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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It's worth mentioning that Chomsky's support for blatantly fraudulent scholars. He's also given his support to Ward Churchill. - Ryan Wise (17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
You appear to have been badly named. Ward Churchill is most certainly not a fraudulent scholar, please try to at least hear both sides of story before attempting to form an opinion. Palenque 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Great you brought that up. I would encourage anyone interested in that ruling to read up on it. "Fraudulent" has a specific meaning.
Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of antisemitism for his views on Israel's foreign policy Chomsky has criticized Hebrew as a 'secret language' and taken stances regarding what Israel's demographic composition should be, among other things. This is why I wrote that Chomsky's views on Israel earned him criticism rather than trying to debate what was "domestic" and what was "foreign" which would is a tricky area, especially in a place whose borders are so hotly debated. -- 70.162.72.237 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ryan Wise)
Cut from article:
I put this back. He is arguably the most influential intellectual in the U.S. left, whether he thinks so himself or not. -- Uncle Ed 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become better known for his radical politics than for his theories of language" to "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his theories of language". It's a minor but I think important change: "better" could imply more highly thought of, which is not the case regarding his lingusitic work. Instead, "more widely known" is a plain descriptive term about knowledge of Chomsky in the popular culture, which is what I think we want to say here. PaulLev 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
User:FeloniousMonk has twice removed the first sentence from the following: "Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his linguistic theories.<ref>[http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=91-1594030685-0]</ref> He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall. <ref>[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/citation-0415.html (MIT News Office)]</ref> <ref>"According to a recent survey by the Institute for Scientific Information, only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, and Freud are cited more often in academic journals than Chomsky, who edges out Hegel and Cicero." Samuel Hughes, The Pennsylvania Gazette, July/August, 2001 [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200107--.htm ]</ref> <ref>Chomsky, as a purveyor of ideas and best-selling author and, in the overblown blurb-speak of the New York Times, ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive.’ [http://www.lewrockwell.com/wall/wall26.html (Lew Rockwell)]</ref> Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW)."
I am not the initial author of any of the above - I just refined the first sentence a bit, changing the original "better known" to "more widely known" - see above.
User:FeloniousMonk has shifted the stated reason for deleting the sentence - first, saying that a reference was needed; and then, when a reference was provided, saying it needs to be more objective.
Before I take this to Dispute resolution, I thought I would see if we might be able to reach some consensus among some of us here. Thanks in advance for any views on this you may provide. PaulLev 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is stated:
"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, though Chomsky himself states that he does not agree with the police protection.[8]"
This struck me as an awkward contradiction for someone so ideological. In actual fact, according to the reference, Chomsky receives UNDERCOVER police protection, (rather than overt protection) precisely because he does not agree to the protection. As opposed to the implied contradiction of accepting protection in spite having principled grievances with doing so.
It should be rewritten, for clarity, as follows:
"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree to it.[8]"
One use of the verb 'states' is enough to render the whole sentence 'stated'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.33.143 ( talk • contribs)
Someone just e-mailed me this:
Anyone know anymore details, where and when this speech happened? Any details they can provide?
I also posted this question at the alt.fan.noam-chomsky site. RWV 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is "word count" wikilinked in the following Chomsky quote:
The "word count" article is about: 1. Programs that count the words in a document (like "wc" in Unix), and 2. How many words are required in different kinds of documents (e.g. "epics" and Ph.D. theses).
The phrase "word count" in the Chomsky quote is not related to these. In fact, it's not a lexical unit; its meaning is just the composition of the individual meanings of "word" and "count". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.51.164 ( talk • contribs)
Like most writing about Chomsky, this article mentions how controversial his political ideas are, but not how controversial his work in Linguistics is. A large number of linguists think the whole generative project is deeply flawed. This ranges from traditional structuralists to computational linguists, and certainly deserves inclusion. I will only mention the names of some linguists with whom I am more familiar: Roy A. Miller, Anna Wierzbicka, G. van Driem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.112.96.130 ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know this existed. It's interesting, shouldn't it be linked somewhere if only from the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky/Comments_from_Chomsky 70.162.42.37 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is great, thanks for posting it! Palenque 07:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed a part here because it was simply badly constructed. Candy 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Puellanivis edited my rewording re: the naming of the chimpanzee "Nim Chimpsky". The previous entry reported that he was named "to mock Noam Chomsky because he believes animals other then humans cannot learn/communicate via language." I changed this because there is no indication whatsoever that the researchers conducting the study intended to mock Chomsky for his belief. Indeed, Herbert S. Terrace initiated the study because he was skeptical that chimpanzees could be taught to communicate in a manner resembling the sophistication of human grammar. Not because he believed it possible and intended to mock the great detractor, Chomsky. Thus, I edited the paragraph to say Nim was named "playfully" after Chomsky.
Puellanivis essentially reverted to the previous edit and deleted the work "mock". This to me seems to give the same indication; that the organizers of the study fundamentally disagreed with Chomsky and were intent on disproving him. Quite the opposite is true and the study confirmed Terrace's suspicions. Nim Chimpsky was playfully named after Chomsky. Also note that the entry for Nim Chimpsky describes him being named "in honor of linguist Noam Chomsky — the father of modern generative linguistics and a strong critic of animal research into language acquisition." Inoculatedcities 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
~~~~
so we know who is talking.
Inoculatedcities 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Exactly, the Nim experiment was essentially a failure in terms of language acquisition. I guess the joke is on Nim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palenque ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Chomsky agaist religion, even though he grew up Jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Why is Chomsky listed as an Atheist repeatedly in the categories section? I would like to see a source of this information. I think it should be removed. He has explictly stated he will not answer the question of weather he is an atheist on a number of occasions. One such example is here [3]. N. Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.88 ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
So was Chomsky against Darwinism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Darwinism after Charles Darwin? Marxism after Karl Marx? Why deify individual human beings when they all ultimately have cognitive limits? Chomsky deplores the Kansas school curriculum teaching against natural selection. ( http://www.zmag.org/chomdarwin.htm). Neverthelss he has a partially critical stance towards aspects of so-called Darwinism, a stance which emphatically does not equate in any sense to creationism. The iconoclastic work of D'arcy Wentworth Thompson was a major influence on his views about natural history and living organisms. BernardL 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ayn Rand praised Chomsky’s New York Times article
“The Case Against B.F. Skinner”, calling it
“bright and forceful” and a “demolition job.”
—
Jollyreddonut 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It's worth mentioning that Chomsky's support for blatantly fraudulent scholars. He's also given his support to Ward Churchill. - Ryan Wise (17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
You appear to have been badly named. Ward Churchill is most certainly not a fraudulent scholar, please try to at least hear both sides of story before attempting to form an opinion. Palenque 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Great you brought that up. I would encourage anyone interested in that ruling to read up on it. "Fraudulent" has a specific meaning.
Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of antisemitism for his views on Israel's foreign policy Chomsky has criticized Hebrew as a 'secret language' and taken stances regarding what Israel's demographic composition should be, among other things. This is why I wrote that Chomsky's views on Israel earned him criticism rather than trying to debate what was "domestic" and what was "foreign" which would is a tricky area, especially in a place whose borders are so hotly debated. -- 70.162.72.237 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ryan Wise)
Cut from article:
I put this back. He is arguably the most influential intellectual in the U.S. left, whether he thinks so himself or not. -- Uncle Ed 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become better known for his radical politics than for his theories of language" to "Beginning with his criticism of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his theories of language". It's a minor but I think important change: "better" could imply more highly thought of, which is not the case regarding his lingusitic work. Instead, "more widely known" is a plain descriptive term about knowledge of Chomsky in the popular culture, which is what I think we want to say here. PaulLev 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
User:FeloniousMonk has twice removed the first sentence from the following: "Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his radical politics than for his linguistic theories.<ref>[http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=91-1594030685-0]</ref> He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall. <ref>[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/citation-0415.html (MIT News Office)]</ref> <ref>"According to a recent survey by the Institute for Scientific Information, only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, and Freud are cited more often in academic journals than Chomsky, who edges out Hegel and Cicero." Samuel Hughes, The Pennsylvania Gazette, July/August, 2001 [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200107--.htm ]</ref> <ref>Chomsky, as a purveyor of ideas and best-selling author and, in the overblown blurb-speak of the New York Times, ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive.’ [http://www.lewrockwell.com/wall/wall26.html (Lew Rockwell)]</ref> Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW)."
I am not the initial author of any of the above - I just refined the first sentence a bit, changing the original "better known" to "more widely known" - see above.
User:FeloniousMonk has shifted the stated reason for deleting the sentence - first, saying that a reference was needed; and then, when a reference was provided, saying it needs to be more objective.
Before I take this to Dispute resolution, I thought I would see if we might be able to reach some consensus among some of us here. Thanks in advance for any views on this you may provide. PaulLev 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is stated:
"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, though Chomsky himself states that he does not agree with the police protection.[8]"
This struck me as an awkward contradiction for someone so ideological. In actual fact, according to the reference, Chomsky receives UNDERCOVER police protection, (rather than overt protection) precisely because he does not agree to the protection. As opposed to the implied contradiction of accepting protection in spite having principled grievances with doing so.
It should be rewritten, for clarity, as follows:
"Chomsky also states that he frequently receives undercover police protection, in particular while on the MIT campus, although he does not agree to it.[8]"
One use of the verb 'states' is enough to render the whole sentence 'stated'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.33.143 ( talk • contribs)
Someone just e-mailed me this:
Anyone know anymore details, where and when this speech happened? Any details they can provide?
I also posted this question at the alt.fan.noam-chomsky site. RWV 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is "word count" wikilinked in the following Chomsky quote:
The "word count" article is about: 1. Programs that count the words in a document (like "wc" in Unix), and 2. How many words are required in different kinds of documents (e.g. "epics" and Ph.D. theses).
The phrase "word count" in the Chomsky quote is not related to these. In fact, it's not a lexical unit; its meaning is just the composition of the individual meanings of "word" and "count". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.51.164 ( talk • contribs)
Like most writing about Chomsky, this article mentions how controversial his political ideas are, but not how controversial his work in Linguistics is. A large number of linguists think the whole generative project is deeply flawed. This ranges from traditional structuralists to computational linguists, and certainly deserves inclusion. I will only mention the names of some linguists with whom I am more familiar: Roy A. Miller, Anna Wierzbicka, G. van Driem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.112.96.130 ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know this existed. It's interesting, shouldn't it be linked somewhere if only from the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky/Comments_from_Chomsky 70.162.42.37 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is great, thanks for posting it! Palenque 07:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed a part here because it was simply badly constructed. Candy 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Puellanivis edited my rewording re: the naming of the chimpanzee "Nim Chimpsky". The previous entry reported that he was named "to mock Noam Chomsky because he believes animals other then humans cannot learn/communicate via language." I changed this because there is no indication whatsoever that the researchers conducting the study intended to mock Chomsky for his belief. Indeed, Herbert S. Terrace initiated the study because he was skeptical that chimpanzees could be taught to communicate in a manner resembling the sophistication of human grammar. Not because he believed it possible and intended to mock the great detractor, Chomsky. Thus, I edited the paragraph to say Nim was named "playfully" after Chomsky.
Puellanivis essentially reverted to the previous edit and deleted the work "mock". This to me seems to give the same indication; that the organizers of the study fundamentally disagreed with Chomsky and were intent on disproving him. Quite the opposite is true and the study confirmed Terrace's suspicions. Nim Chimpsky was playfully named after Chomsky. Also note that the entry for Nim Chimpsky describes him being named "in honor of linguist Noam Chomsky — the father of modern generative linguistics and a strong critic of animal research into language acquisition." Inoculatedcities 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
~~~~
so we know who is talking.
Inoculatedcities 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Exactly, the Nim experiment was essentially a failure in terms of language acquisition. I guess the joke is on Nim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palenque ( talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Chomsky agaist religion, even though he grew up Jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Why is Chomsky listed as an Atheist repeatedly in the categories section? I would like to see a source of this information. I think it should be removed. He has explictly stated he will not answer the question of weather he is an atheist on a number of occasions. One such example is here [3]. N. Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.88 ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
So was Chomsky against Darwinism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.68.76 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Darwinism after Charles Darwin? Marxism after Karl Marx? Why deify individual human beings when they all ultimately have cognitive limits? Chomsky deplores the Kansas school curriculum teaching against natural selection. ( http://www.zmag.org/chomdarwin.htm). Neverthelss he has a partially critical stance towards aspects of so-called Darwinism, a stance which emphatically does not equate in any sense to creationism. The iconoclastic work of D'arcy Wentworth Thompson was a major influence on his views about natural history and living organisms. BernardL 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ayn Rand praised Chomsky’s New York Times article
“The Case Against B.F. Skinner”, calling it
“bright and forceful” and a “demolition job.”
—
Jollyreddonut 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)