Misplaced Pages

To-do list for Noam Chomsky: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-10-17

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template loop detected: Template:Todo

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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?

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 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.

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. 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)

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 , 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)

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 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

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 whilst referring us to ). — 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 Misplaced Pages. — 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)

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)

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. . 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages for some time, and whether or not he's a sockpuppet he hasn't been vandalising the article. The anon is me (Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages entry on a public figure, Misplaced Pages 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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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."

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 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 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 bais 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 . 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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."

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 , but Chomsky "; 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

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

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....