![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Who would like to collaborate to achieve featured article status for this article? CyberAnth 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i will. 67.204.9.166 ( talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) what are the criteria
Earlier, there was a long debate over the main article's grossly one sided treatment of the Faurisson affair which misrepresented the actual beliefs of Chomsky's critics. Someone has apparently both cleaned up/deleted that discussion from the discussion page and also reintroduced the same type of one sided exposition into the 'criticisms' section. It's a bit absurd that we can't even present criticisms of Chomsky in the section devoted to that topic, and instead show Chomsky trying to rebut arguments that aren't even allowed to be made. The article on the Faurisson affair gives a good overview of the topic, but the summary in the main article is horribly misleading.-- Ryan Wise 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- 150.135.1.43 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a strange ommission, but I can't find in this article what languages Noam fluently speaks. Gronky 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt he's ever said he speaks only English- he was translating Hebrew texts by age 7: http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/LitMap/bios/Chomsky__Noam.html
Furthermore his debate with Foucalt seems to indicate that he speaks French as no translator could be heard. If I had to guess I'd say he speaks a few other languages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.46.221 ( talk)
--I have studied linguistics and language for a few years, and have studied spanish a lot in particular, though i would say i only speak a basic conversaional spanish, and can only read other languages. Reading is much easier because written words are permanent, and thus also the context is permanent--you can linger over the words, do comparative linguistics with other current languages or dead languages like latin, and also the subject/discourse of the written piece will give you clues, as you can remember what they are likely to say in a foreign language based on what you know the discourse to be like in your language. In this respect Chomsky may be able to read dozens of languages, especially considering european ones that are extremely closely related, like portuguese/galician, dutch/german, etc. As far as speaking goes, he may be able to speak Spanish in a basic slow deliberate academic manner, but perhaps not colloquially--I remember Chomsky in The Managua Lectures saying something like he could give the speech himself, but he preferred a translator, who would do a much better job than himself. Mmuldoor ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone e-mailed Chomsky and asked whether he prefers being labelled an atheist? I've always been under the impression that this is a slight controversy, in so far as people are not quite sure as to whether he is a atheist or agnostic, I have seen him described as both. The only time I have seen him comment on the subject was when he was actually asked whether he believed in God, and his response was something along the lines of "I can't answer that question, I don't know what it is exactly you're asking me to believe in", before stating that some people have to imagine some sort of creative intelligence behind the design of the universe, whereas he dosen't. He seems to have given the impression that he doesn't really mind being called an atheist or agnostic, curiously he seems to regard both labels as valid, but it might be handy if someone checked which he prefers, if either. -- MarkB79 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The "Academic achievements, awards and honors" is just a long list. It should probably be placed next to the bibliography list at the end of the artilce. The criticisms section does not only concern his political writings but also linguistics and criticisms for being a "closet capitalist". It should be a separate section at the end of the main body of text, as is standard practice for all criticisms sections in other articles. Objections? Ultramarine 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find this word in Merriam Webster or wikitionary. Can anyone else provide a reference to what this word means? There are a lot of places on the web where this "word" is used, but none of them make it clear what the actual meaning is. If this word is actually used in linguistics research, it would be very useful to have a link/reference to what it means considering how hard it is to find out what it means. 74.103.98.163 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Something that's always annoyed me: just because you have a separate article for a section that doesn't mean you can totally not include information on the subject in the main article. We need a summary of the criticisms, not just a link. 75.68.6.81 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't 'Chomsky's influence in other fields' go after his 'Political views'?? Uwaisis ( talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)---
I noticed that the Hebrew spelling provided is אברם נועם חומסקי, which should render (in Standard Hebrew) IPA: [avram nɔʔam χɔmski]. Note that the first letter of his last name is Heth, which in Modern Hebrew is pronounced [χ] and transliterated ch. So does he pronounce it IPA: [χɔmski] or IPA: [ʧɔmski] (with an "English" ch)? How was it pronounced originally? Lockesdonkey ( talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, that isn't how they are formatted? That's how I've seen them done in every instance. It's clearly unacceptable to have no criticisms, they're sourced and aren't pretending to be direct facts. What more do you want? If you have any genuine reasons aginst this, please say so. Larklight ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I go to click on a wikilink section of the article, everything shifts, usually into two columns instead three. Is this just my computer, or is there some kind of bug? -- Reaper X 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
this is fake, or a joke. i delete it 67.204.9.166 ( talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
i am wondering what Mr Chomsky's view on Wikipedia might be. Is it known?
--
Jerome Potts (
talk)
13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
he has a positive opinion of the internet in general, for its vast organizing potential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.62 ( talk) 07:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Larklight cannot disguise his/her contempt for Noam Chomsky, and obviously has personal issues with the subject, repeatedly calling him "Chompsky". ( diff) When emotions get in the way, it's a solid indication that one should move away, leaving disinterested editors to improve the page. smb ( talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"This is related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge, in that it is not due to experince." what is the problem with this line?
Or a factdate tag?
Or saying he opposed the western side- since he supported the (NFL)?
Can you please say soemthing constructive, rather than simply construing one letter into terrible POV? I messed up on the exprez bit, and will re-revert that. However, the others that Pinkville agrees are good I will readd, pending a real reason to delete. Larklight ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry if this appears rude, but anyone who calls Chomsky-Chompsky to begin with must know very little about the man, as that person cannot have come into contact with their name often, and probably solely in a audio context, and secondnly must of not read this article before placing suggestions on this talk page, calling into question the usefullness of their edits. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky's 9/11 should be on the 9/11 attacks page. Help get it on. 67.165.163.114 ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM
What are Chomsky's views on Israel? Can he be considered anti-Zionist? Comradesandalio ( talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we mentions somewhere that sasha mashed him up once ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 ( talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This part of the article should probably be removed: 'He is critical of psychoanalysis. In an interview with the New York Times he stated, "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?' The case for removing it is that this appears in the section, 'Contributions to psychology', and this opinion of Chomsky's is not a 'contribution to psychology' of any kind. Skoojal ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If, as has been suggested here, English is the only language Chomsky really knows, how can it be that he can:
English is by no means a "typical language", so you can't base a "Universal Theory" on it. More to the point, noone has ever undertaken a pairwise comparison of the ca. 6000 languages in the world. A pairwise comparison would incidentally not be enough. You would have to set up some sort of 6000x6000 correlation matrix (so to speak) to get to the comparisons and only then could you filter out commonalities. (How one should do that - well, I have no idea.) But the limitations of the man and lack of research should be enough to make anyone suspicious. Cheers
Io (
talk)
21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, do you have a reliable source that has published the above theory that you wish to include in the article? If so, please provide it for discussion and creation of consensus on how to include it in the article.
If the above has not been published in a reliable source, it is considered original research and is not allowed in wikipedia articles.
Please remember, this talk page is designated as a place to only discuss the content of the article; so if you simply wish to discuss the above theory, you will need to do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS
NOT A FORUM WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE WORK OF THE MAN. It is the page where we discuss the content of the article. What portion of the above has anything to do with the content of the article? If no direct connection is provided in 24 hours, it will be removed as irrelevant chatter. --
The Red Pen of Doom
23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the story with the endless vandalism -- does anyone know? ~ smb 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet this persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville ( talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to put a link in this section to Noam Chomsky's page on Academia.edu, which is here: http://mit.academia.edu/NoamChomsky Richard56 ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs a section on Naom Chomsky and his criticism of pornography after being interviewed by Hustler controversially when he claimed he did not know what the magazine really was when he was interviewed by them for a political article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 August 2008
While there are two citations to support this statement, they are from op-ed pieces rather than from "scientists" or some representation from the scientific community. Running a Google Books search for "father of modern linguistics" reveals [3] that there is indeed a level of consensus that implicates Ferdinand de Saussure as this father figure, and I would tend to agree. It may be more appropriate to change it to something like "Chomsky is well-known in the academic and scientific community for his contributions to modern linguistics." Alephsmith ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who inserted the "father of modern linguistics" sentence. I think it's an accurate assessment. Daniel Dennett, for example, thinks so (Kinds of Minds, 148). Others texts do, too; you can find that on a Google Books search as well. Sausurre is often regarded has having the same title, very true. But "modern linguistics," as in research conducted today, is way more influenced by Chomsky than by Saussure. As to your suggestion, "contributions to modern linguistics" is perhaps insufficient. He's made more than mere "contributions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears as:
Chomsky videos Direct download
It leads to:
http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/videos/videos-en.php
I am in a country which blocks some sites so I don't know if the link is really dead. I can get to theyliewedie.org through a proxy but the whole link seems dead. Please double check and zap it if need be.
Thank yooooooooooo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Really needs a strong citation, especially considering the claims of his role as a leading dissident. Ultramarine 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the introduction is currently sufficiently neutral. I do not see any statements praising Chomsky, or talking about how other people praise him, in the intro, so I don't think it's necessary to have statements criticizing him either. As far as I can tell, the intro deals almost entirely Chomsky's notability -- the fact that he is notable, and why he is notable. So I don't think there's a neutrality problem. Organ123 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
chomsky regularly says that he travels all over the world for interviews, but rarely any on MSM in the US. as for the source, i think it's in the manufacturing consent movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.94.227 ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
Editsemiprotected}}
Add Category:Computer pioneers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.64 ( talk • contribs) 2008-11-18T11:07:17
There is a lot of peacock verbiage in the article, calling Chomsky a "hero" and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Chomsky has not made the slightest discovery in genuine linguistics, such as the Bantu group, the Indo-European group or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.76 ( talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The "hero" quote from "Linguistics Wars" is valid, but could possibly be moved into a "legacy" section. Chomsky is 80 years old now, so it's probably an appropriate time to begin discussing such things. CABlankenship ( talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The article currently reads as follows: "As of 2008, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 53 years."
Yet on MIT's homepage it says: "Professor Chomsky retired from the Linguistics Section as of January 15, 2002."
So, does he still teach at MIT or not? What's his current status at MIT? (I do believe he still holds an office there.)
-- Kvaks ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
He still teaches. If you check the course schedule on the Linguistic MIT page, it says he's co-teaching a graduate course next semester. Grunge6910 ( talk)
What does he consider to be his main occupation? Is he a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, Socratic gadfly, author, lecturer, professional intellectual, political pundit, national conscience? He might well be all of these, but does he consider himself to have one essential, characteristic occupation? Lestrade ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
The following sentence in the first part of the article is a subjective opinion: First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. It reflects the particular zeal of the writer and possibly may not be descriptive of Chomsky. In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received . To stagger is to totter, reel, or lose balance. This adverb has no relationship to the adjective "smart." The sentence merely expresses the writer's enthusiasm. Lestrade ( talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
That particular opinion you're referring to, comes from a fellow and distinguished linguistics professor, and is intended to highlight the prominence of Chomsky within that field, which in the end is very relevant to the article itself. Likeminas ( talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Within that field, he has been described as "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." [1]
It is one thing to mention specific contributions that Chomsky has made to the field of linguistics. It is another thing to make a broad, general statement about his entire inner mental constitution by using the gushing phrase "staggeringly smart." Lestrade ( talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
"Seems to me" that anyone "up there" with Marx and Lenin (ignoring the events of 1985–1991) is "staggeringly smart." No exaggeration! Lestrade ( talk) 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Who would like to collaborate to achieve featured article status for this article? CyberAnth 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
i will. 67.204.9.166 ( talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) what are the criteria
Earlier, there was a long debate over the main article's grossly one sided treatment of the Faurisson affair which misrepresented the actual beliefs of Chomsky's critics. Someone has apparently both cleaned up/deleted that discussion from the discussion page and also reintroduced the same type of one sided exposition into the 'criticisms' section. It's a bit absurd that we can't even present criticisms of Chomsky in the section devoted to that topic, and instead show Chomsky trying to rebut arguments that aren't even allowed to be made. The article on the Faurisson affair gives a good overview of the topic, but the summary in the main article is horribly misleading.-- Ryan Wise 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- 150.135.1.43 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a strange ommission, but I can't find in this article what languages Noam fluently speaks. Gronky 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt he's ever said he speaks only English- he was translating Hebrew texts by age 7: http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/LitMap/bios/Chomsky__Noam.html
Furthermore his debate with Foucalt seems to indicate that he speaks French as no translator could be heard. If I had to guess I'd say he speaks a few other languages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.46.221 ( talk)
--I have studied linguistics and language for a few years, and have studied spanish a lot in particular, though i would say i only speak a basic conversaional spanish, and can only read other languages. Reading is much easier because written words are permanent, and thus also the context is permanent--you can linger over the words, do comparative linguistics with other current languages or dead languages like latin, and also the subject/discourse of the written piece will give you clues, as you can remember what they are likely to say in a foreign language based on what you know the discourse to be like in your language. In this respect Chomsky may be able to read dozens of languages, especially considering european ones that are extremely closely related, like portuguese/galician, dutch/german, etc. As far as speaking goes, he may be able to speak Spanish in a basic slow deliberate academic manner, but perhaps not colloquially--I remember Chomsky in The Managua Lectures saying something like he could give the speech himself, but he preferred a translator, who would do a much better job than himself. Mmuldoor ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone e-mailed Chomsky and asked whether he prefers being labelled an atheist? I've always been under the impression that this is a slight controversy, in so far as people are not quite sure as to whether he is a atheist or agnostic, I have seen him described as both. The only time I have seen him comment on the subject was when he was actually asked whether he believed in God, and his response was something along the lines of "I can't answer that question, I don't know what it is exactly you're asking me to believe in", before stating that some people have to imagine some sort of creative intelligence behind the design of the universe, whereas he dosen't. He seems to have given the impression that he doesn't really mind being called an atheist or agnostic, curiously he seems to regard both labels as valid, but it might be handy if someone checked which he prefers, if either. -- MarkB79 04:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The "Academic achievements, awards and honors" is just a long list. It should probably be placed next to the bibliography list at the end of the artilce. The criticisms section does not only concern his political writings but also linguistics and criticisms for being a "closet capitalist". It should be a separate section at the end of the main body of text, as is standard practice for all criticisms sections in other articles. Objections? Ultramarine 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find this word in Merriam Webster or wikitionary. Can anyone else provide a reference to what this word means? There are a lot of places on the web where this "word" is used, but none of them make it clear what the actual meaning is. If this word is actually used in linguistics research, it would be very useful to have a link/reference to what it means considering how hard it is to find out what it means. 74.103.98.163 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Something that's always annoyed me: just because you have a separate article for a section that doesn't mean you can totally not include information on the subject in the main article. We need a summary of the criticisms, not just a link. 75.68.6.81 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't 'Chomsky's influence in other fields' go after his 'Political views'?? Uwaisis ( talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)---
I noticed that the Hebrew spelling provided is אברם נועם חומסקי, which should render (in Standard Hebrew) IPA: [avram nɔʔam χɔmski]. Note that the first letter of his last name is Heth, which in Modern Hebrew is pronounced [χ] and transliterated ch. So does he pronounce it IPA: [χɔmski] or IPA: [ʧɔmski] (with an "English" ch)? How was it pronounced originally? Lockesdonkey ( talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, that isn't how they are formatted? That's how I've seen them done in every instance. It's clearly unacceptable to have no criticisms, they're sourced and aren't pretending to be direct facts. What more do you want? If you have any genuine reasons aginst this, please say so. Larklight ( talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I go to click on a wikilink section of the article, everything shifts, usually into two columns instead three. Is this just my computer, or is there some kind of bug? -- Reaper X 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
this is fake, or a joke. i delete it 67.204.9.166 ( talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
i am wondering what Mr Chomsky's view on Wikipedia might be. Is it known?
--
Jerome Potts (
talk)
13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
he has a positive opinion of the internet in general, for its vast organizing potential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.62 ( talk) 07:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Larklight cannot disguise his/her contempt for Noam Chomsky, and obviously has personal issues with the subject, repeatedly calling him "Chompsky". ( diff) When emotions get in the way, it's a solid indication that one should move away, leaving disinterested editors to improve the page. smb ( talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"This is related to Rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge, in that it is not due to experince." what is the problem with this line?
Or a factdate tag?
Or saying he opposed the western side- since he supported the (NFL)?
Can you please say soemthing constructive, rather than simply construing one letter into terrible POV? I messed up on the exprez bit, and will re-revert that. However, the others that Pinkville agrees are good I will readd, pending a real reason to delete. Larklight ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry if this appears rude, but anyone who calls Chomsky-Chompsky to begin with must know very little about the man, as that person cannot have come into contact with their name often, and probably solely in a audio context, and secondnly must of not read this article before placing suggestions on this talk page, calling into question the usefullness of their edits. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky's 9/11 should be on the 9/11 attacks page. Help get it on. 67.165.163.114 ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)GUAM
What are Chomsky's views on Israel? Can he be considered anti-Zionist? Comradesandalio ( talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we mentions somewhere that sasha mashed him up once ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 ( talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This part of the article should probably be removed: 'He is critical of psychoanalysis. In an interview with the New York Times he stated, "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?' The case for removing it is that this appears in the section, 'Contributions to psychology', and this opinion of Chomsky's is not a 'contribution to psychology' of any kind. Skoojal ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If, as has been suggested here, English is the only language Chomsky really knows, how can it be that he can:
English is by no means a "typical language", so you can't base a "Universal Theory" on it. More to the point, noone has ever undertaken a pairwise comparison of the ca. 6000 languages in the world. A pairwise comparison would incidentally not be enough. You would have to set up some sort of 6000x6000 correlation matrix (so to speak) to get to the comparisons and only then could you filter out commonalities. (How one should do that - well, I have no idea.) But the limitations of the man and lack of research should be enough to make anyone suspicious. Cheers
Io (
talk)
21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, do you have a reliable source that has published the above theory that you wish to include in the article? If so, please provide it for discussion and creation of consensus on how to include it in the article.
If the above has not been published in a reliable source, it is considered original research and is not allowed in wikipedia articles.
Please remember, this talk page is designated as a place to only discuss the content of the article; so if you simply wish to discuss the above theory, you will need to do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS
NOT A FORUM WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE WORK OF THE MAN. It is the page where we discuss the content of the article. What portion of the above has anything to do with the content of the article? If no direct connection is provided in 24 hours, it will be removed as irrelevant chatter. --
The Red Pen of Doom
23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the story with the endless vandalism -- does anyone know? ~ smb 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet this persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville ( talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to put a link in this section to Noam Chomsky's page on Academia.edu, which is here: http://mit.academia.edu/NoamChomsky Richard56 ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs a section on Naom Chomsky and his criticism of pornography after being interviewed by Hustler controversially when he claimed he did not know what the magazine really was when he was interviewed by them for a political article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 August 2008
While there are two citations to support this statement, they are from op-ed pieces rather than from "scientists" or some representation from the scientific community. Running a Google Books search for "father of modern linguistics" reveals [3] that there is indeed a level of consensus that implicates Ferdinand de Saussure as this father figure, and I would tend to agree. It may be more appropriate to change it to something like "Chomsky is well-known in the academic and scientific community for his contributions to modern linguistics." Alephsmith ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who inserted the "father of modern linguistics" sentence. I think it's an accurate assessment. Daniel Dennett, for example, thinks so (Kinds of Minds, 148). Others texts do, too; you can find that on a Google Books search as well. Sausurre is often regarded has having the same title, very true. But "modern linguistics," as in research conducted today, is way more influenced by Chomsky than by Saussure. As to your suggestion, "contributions to modern linguistics" is perhaps insufficient. He's made more than mere "contributions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears as:
Chomsky videos Direct download
It leads to:
http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/videos/videos-en.php
I am in a country which blocks some sites so I don't know if the link is really dead. I can get to theyliewedie.org through a proxy but the whole link seems dead. Please double check and zap it if need be.
Thank yooooooooooo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Really needs a strong citation, especially considering the claims of his role as a leading dissident. Ultramarine 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the introduction is currently sufficiently neutral. I do not see any statements praising Chomsky, or talking about how other people praise him, in the intro, so I don't think it's necessary to have statements criticizing him either. As far as I can tell, the intro deals almost entirely Chomsky's notability -- the fact that he is notable, and why he is notable. So I don't think there's a neutrality problem. Organ123 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
chomsky regularly says that he travels all over the world for interviews, but rarely any on MSM in the US. as for the source, i think it's in the manufacturing consent movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.94.227 ( talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
Editsemiprotected}}
Add Category:Computer pioneers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.64 ( talk • contribs) 2008-11-18T11:07:17
There is a lot of peacock verbiage in the article, calling Chomsky a "hero" and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Chomsky has not made the slightest discovery in genuine linguistics, such as the Bantu group, the Indo-European group or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.76 ( talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The "hero" quote from "Linguistics Wars" is valid, but could possibly be moved into a "legacy" section. Chomsky is 80 years old now, so it's probably an appropriate time to begin discussing such things. CABlankenship ( talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The article currently reads as follows: "As of 2008, Chomsky has taught at MIT continuously for 53 years."
Yet on MIT's homepage it says: "Professor Chomsky retired from the Linguistics Section as of January 15, 2002."
So, does he still teach at MIT or not? What's his current status at MIT? (I do believe he still holds an office there.)
-- Kvaks ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
He still teaches. If you check the course schedule on the Linguistic MIT page, it says he's co-teaching a graduate course next semester. Grunge6910 ( talk)
What does he consider to be his main occupation? Is he a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, Socratic gadfly, author, lecturer, professional intellectual, political pundit, national conscience? He might well be all of these, but does he consider himself to have one essential, characteristic occupation? Lestrade ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
The following sentence in the first part of the article is a subjective opinion: First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. It reflects the particular zeal of the writer and possibly may not be descriptive of Chomsky. In order to verify his "smartness," we would have to objectively evaluate his writings and speeches, which are controversial and are not always well received . To stagger is to totter, reel, or lose balance. This adverb has no relationship to the adjective "smart." The sentence merely expresses the writer's enthusiasm. Lestrade ( talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
That particular opinion you're referring to, comes from a fellow and distinguished linguistics professor, and is intended to highlight the prominence of Chomsky within that field, which in the end is very relevant to the article itself. Likeminas ( talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Within that field, he has been described as "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." [1]
It is one thing to mention specific contributions that Chomsky has made to the field of linguistics. It is another thing to make a broad, general statement about his entire inner mental constitution by using the gushing phrase "staggeringly smart." Lestrade ( talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
"Seems to me" that anyone "up there" with Marx and Lenin (ignoring the events of 1985–1991) is "staggeringly smart." No exaggeration! Lestrade ( talk) 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade