Talk:Noam Chomsky: Difference between revisions
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." [[Special:Contributions/173.76.221.237|173.76.221.237]] ([[User talk:173.76.221.237|talk]]) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." [[Special:Contributions/173.76.221.237|173.76.221.237]] ([[User talk:173.76.221.237|talk]]) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the |
In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the the families lived in a Cubist neighborhood.[[Special:Contributions/67.175.151.136|67.175.151.136]] ([[User talk:67.175.151.136|talk]]) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/67.175.151.136|67.175.151.136]] ([[User talk:67.175.151.136|talk]]) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/67.175.151.136|67.175.151.136]] ([[User talk:67.175.151.136|talk]]) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.175.151.136|67.175.151.136]] ([[User talk:67.175.151.136|talk]]) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Does this say anything? == |
== Does this say anything? == |
Revision as of 07:58, 20 May 2010
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): [[Literary and Historical Society]]
For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |
Links from this article with broken #section links : You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noam Chomsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Noam Chomsky. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Noam Chomsky at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Noam Chomsky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Noam Chomsky:
Template loop detected: Template:Todo
References
Lock this articleThis is one which will definitely be attacked if it is not Locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) LibertarianismThe argument against Chomsky being included in the American libertarians category is his identification as a libertarian socialist. Chomsky also refers to himself specifically as a socialist. Should he therefore not be included in the American socialists category? Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. He is a libertarian and a socialist. He identifies categorically as a libertarian, in his highly important writings on the anarchist and socialist origins on its meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USOAkQWGVY Sir Richardson (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed he does. As I've said, libertarianism isn't only defined by its American homogenization. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Chomsky has of course written at length on the subject. He is just as much of a libertarian as he is an anarchist. If someone is an American and defines themselves as a libertarian, then they should be included in the category. The opposition to him being included based upon that general aberration is completely irrelevant and unencylopedic. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Possible additions and corrections Discussion pleaseApparently he has assets worth 2 million dollars. I've heard people say that "he has 2 mill yet he has guts to call himself a socialist". That's from uncyclopedia, actually. Should this fact be researched and included? Because the article on Ralph Nader has such details. Am not trying to slander, just saying that a fact like this would play a role in forming an opinion of him. He has said in an interview that "science simplifies everything and is totally inadequate for human affairs." Should the fact be included under " Opinion on cultural criticism of science"? http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm) I further think several other stuff in this article are, for the want of a better word, half-truths. I got the Chomsky bug last year, and read a coupla political works. I would feel obliged if somebody joined me in some discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I think the net worth is irrelevant to the main article, as including it would treat him as a public figure in a way he is not. The criticism based on this claim is already here. You can go ahead and add the view of science, although I have been debating with myself whether that section should be here at all. As for the half truths… what are you referring to? Allformweek (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I can't substantiate the half-truth comment, but i just "felt" somethings were not right. I'll point out in due time. Why hasn't the controversy on his views about the srebrenica massacres not mentioned? Also his views on the recent supreme court ruling on campaign finance? Geez, this article needs an update. I'm going to reread chomsky.info and add some stuff in the following days. Any stuff on this guy needs a "Featured" quality. Iceman87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." 173.76.221.237 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the the families lived in a Cubist neighborhood.67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.151.136 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Does this say anything?
This is unsourced; but, more importantly, does it say anything? "Some basic parts of the theory are generally accepted by some people"; is there any theory more respectable than Time Cube of which this is not true? And if not, should we state the vacuousness? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Fixing the "view of science" sectionI think this section either needs to be deleted or turned into a nice, neat summary of the Chomskian view of science. Allformweek (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Broken linkThe link from reference 64, "An Epistemological Reading of the Debate between Quine and Chomsky", is broken. So if anyone knows of any other references, those could be worth adding. --N-k (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noam Chomsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
References
Lock this article
This is one which will definitely be attacked if it is not Locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism
The argument against Chomsky being included in the American libertarians category is his identification as a libertarian socialist. Chomsky also refers to himself specifically as a socialist. Should he therefore not be included in the American socialists category? Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. He is a libertarian and a socialist. He identifies categorically as a libertarian, in his highly important writings on the anarchist and socialist origins on its meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USOAkQWGVY Sir Richardson (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- But he talks about American Libertarianism as an "aberration." DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed he does. As I've said, libertarianism isn't only defined by its American homogenization. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Chomsky has of course written at length on the subject. He is just as much of a libertarian as he is an anarchist. If someone is an American and defines themselves as a libertarian, then they should be included in the category. The opposition to him being included based upon that general aberration is completely irrelevant and unencylopedic. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Possible additions and corrections Discussion please
Apparently he has assets worth 2 million dollars. I've heard people say that "he has 2 mill yet he has guts to call himself a socialist". That's from uncyclopedia, actually. Should this fact be researched and included? Because the article on Ralph Nader has such details. Am not trying to slander, just saying that a fact like this would play a role in forming an opinion of him.
He has said in an interview that "science simplifies everything and is totally inadequate for human affairs." Should the fact be included under " Opinion on cultural criticism of science"? http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20060301.htm)
I further think several other stuff in this article are, for the want of a better word, half-truths. I got the Chomsky bug last year, and read a coupla political works. I would feel obliged if somebody joined me in some discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the net worth is irrelevant to the main article, as including it would treat him as a public figure in a way he is not. The criticism based on this claim is already here.
You can go ahead and add the view of science, although I have been debating with myself whether that section should be here at all.
As for the half truths… what are you referring to? Allformweek (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't substantiate the half-truth comment, but i just "felt" somethings were not right. I'll point out in due time.
Why hasn't the controversy on his views about the srebrenica massacres not mentioned? Also his views on the recent supreme court ruling on campaign finance? Geez, this article needs an update. I'm going to reread chomsky.info and add some stuff in the following days. Any stuff on this guy needs a "Featured" quality. Iceman87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
- Rather than zeroing in on Srebenica, why not the whole Yugoslav war, particularly the NATO bombings (which is what he has most written about). On the other hand, I don't feel a great compulsion myself to add content based on every event he's comment on... Surely his policy analysis, since it's consistent and deep, is what's most significant, rather than any one of the examples on which he brings it to bear... Pinkville (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, i changed my mind on Srebrenica too, that's why you don't see an edit. I hold that his views on the Supreme court are important; they are a commentary on judiciary, democratic processes, legalism etc. But one line is too thin. I'm trying to pull some more stuff he might have said on those topics.Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- So what can we do to improve the quality of this article? It currently has a b- right? Does the reader get a snapshot of what he wants to know about Chomsky's political opinions? What about the stuff on kibbutz, for example? Is that so relevant? Instead of having quotes in the middle of articles, we have articles amidst quotes. I propose to trim some. (Not an easy job, this guy never wastes words, yet manages to talk at length). Iceman87 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- What's the difference between editing and vandalism? If I chop off a section, like the stuff on kibbutz, for example, how will it be viewed? Iceman87 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. I'm just repeating the stuff under Milestones. Sorry. Didn't check.Iceman87 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that Israel's recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry is included; but no mention of when Israel had previously admitted him. I think it should include the phrase, "...although he has visited Israel in the past." 173.76.221.237 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In reference to the paragraph about Chomsky's experience on a kibbutz: What is "in which parents and children lived in rooms of separate houses together" supposed to mean exactly? Perhaps the the families lived in a Cubist neighborhood.67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)67.175.151.136 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.151.136 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this say anything?
- Many of the more basic principles of this theory (though not necessarily the stronger claims made by the principles and parameters approach described above) are now generally accepted in some circles.
This is unsourced; but, more importantly, does it say anything? "Some basic parts of the theory are generally accepted by some people"; is there any theory more respectable than Time Cube of which this is not true? And if not, should we state the vacuousness? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixing the "view of science" section
I think this section either needs to be deleted or turned into a nice, neat summary of the Chomskian view of science. Allformweek (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think it should be s shortened, and conglomerated into a different section or deleted.
- he makes grandiose statments about scientific philosphy that are not consistent with the goals, methods, and successes in the PHYSICAL sciences (which includes mathematics, engineering, and medicine among the other obvious disciplines).
- He fails to make the necessary distinctions, which are obvious even from a non scientist's perspective (I am a chemist). This failure to recognizes such obvious and basic differences is pretty naive.
- I wonder if those quotes were taken out of context (I know that discussions of science vs social science may sound like a fine distinction, but it is not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the quotes are pretty much totally out of context. I am curious though what grandiose statements you think he makes and necessary distinctions you think he misses. Allformweek (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. DocteurCosmos (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the quotes are pretty much totally out of context. I am curious though what grandiose statements you think he makes and necessary distinctions you think he misses. Allformweek (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Broken link
The link from reference 64, "An Epistemological Reading of the Debate between Quine and Chomsky", is broken. So if anyone knows of any other references, those could be worth adding. --N-k (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- High-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of mind articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles
- Philosophy of mind task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of language articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of language articles
- Philosophy of language task force articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philadelphia articles
- Mid-importance Philadelphia articles
- Automatically assessed Philadelphia articles
- B-Class Linguistics articles
- High-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists