic, predominantly from right-wing polemicists published by right-wing think tanks and foundations, and amateur web militants, I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves by concluding that such views are in fact widespread from a global perspective. It would be POV to give such a narrow strain of non-academic political opinion a significant platform for their views just because they insist on making a lot of noise. As an aside I should mention that user:Ultramarine has not yet shown any evidence of having grappled with Chomsky's political views seriously. His ignorance of Chomsky's works is readily obvious- he is approaching the editing of this article like an exercise in pushing his POV. BernardL 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, spare me the ad hominem. You incorrectly describe the critics, some of which are left-wing. For example Keith Windschuttle is a lecturer in history and social policy, while Chomsky is outside his academic field when he writes about politics and history. If there is a "narrow strain" of views that should be automatically excluded from Wikipedia, then the narrow Anarchist one looks like a possible candidate.Ultramarine 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop crying wolf when a little criticism of your editing practices is proffered- it really is POV pushing that you are doing. You do not demonstrate a serious attempt to understand Chomsky by reading his major works attentively. You are simply mining the net for critical material, often assuming it is a true representation. Windschuttle is one example of what might be called an academic critic, although his Chomsky criticism is not in an academic style. The fact that he writes for a New Right journal (The New Criterion) and was in included in The Anti-Chomsky Reader Chomsky puts him in the same narrow camp. BTW, Windschuttles historical works were not for an academic publisher and are not well regarded by academic historians. (that's a long story)BernardL 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet more ad hominem. Your personal unsourced views are not an allowed source in Wikipedia. Again, If there is a "narrow camp" of views that should be automatically excluded from Wikipedia, then the narrow Anarchist one looks like a possible candidate.Ultramarine 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my views. As per above, I don't believe that a wikipedia article should be a soapbox for a narrow right-wing perspective or that it should be pretended that such views are widely held and representative of the global range of opinion. The narrow right perspective has its place- particularly in the page dedicated to detailed criticisms of Chomsky- but not overwhelmingly so, and must also respect WP:BLP. BernardL 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are critics of many colors represented. Your claims regarding the global range of opinions are unsourced.Ultramarine 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: this issue is now also taking place at Politics of Noam Chomsky. I have requested that editors there participate at this discussion page to centralize the discussion. Organ123 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Either place is fine with me. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." So again, what is your proposed alternative text? Ultramarine 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of that question, as I have not claimed to have an alternative suggested text. I do not think that the current introduction suffers from a lack of neutrality. I am primarily stating that the intro section is currently neutral, and that the tag should be removed. Please see above for my other thoughts. Organ123 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But I you do not have an alternative text, then what is wrong with my proposal? Regarding NPOV, I quote. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.""One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."Ultramarine 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is the criticism section of this article which does not fairly represent the criticisms. An attempt to make it neutral was made but reverted.[4] Strangely enough, the removal of criticisms by another editor was not reverted: [5]. Please explain.Ultramarine 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what the above user turned that section into:

Critics of Chomsky's political writings has accused them of misrepresentation and factual inaccuracy. He has also been accused of antisemitism as well as being a "Closet Capitalist". Chomsky has made various responses to the criticisms.

With language all taken from the article Criticism of Noam Chomsky which from the page history you can see he has made into his own editorial article. As such, it was correctly reverted per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV--Jersey Devil 11:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how NPOV is violated in my proposed text. The current text violates NPOV by only mentioning anitsemitism and the Red Khmers and no other criticisms. Also, it only links to writings by Chomsky! Again, why did you not revert the removal of criticisms by another editor? [6].Ultramarine 11:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors should refrain from nearly blanking an entire subsection in a controversial page without first gaining consensus, even if the edit is done in good faith. Organ123 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So is there any concrete objections to my proposed text? The current text is clearly POV and incomplete.Ultramarine 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current text does not list all of the types of criticisms against Chomsky. I would not object if other criticism and rebuttals were added in a very concise, NPOV, and well-cited fashion. However, I do not think that the current section has a neutrality problem. There is a link to the main criticisms page (and I'll note that I've never seen another "criticism" page of a living person, although they may exist), and from what I can tell, it's a brief summary in a point/counter-point fashion. There is a lack of citations for the criticisms in the "criticism" section, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations. Organ123 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, since it excludes many areas of criticisms is it not complete or NPOV. What is wrong with my proposed text? Ultramarine 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the neutrality of original text, per above. The replacement text is less specific about living-person Chomsky's rebuttals to the criticism, less specific about the criticisms themselves, and also contains no citations or links. I see a problem with the neutrality of the replacement text, whereas I do not see a problem with the neutrality of the original text. Again, I agree that the current text does not list all of the types of criticisms against Chomsky. I would not object if other criticism and rebuttals were added in a very concise, NPOV, and well-cited fashion. Also, there is a lack of citations for the criticisms in the "criticism" section, and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations. Organ123 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain exactly why you see a problem with neutrality in my proposed text. There is no need for detailed arguments in a summary. How can you not see a problem with neutrality in the current text when it only links to writings by Chomsky and completely ignores many criticisms? Ultramarine 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I have nothing to add to what I have already stated to answer those questions. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to editors adding good citations to the current section. Perhaps other editors have other comments. In theory, I suppose a super-brief NPOV section could say something like: "Chomsky has been criticized and he and others have responded to those criticisms", with no more text than that. But that might leave readers wanting more of a summary. Organ123 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me. Anyone objecting to changing the current text to the above? Ultramarine 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think the new revised text (which I wrote above as an example) is neutral enough, I think it is inferior to the original text, which provided more of a summary and more information. At the moment, I think an ideal Chomsky article would make concise mention of criticisms of his politics in a point/counter-point fashion. To not do this is to deprive readers of notable information. I'm not going to revert it for now, but I'm just letting my stance be known. Organ123 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The original text only cited Chomsky's own writings and excluded many important areas of criticisms. If proposing a better and still NPOV text, please state it for discussion. However, there is a no need for details in a summary of another article.Ultramarine 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are now four reliable sources given for the statement. Organ123 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not call several of them reliable and some of the arguments are really strange: "Chomsky has never had an Op Ed column in the Washington Post"? But remove the tag for now.Ultramarine 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No convincing arguments have been made for it. The main objections seem to be that Chomsky's tremendous impact on the field of linguistics and his prominence on the left are mentioned, without saying that some people disagree with him.

On the linguistics side, I have to assume this is just laziness and failure to research. The man practically invented the field! To NOT discuss his impact in nearly hyperbolic terms would be POV.

On the political side, it's a pretty shabby claim. Clearly if you say somebody's a leading figure on the left, it can be inferred that he's heavily criticized from the right. (And the comparison to a single throwaway line in Ayn Rand is silly. Anybody can dig up dozens of articles on any topic to "prove" a point of this kind.)

Unless somebody can pull up a source which shows that Chomsky is especially controversial, more than would be expected for a partisan political activist, there's no reason to mention it in the lede. And regardless it's not a serious enough problem to warrant slapping it with the NPOV tag. No article is without room for improvement, the tags are for serious problems.

Eleland 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I have looked at some controversial figures and this is not necessarily stated in the intro for many of them.Ultramarine 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the tag per the arguments provided by Eleland.--Jersey Devil 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Cadr 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. 72.208.38.164 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html

Chomsky is an Institute Professor, not the Institute Professor, at MIT. Institute Professor is a title (like University Professor) that is conferred to several members of the MIT faculty. So using "the" would be misleading.

He would also be a professor emeritus of linguistics (since there are several of these also, and it is a job description not a title), none of which should be capitalized.

Minor things, but somebody has changed that several times in the intro.

Chomsky clearly developed it, and it is clearly a notable idea. Why does somebody continue to delete my adding it to his Notable Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is completely POV, uncritically proclaiming Chomsky as the creater of cognitive psychology, giving the impression that no one had considered genetics in psychology before him, as well as having almost no references.Ultramarine 09:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard view is that Chomsky was one of the main figures behind the development of cognitive psychology. The section seems adequately referenced. Most of it just outlines Chomsky's views, and says nothing about his influence. Where claims about his influence are made, there are citations. I don't know what you mean by "uncritical", there are references to dissenting views. Cadr 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, in this list of the most influential publications in cognitive science in the 20th century [7], Syntactic Structures is first and the review of verbal behavior is 19th. I'll add this link to the article. Cadr 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Many of the more basic principles of this theory (though not necessarily the stronger claims made by the principles and parameters approach described above) are now generally accepted in some circles." Very weasly, exactly which of his "basic principles" are claimed to be generally accepted? Nativism? Modularity? Universal Grammar? Ultramarine 18:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly a citation needed there, but remember that a lack of a citation doesn't necessarily indicate that the statement is biased or incorrect. I'll have a look for a suitable citation for that now. Cadr 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny any views on Chomsky, but I do also find this statement unnecessarily vague. It's unclear what 'basic principles' means, for instance. It's similarly hard to imagine how something 'generally accepted' can only be so by 'some circles'. Perhaps, Cadr, while you are looking for a citation, you could work on rephrasing this to fit with your citation and make a more definite claim? Heelan Coo 08:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs criticisms. Without criticisms it can't be considered neutral, seen as though he has critics. Leave out manic Dershowitz though. People like Oliver Kamm need mention in criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwaisis (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)