 | This is an archive of past discussions about Noam Chomsky. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Anarchist criticisms of Chomsky
Inevitably, most criticism of Chomsky reported in this article is from silly rightists whose claims are easily destroyed. However, I think there should be some valid criticisms too. Here are a couple:
- Sudan.
As far as I can tell, he was wrong to quote the German ambassador's claim about tens of thousands dying from lack of medicine, because this claim was exagerated. I bet it was only hundreds. This is currently mentioned in the article, but without any follow-up from Chomsky. We really need a comment from him saying either "yes, loads of people really did die; here's my additional source..." or "sorry, I screwed up on that one; I should have used a different example."Cleared up now.- It is rude to give a figure of hundreds without any evidence, and then mention that others exaggerate. The tens of thousands figure cited was given as the highest probability estimate, i.e. it could be more too, and very unlikely that it wasn't less than in the range of thousands. Anyway, it is not really contested by anyone, just ignored. What was contested is that HRW estimates were attached to this figure in the article. So to answer your question, yes, he does continue to mention these figures (e.g. in the Boston College video linked in the article iirc), although he mentions different examples too all the time (e.g. Chile [1]). See also [2] [3] [4] [5] The point that you maybe miss is that in these areas of the world, tens of thousands of people (particularly children) die every day from preventable diseases, so Clinton's attack didn't make that much of a difference, in a sense. Sams 19:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you can say it's rude. It's just a very rough estimate, off the top of my head. I don't claim to have any evidence whatsoever. I was just being sceptical of a claim I hadn't seen proof of, not actually calling Werner Daum a liar or suchlike. As a matter of fact, I've just been exchanging e-mails with Chomsky, and he has pretty much convinced me that Daum's estimate is probably not far off. Yes, it had occurred to me that for that many people to die, they would have had to be ill in the first place, and so maybe a number of people would have died anyway. The number would have to be subtracted from the death-toll due to the attack. These are obviously very tricky calculations! We will probably never really know what the effect of the attacks was. Anyway, the important thing is that Chomsky has pointed me towards a few sources which I have been able to put in. This clears the matter up for me. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is rude to give a figure of hundreds without any evidence, and then mention that others exaggerate. The tens of thousands figure cited was given as the highest probability estimate, i.e. it could be more too, and very unlikely that it wasn't less than in the range of thousands. Anyway, it is not really contested by anyone, just ignored. What was contested is that HRW estimates were attached to this figure in the article. So to answer your question, yes, he does continue to mention these figures (e.g. in the Boston College video linked in the article iirc), although he mentions different examples too all the time (e.g. Chile [1]). See also [2] [3] [4] [5] The point that you maybe miss is that in these areas of the world, tens of thousands of people (particularly children) die every day from preventable diseases, so Clinton's attack didn't make that much of a difference, in a sense. Sams 19:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Despite rightists' constant "anti-American" slur, Chomsky is, from an anarchist perspective, an American patriot/nationalist. He shows a lack of "class analysis" when he constantly says "we", "us", etc, meaning America and its élite. An internationalist says "we" meaning the masses of the world. He has expressed guilt at what is done in his name as an America, while a true internationalist wouldn't care what name was used. He only writes about other countries when they are victims of American foreign policy. He loves America and wants it to become a peace-loving nation, as much for its own sake as for its victims. Chamaeleon 15:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The word "only" is too stong. Anyway, you didn't make any explicit criticism in the above, it sounds like you're talking to yourself. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate. Sams 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I did make explicit criticism: that Chomsky seems a little patriotic and sometimes lacks class analysis. This is bad from a revolutionary internationalist point of view. So it's a criticism: friendly criticism. As for talking to myself, I was indeed thinking aloud, hoping that someone might chip in. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Basically you raise the idea of adding a criticism that says the Chomsky is a pro-American patriot, in addition to the criticism that Chomsky is an anti-American fifth-column traitor. It's an interesting idea, but the substance of your argument seems a little ridiculous as it stands. If you have further information in this regard, it'd be interesting to hear. I don't think that Chomsky considers the US government in a friendly way - see e.g. the quote that I added in his wikiquote page about capturing enemy archives:)
- Duh. Who said this anarchist was friendly to the government? Straw man. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That is yours and Christiaan POV. Wikipeida is NPOV. In the US there are people who think that criticizing the government in a time of war is unpatriotic, and they also think that they're in a time of war. You brought up the idea of criticizing Chomsky for being a pro-American patriot, and asked for someone to chip in, so as I said, I'd be interested if you elaborate on the substance of this criticism. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Patriotism, by definition, is love of one's country, one's homeland, not of one's government. Look it up. People who think criticising governments in times of war is unpatriotic are not patriots, they're lovers of authoritarianism. --Christiaan 03:30, 16 Jan 2005
- Some people identify the government with the country, it's not my fault, honestly... What is my fault is that I brought it up, as the correct definition is clear from the pov that this criticism is made. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Patriotism, by definition, is love of one's country, one's homeland, not of one's government. Look it up. People who think criticising governments in times of war is unpatriotic are not patriots, they're lovers of authoritarianism. --Christiaan 03:30, 16 Jan 2005
- Wikipedia is not unbiased; we just pretend to be so we can all get along. Christiaan and I are right, there is nothing wrong with our expressing our opinion here, and it's a bit dodgy to quote policy instead of making arguments. The criticism is as substantial as it needs to be. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if the criticism is made from this POV, then the relevant definition of patriotism is assumed anyway, and my first comment on the US gov just confused things. Anyway, you'll have to find some anarchists (or, more probably, Marxists) to quote if you wish to add it to the article? Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That is yours and Christiaan POV. Wikipeida is NPOV. In the US there are people who think that criticizing the government in a time of war is unpatriotic, and they also think that they're in a time of war. You brought up the idea of criticizing Chomsky for being a pro-American patriot, and asked for someone to chip in, so as I said, I'd be interested if you elaborate on the substance of this criticism. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Duh. Who said this anarchist was friendly to the government? Straw man. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Basically you raise the idea of adding a criticism that says the Chomsky is a pro-American patriot, in addition to the criticism that Chomsky is an anti-American fifth-column traitor. It's an interesting idea, but the substance of your argument seems a little ridiculous as it stands. If you have further information in this regard, it'd be interesting to hear. I don't think that Chomsky considers the US government in a friendly way - see e.g. the quote that I added in his wikiquote page about capturing enemy archives:)
- I did make explicit criticism: that Chomsky seems a little patriotic and sometimes lacks class analysis. This is bad from a revolutionary internationalist point of view. So it's a criticism: friendly criticism. As for talking to myself, I was indeed thinking aloud, hoping that someone might chip in. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The word "only" is too stong. Anyway, you didn't make any explicit criticism in the above, it sounds like you're talking to yourself. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate. Sams 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Patriotism has nothing to do with one's government (institutions), it is has to do with one's country. Imagine for a second that such institutions were destroying your country; love for them would obviously show a great lack of patriotism.
Christiaan 14:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Chamaeleon, your writing style is sloppy. Where did Chomsky use the term terrorism to describe the attack on Sudan? "informal interview" is different from what Chomsky wrote ("informal comments"). And you are not "Wikipedia". Anyway, you didn't actually add any new information with these weird edits. If you have a letter from Chomsky with further information (not that I see why it would be needed), you can paste it on the talk page here first. Sams 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I could have sworn he called it terrorism. He generally calls these things terrorism. I've made it more accurate now. Yes I am Wikipedia! And so are you! If I write to someone saying "I'm a contributor to Wikipedia, and I'd like you to clarify a couple of things for one of our articles" and that person does so, then they have given information to Wikipedia, just as Chomsky gave Salon.com information when he spoke to Suzy Hansen on the phone.
- And I have added new information! Before, it looked like Chomsky invented his sources. Now, they are referenced. That's a huge difference. Chamaeleon 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Chamaeleon, you're editorializing too much. Chomsky didn't use Sudan as an explicit example for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument in the salon.com interview, nor anywhere else I think. All he said with regard to Sudan is that the death toll resulting from the crimes that took place on 9/11 is not unusual, and for example the crime of bombing Sudan (it is a crime according to Chomsky, because US intelligence knew that it is a pharmaceutical factory, regardless of whether or not it also produced chemical weapons) resulted in a much higher death toll probably. His favorite examples for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument seem to be Cuba and Nicaragua, also see this BBC interview where he confuses the interviewer by using the 'reductio ad absurdum' with regard to West Belfast and Boston. Maybe he doesn't like to use Sudan for the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument because he prefers to take as an example countries where no one even pretends that they tried to attack the US, unlike Sudan where you might say that terrorists in Sudan have bombed a US embassy (yeah, whatever) and therefore the US needed to retaliate. Sams 02:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have my copy of Hegemony or Survival here, and on page 206 it says: "The principle of proportionality entails that Sudan had every right to carry out massive terror in retaliation". Chomsky doesn't really believe that Sudan had the right to do that. His argument is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument quoted on the previous page justifying US attacks on Afghanistan (and indeed Sudan). Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Again, what you're saying is different from what Chomsky has said. The argument that you make is that if we accept as a given that a certain action was legit, then it follows that another action is legit by applying the same standards that were used to justify the former action. Chomsky likes to use this argument with regard to cases like Nicaragua, i.e. if the US is entitled to bomb Afghanistan because it "knows" that an attack by evil-doers originated from there, then Nicaragua is entitled to bomb the US because it knows that an attack by evil-doers originated from there (according to the World Court). The 'principle of proportionality' is a different argument, which says the means of war shouldn't exceed the objective that you're trying to achieve (so if Sudan wants revenge, it is entitled to bomb the US and kill not more than tens of thousands of people there - this is a standalone argument, regardless of whether a certain standard was applied to justify a previous action by the US). If you want to argue that the 'reductio ad absurdum' point applies to Sudan too, I agree, and I'm positive that Chomsky would also agree, but you would still need to argue with those "rightists" whose claims you believe to have "easily destroyed" above. Chomsky instead is being precise by applying the best argument for each case that he's making, while you are being sloppy as you cite Chomsky saying things that he didn't say, and certainly didn't say in the salon.com interview, which is the case in point. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- He is applying his opponents' principle of proportionality to a case they don't like to apply it to. This is a reductio ad absurdum. He has no problem with my summary of his argument. "Thanks for sending. I checked the links. The ones on Daum and Al-Shifa seem to me fair, though frankly, I think the tone is remarkable. Would it even be conceivable to write in that manner about an al-Qaeda attack that killed probably tens of thousands of Americans (Israelis, etc.), maybe more, maybe less, but no one cares to count?"
- Again, what you're saying is different from what Chomsky has said. The argument that you make is that if we accept as a given that a certain action was legit, then it follows that another action is legit by applying the same standards that were used to justify the former action. Chomsky likes to use this argument with regard to cases like Nicaragua, i.e. if the US is entitled to bomb Afghanistan because it "knows" that an attack by evil-doers originated from there, then Nicaragua is entitled to bomb the US because it knows that an attack by evil-doers originated from there (according to the World Court). The 'principle of proportionality' is a different argument, which says the means of war shouldn't exceed the objective that you're trying to achieve (so if Sudan wants revenge, it is entitled to bomb the US and kill not more than tens of thousands of people there - this is a standalone argument, regardless of whether a certain standard was applied to justify a previous action by the US). If you want to argue that the 'reductio ad absurdum' point applies to Sudan too, I agree, and I'm positive that Chomsky would also agree, but you would still need to argue with those "rightists" whose claims you believe to have "easily destroyed" above. Chomsky instead is being precise by applying the best argument for each case that he's making, while you are being sloppy as you cite Chomsky saying things that he didn't say, and certainly didn't say in the salon.com interview, which is the case in point. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As I explained above,
the argument that you wrote in the article IS NOT the argument that chomsky made in the book, though as you say, both of them can be considered to be 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments. I said that I'm positive that Chomsky would agree with the argument, but still, this article is about Noam Chomsky, not about you, and he didn't make this argument with regard to Sudan. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Yes he did. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Where did he say that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then the Sudanese would have the right to bomb America for the attack in Khartoum? Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In Hegemony or Survival. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have the book, could you quote what he wrote? If you mean the quote that you mentioned above, then it doesn't compare two different cases as you did. It says that if we agree with the principle of proportionality, then as a standalone case Sudan is entitled to kill tens of thousands of people in the US. Could you quote more? Sams 18:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The argument is made over a space of a page and a half. I'm not about to type it all out here. Look it up for yourself. I have told you that my summary of his argument is accurate, and that Chomsky has sent me an e-mail in which he describes articles that include my summary as "fair" . If you think I am lying about that, then why trust me to quote more without making stuff up? Chamaeleon 19:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The word "lying" is too strong. When you wrote that "Noam" is a form of "Noah", does it mean that you were lying? Also, it's very different to make stuff up by paraphrasing, and to make stuff up by using direct quotes, which anyone who looks could easily expose if they're made up. Anyway, you gave the page number as your source, so the burden of proof is not on you anymore. Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote that "Noam" is a form of "Noah", but tentatively so (I added a comment asking people to check it). It has not been demonstrated that I was wrong either. Here is a reference. "Noam" means "pleasantness" or "comfort", but doesn't "Noah" too? Chamaeleon 15:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the relevant page. You're obviously correct. He applies the "aggression interfered with key values in the society attacked" interpretation of the 'principle of proportionality' from Oxford (about 9/11) to Sudan. Plus he mentions the principle of universality in the beginning of the paragraph on Sudan, and makes the comparison of responding to 9/11 in the end of the paragraph. I apologize for claiming that you made it up... Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The word "lying" is too strong. When you wrote that "Noam" is a form of "Noah", does it mean that you were lying? Also, it's very different to make stuff up by paraphrasing, and to make stuff up by using direct quotes, which anyone who looks could easily expose if they're made up. Anyway, you gave the page number as your source, so the burden of proof is not on you anymore. Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The argument is made over a space of a page and a half. I'm not about to type it all out here. Look it up for yourself. I have told you that my summary of his argument is accurate, and that Chomsky has sent me an e-mail in which he describes articles that include my summary as "fair" . If you think I am lying about that, then why trust me to quote more without making stuff up? Chamaeleon 19:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have the book, could you quote what he wrote? If you mean the quote that you mentioned above, then it doesn't compare two different cases as you did. It says that if we agree with the principle of proportionality, then as a standalone case Sudan is entitled to kill tens of thousands of people in the US. Could you quote more? Sams 18:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In Hegemony or Survival. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Where did he say that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then the Sudanese would have the right to bomb America for the attack in Khartoum? Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes he did. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As I explained above,
One more thing. There seems to be a weird practice on wikipedia where people add Chomsky related information to other articles without a good reason really. It's somewhat ridiculous, for example could anyone explain why he is mentioned in Definitions of terrorism?! Even articles such as Vietnam War, citing Chomsky who cites the Kennedy admin. declaration that was published in the NY Times that they're bombing Vietnam in 1962, in order to say that the war didn't start in 1964, what's Chomsky got to do with this? With regard to you, Chamaeleon, additional accurate information to Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory should of course be appreciated, but adding Chomsky related info to that article is not appropriate imho, not to mention that this info is already mentioned here anyway. Sams 03:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why is he quoted in those articles? Because of the NPOV policy. We are not allowed to counter government lies etc directly, so we have to attribute the opinions to someone. That someone is Chomsky. And articles on terrorism are just the sort of article where officially-propagated misconceptions need to be corrected. Chamaeleon 22:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It would be wrong to report on the Al-Shifa attack without implying that it was wrong (our article on the September 11, 2001 attacks implies they were wrong). We can't say this directly because it is controversial, so it is necessary to attribute the opinion to someone. That someone is Chomsky. Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I looked briefly at the 9/11 article, can you quote for me where exactly does it imply that the attacks were wrong? Let me quote for you from the npov article: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over." What you added to the Al-Shifa is an argument that this attack was wrong because some other attack (9/11) was wrong - this may belong in an article about wars or terrorism, or in an article about the person who made the argument, and those articles would link to the Al-Shifa article that should just describe the facts, but imho it's unencyclopedic to add such an argument to the actual article that describes what happened. Not to mention that according what Chomsky himself says, there would have been much better articles (e.g. Nicaragua v. United States) to add this information to. Your reply is missing the point: you added info and then argued that you must cite someone like Chomsky because a source is needed, while I argue that adding this info was inappropriate in the first place. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In the opening paragraph, it uses the word "terrorist", which is a common way of saying "the bad guys". If I put that word into the Al-Shifa article, it would be removed as POV. The burden of proof is higher because it is out of the mainstream. To get around this, I have to quote a prestigious person making the argument. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You didn't comment on the main point, as cited from the npov article, that saying that the attack was wrong doesn't belong in the Al-Shifa article in the first place. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have the word "terrorist" removed from September 11, 2001 attacks first and then come back to me. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It seems like you wish to further weaken the standards, even more than what you regard as a problem with the 9/11 article. Nice strategy... Though I must say that according to wikipedia's founder [6], the word terrorist shouldn't appear in the 9/11 article (I guess that he wasn't aware of the implications of what he wrote). Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would like our standards to be more than a sham. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I don't agree with you that the word 'terrorism' shouldn't be used in the 9/11 article, and I don't think that it contradicts the NPOV standards. Anyway, Chamaeleon, I hope that you'll stick around here and redirect your energy in order to help us "destroy" rightists when they would attack these articles. If you're looking for some action right now, try to add this info to Bill Clinton's article instead of Chomsky's article:) Sams 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would like our standards to be more than a sham. Chamaeleon 17:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It seems like you wish to further weaken the standards, even more than what you regard as a problem with the 9/11 article. Nice strategy... Though I must say that according to wikipedia's founder [6], the word terrorist shouldn't appear in the 9/11 article (I guess that he wasn't aware of the implications of what he wrote). Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have the word "terrorist" removed from September 11, 2001 attacks first and then come back to me. Chamaeleon 15:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You didn't comment on the main point, as cited from the npov article, that saying that the attack was wrong doesn't belong in the Al-Shifa article in the first place. Sams 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In the opening paragraph, it uses the word "terrorist", which is a common way of saying "the bad guys". If I put that word into the Al-Shifa article, it would be removed as POV. The burden of proof is higher because it is out of the mainstream. To get around this, I have to quote a prestigious person making the argument. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I looked briefly at the 9/11 article, can you quote for me where exactly does it imply that the attacks were wrong? Let me quote for you from the npov article: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over." What you added to the Al-Shifa is an argument that this attack was wrong because some other attack (9/11) was wrong - this may belong in an article about wars or terrorism, or in an article about the person who made the argument, and those articles would link to the Al-Shifa article that should just describe the facts, but imho it's unencyclopedic to add such an argument to the actual article that describes what happened. Not to mention that according what Chomsky himself says, there would have been much better articles (e.g. Nicaragua v. United States) to add this information to. Your reply is missing the point: you added info and then argued that you must cite someone like Chomsky because a source is needed, while I argue that adding this info was inappropriate in the first place. Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Two quick points: 1) individual Wikipedia editors' criticisms of Chomsky should not be included unless they are repeating published criticism of some notability, see Wikipedia:No original research 2) Chomsky is influential enough as a writer and critic that his views on some matters (terrorism is one of them I think) should be included in our coverage of them, though I agree that on balance we have too much of that. RadicalSubversiv E 03:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The whole "no original research" thing is only applied to politics. I have contributed original research in linguistic and technological articles and nobody has a problem with it. In any case, nobody has put original research into this article. Chamaeleon 05:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It applies everywhere, as official policy. If you've gotten away with it elsewhere, that's a lapse, not a precedent to be repeated. Anyhow, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone had inserted original research into the article, only that some of the criticisms you make above don't belong in it without some external citation. RadicalSubversiv E 06:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is actually the de facto norm on uncontroversial issues. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It applies everywhere, as official policy. If you've gotten away with it elsewhere, that's a lapse, not a precedent to be repeated. Anyhow, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone had inserted original research into the article, only that some of the criticisms you make above don't belong in it without some external citation. RadicalSubversiv E 06:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Queued images
Queued images Chamaeleon 18:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the BBC4 image should be the first in the article, below the world social forum image. --ThomasK 19:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't get exactly where you want each picture. Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Chamaeleon, what is the source for the 1971 picture? A capture from a TV broadcast of the debate? Or from the 'manufacturing consent' movie? Sams 12:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know. I have just a video of the debate. It in turn is presumably taken from either TV or Manufacturing Consent. Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have the full debate? The movie only has an short excerpt. Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have 12 minutes and 50 seconds of debate. It starts off with Chomsky saying "Let me begin by referring to something I've already discussed..." (perhaps the beginning of the debate, after an initial question) and ends with Foucault making rather extreme judgements on the concept of justice, and the camera fades out. Chomsky speaks English, Foucault speaks French, and it's all subtitled into Dutch. I found the file on eMule. Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I also have the same file (from emule), but I don't know French:( Its filename says that it's taken from the dvd extras of the movie. As I mentioned above, I could take screenshots from the movie, but I hoped that someone with the dvd could do it, in order to get the highest possible quality. From it we can take a picture of Chomsky when he was younger in front of a board, talking to Jean Piaget. Also a picture of him talking to students (including Michael Albert) outside at MIT during the Vietnam War. Maybe also a newspaper clip of him being arrested. There's a common old picture [7] that we could use for the Contributions to linguistics section, instead of a picture such as that with Jean Piaget, but it's only available online in low quality, it appears. Sams 12:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.owenbarfield.com/Images/People/Noam%20Chomsky.jpg){kind=link}
I believe the debate is an extra from the Manufacturing Consent DVD.
Comments from Chomsky
I bugged Chomsky into making some comments on this article.
I've posted his reply onto a separate page, so that it can be referred to, and not be lost in the page archives: Talk:Noam Chomsky/Comments from Chomsky Chamaeleon 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hope this stimulus helps us further improve the article. Chamaeleon 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. The comments on the linguistics sections should be the most valuable.
- Q: "Why cite someone who can be proved to be lying with 5 minutes of research?" A: because of the npov policy, example.
- That's not really an answer. You're essentially saying "because we say so". That might suffice when talking to a Wikipedian (because one might say we all submit to policy by contributing), but it is no argument at all for an outsider. Chamaeleon 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you take the question one level further, to ask "why is the npov policy correct?" I agree with the saying that "if 50 million people believe in a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea". But still we include the wacko information, and we can add a proper response to it, it's a total anti-censorship approach (i.e. you don't censor liars, lunatics, retards, etc.) Ah well, as a result of npov, we now have a paragraph that describes the president of Harvard as a liar... Sams 00:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's not really an answer. You're essentially saying "because we say so". That might suffice when talking to a Wikipedian (because one might say we all submit to policy by contributing), but it is no argument at all for an outsider. Chamaeleon 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As for Horowitz, here's a book excerpt where Chomsky mentioned his name, among other more important authors. Chomsky actually cites all kind of totally crazy people all the time, when it helps to demonstrate a point. For example, I recently saw on tv Efraim Karsh, who is apparently some professor who is out of his mind, but Chomsky had no problem to quote him with regard to the question of whether Saddam Hussein intended to annex Kuwait. Sams 12:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I find his response extremely relieving in that he didn't find anything more major factually wrong (in the politics section.). DanKeshet
TDC's proposals
User:TDC recently made a great many changes to the article. The majority added considerable POV, notably by denying Chomsky's right to reply on a couple of points. I have reverted it to its previous state. I'd like to discuss the changes here. I am, of course, open to the allowing some of the changes, if there is consensus that they improve rather than damage the article. Chamaeleon 23:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Chomskyan
- The term Chomskyan has come to be used to refer to his ideas; however, Chomsky has described such words (Chomskyan, Marxist, Freudian...) as making "no sense in any science" and belonging "to the history of organized religion".
- "Chomskyan" is frequently-used term [8] and deserves mention. Chomsky's own criticism of it is also highly relevant. Chamaeleon 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I was unaware that I removed that, was unintentional. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Linguistics
- The first application of the approach was to Modern Hebrew, a fairly detailed effort in 1949–50. The second was to the native American language Hidatsa (the first full-scale generative grammar), mid-50s. The third was to Turkish, our first Phd dissertation, early 60s. After that research on a wide variety of languages took off. MIT in fact became the international center of work on Australian aboriginal languages within a generative framework [...] thanks to the work of Ken Hale, who also initiated some of the most far-reaching work on Native American languages, also within our program; in fact the first program that brought native speakers to the university to become trained professional linguists, so that they could do work on their own languages, in far greater depth than had ever been done before. That has continued. Since that time, particularly since the 1980s, it constitutes the vast bulk of work on the widest typological variety of languages.
- Chomsky's reply to criticism regarding the range of languages covered by TTG is highly important and should not be censored. If anyone has a problem with it, they should find a response to it, quote it and attribute it. Chamaeleon 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, that removal was most likely unintentional. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Inconsistent on terrorism
- Many of Chomsky's critics, however, have noted that Chomsky's stated views regarding terrorism are inconsistent both with historical evidence and with his own writings. They argue that Chomsky has been supportive of left wing organizations and movements that employ terrorism as part of their strategy.
- They have not noted anything. They have claimed, illogically. Such claims may have a place here, but only if attributed, and only if properly balanced by facts. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks this claim is illogical has been drinking too much of the Chomskyaid. He never has a kind word to say about the U.S.'s foreign policy, and when "criticizing" the foreign policy of our opponents, it's usually "well yeah they were wrong, BUT the evil U.S. incited them blah blah blah..." He has a kneejerk tendency to trace our misdeeds to some kind of twisted desire for global dominance and our opponents's misdeeds to some kind of reaction to this. J. Parker Stone 01:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Are you simply saying that the US desire for global dominance isn't a twisted one? Twisted or not, most people don't like being dominated. The resistance movement in Iraq is only one example. — Davenbelle 02:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks this claim is illogical has been drinking too much of the Chomskyaid. He never has a kind word to say about the U.S.'s foreign policy, and when "criticizing" the foreign policy of our opponents, it's usually "well yeah they were wrong, BUT the evil U.S. incited them blah blah blah..." He has a kneejerk tendency to trace our misdeeds to some kind of twisted desire for global dominance and our opponents's misdeeds to some kind of reaction to this. J. Parker Stone 01:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Oh, and resistance movement in Iraq, that one is precious. TDC 02:33, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- It is silly to say there is no resistance movement in Iraq. It is a country under occupation. You may agree with the invasion and occupation, but that does not change anything. If Iraq decided that the US had WMDs (it does), had links to terrorism (a link as tenuous as being of the same religion should suffice), had broken international law (it has) and needed régime change (it does), and so then decided to invade the US in order to defend itself (it would indeed be defending itself) and liberate the American people (this claim is made for every invasion), then would you meekly submit to your self-proclaimed Iraqi liberators? Or would you perhaps join anti-occupation militias? You perhaps cannot understand the analogy because by definition you and your kind are the good guys and they and their kind are the bad guys, no matter what. Chamaeleon 11:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If someone did indeed invade and occupy the United States (as it has existed for 227 years), then I would most assuredly fight back. But make no mistake, by fighting back I mean attacking those who occupy my country, not by loading cars full of explosives and driving it into a marketplace, or sabotaging my towns water supply or blowing up the local ComEd substation. Secondly, if the United States were a dictatorship run by one of the few remaining leaders cut from the mighty Stalin’s mold, then I would probably be grateful to them for the assistance. But seeing as how only one of us has actually been to there, I would drop this point if I were you. I know you think you have gotten an good handle on the situation by reading the Nation and ZMag, but the truth is much better and much worse than some one who has not been there can realize. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It is silly to say there is no resistance movement in Iraq. It is a country under occupation. You may agree with the invasion and occupation, but that does not change anything. If Iraq decided that the US had WMDs (it does), had links to terrorism (a link as tenuous as being of the same religion should suffice), had broken international law (it has) and needed régime change (it does), and so then decided to invade the US in order to defend itself (it would indeed be defending itself) and liberate the American people (this claim is made for every invasion), then would you meekly submit to your self-proclaimed Iraqi liberators? Or would you perhaps join anti-occupation militias? You perhaps cannot understand the analogy because by definition you and your kind are the good guys and they and their kind are the bad guys, no matter what. Chamaeleon 11:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Oh, and resistance movement in Iraq, that one is precious. TDC 02:33, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm saying there is no New World Order that Chomskyites envision the U.S. pushing for. Our foreign policy is not solely based on economic dominance despite his hysterical pseudo-intellectual ramblings. J. Parker Stone 04:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well then, what you're saying is "basically" different from what TDC is saying. Why don't you two take it someplace else? Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh I am sorry, did I just ruin your intellectual masturbatory climax with this debate?
- Are you some kind of nerd? WTF was that? J. Parker Stone 06:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Attributed how? Do you A: dispute that Chomsky did indeed make that statement regaurding the NLF, or do you B: beleive that the statement was taken out of context? TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- You may not make the criticism yourself by using weasel words; if the 'many critics' are not identified, then this is original research. Sams 23:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hey no problem. Do you want me to list the dozens of critics who make this point by date of birth or alphabetically? TDC 00:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to add it to the article, you'll need at least one such critic. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No probelm.
The use of "noted" implies support. "Said" or "claimed" is NPOV. The quotation must also be attributed and made less vague so that it can be countered. It no doubt is the point covered by the next section... Chamaeleon 10:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Subtlety lost on critics
- This subtlety seems to be lost on many of his critics, who see his criticism of American foreign policy as an attack on all the values held by American society.
- 100% true, but could be seen as POV. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to argue with its truthfulness, but it is most definately POV. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It is definitely true, as demonstrated by comments by people like you, but we need to express it with a quotation from someone instead of saying it directly. Chamaeleon 10:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Right again you are! Chomsky’s ranting are just way too complex for me to understand. I know, maybe I will be able to understand his nuances and subtleties after drinking a bottle or two of grain alcohol. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- You all too often accidentally say the truth when you try to be sarcastic. Chamaeleon 03:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ahhh, from the mouth of another satisfied McChomsky consumer, mmm mmm good! I see you still have yet to comment on Chomsky's seemingly deliberate and underhanded manipulation of his “rigorously sourced” sources. Your silence speaks volumes. TDC 05:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- You would do well to make more points and fewer empty, sarcastic, facetious remarks. Chamaeleon 22:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ahhh, from the mouth of another satisfied McChomsky consumer, mmm mmm good! I see you still have yet to comment on Chomsky's seemingly deliberate and underhanded manipulation of his “rigorously sourced” sources. Your silence speaks volumes. TDC 05:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- You all too often accidentally say the truth when you try to be sarcastic. Chamaeleon 03:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Right again you are! Chomsky’s ranting are just way too complex for me to understand. I know, maybe I will be able to understand his nuances and subtleties after drinking a bottle or two of grain alcohol. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It is definitely true, as demonstrated by comments by people like you, but we need to express it with a quotation from someone instead of saying it directly. Chamaeleon 10:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to argue with its truthfulness, but it is most definately POV. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Endorsement of orthodox socialism
- Although Chomsky touted his opposition to communism, when it came to international politics Chomsky endorsed a fairly orthodox band of socialist figures including Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, and Ho Chi Minh. As historian Keith Windschuttle points out, Chomsky told a forum in New York in December, 1967 that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable." He believed the Chinese had gone some way to empowering the masses along lines endorsed by his own libertarian socialist principles
- This "endorsement" needs to be backed up by quotations. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What kind? Although Chomsky has in the past offered criticism, mainly in passing, of Cuba and the USSR (for example) he has far more often gone on to espouse the virtues of these societies and of their leadership. I would hope you could take this at face value, but I will most certainly provide documented quotes if that is what it take. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I've been reading numerous anti-Chomsky websites recently, and none of the stuff that they quote from Chomsky backs up what they say. The best they can come up with for support for China is Chomsky's rather mild comment about "admirable" things happening. They don't quote the countless statements Chomsky has made criticising the Chinese régime (e.g. on p.60 of my copy of Hegemony or Survival he says "in Western China [...] state violence was intensified after 9-11"; on p.218 he accuses China of joining "'the coalition against terror' [to get] authorization for its atrocities"; on p.292 of Understanding Power ISBN 0-099-46606-6, "China's a very brutal society, a brutal government...") Chomsky would criticise the Chinese government even more, but he has many times expressed reasons for concentrating on his own government. Regarding other régimes, in the Manufacturing Consent video he says "the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot". I can't find a quotation attacking or endorsing Castro; he only talks about the reasons for the embargo. As for Mao, I won't bother looking it up because I can tell you that in e-mails to me he has used "Maoist" almost as a synonym for "lunatic". In short, the problem that the Right has with him is that, although he criticises the official enemies, he doesn't criticise them enough to please them, and then intensifies this crime by criticising American foreign policy. Only a bigot could fail to see Chomsky's constant condemnation of authoritarism, which is the basis of his anarchist politics.
- It inserting to note that Chomsky criticized China after it broke with socialism and embraced capitalism (well large parts of it at any rate). It is also interesting to note that Chomsky held in reserve the strong condemnation for the Khmer Rouge only till after what they had done had become impossible to deny. Would it not have been more appropriate for Chomsky to criticize China when 10's of millions were starving to death? Would it not have been more appropriate for Chomsky to criticize the KR when Tuol Sleng was in full gear disposing of several hundred counter revolutionaries a day? I find his timing a bit suspicious and his condemnation insincere to say the least. His criticism of America's enemies is also interesting when he actually has a bad word to say about them. Recently he criticized the FARC for it continued campaign of terror in Columbia and a few sentences later he blamed the FARC's use of these tactics on the United States aggressive policy in Columbia, saying in effect, what the FARC is doing is "bad", but its not their fault, the devil (USA) made them do it.
- Yesterday and today, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishment
- An excerpt from a radio speech Noam Chomsky gave on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi
- But, yes, yes, I know, Chomsky was simply unaware of the oppressive nature of the North Vietnamese.
- Sorry but like many on the left, Chomsky finds it difficult to acknowledge that the difference between reactionary repression and revolutionary repression is the difference between cat shit and dog shit.
- But once again, you want sources I will gladly provide them. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing that you have quoted contains a statement from Chomsky supporting any particular régime. He doesn't criticise the official enemies as much as you would like, or at the times you would like. That is all. Chamaeleon 03:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So, Chomsky goes to Hanoi and talks glowingly of North Vietnam's brand of "social justice", Travels to Cuba to show his solidarity with the people of Cuba (and despite what you may have read, Chomsky never criticized Castro or the Cuban government while he was in Cuba), talks of Cuba's brave role in the liberation of Africa (a move when conducted by the US is fascist terrorism) [9], calls Vaclav Havel the moral equivalent of a Stalinist, praises Mao's great leap forewords, and so on..... and you cannot see how maybe, just maybe some of us uneducated slobs in fly over country could view this as tactic support, to use Chomsky's own lexicon here, of these regimes? Well I suppose it does not matter. But remember, this is not about what I think, namely that Chomsky is a commie thug loving vile piece of dog shit, it is what others more notable than I criticize him for. I have shown that yes there are many people, both notable and non notable, who take exception to Chomsky's support for some of the most disgusting regimes of the 20th century. Since it is not original research from myself, simply the citation from many others, I think this debate has come to its conclusion. TDC 14:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No, you did not attribute all your claims. The first ones are made directly. Can you come up with a quotation from Chomsky actually supporting these people? (a quotation from a Chomskyphobe claiming Chomsky said something to that effect does not count.) I have heard Chomsky express a limited preference for certain leaders over others where he believes it is a "lesser evil" (e.g. he would prefer Kerry to Bush, or Castro to a US puppet), but I have never heard him give real support. From an anarchist perspective, I would like to hear him condemn Castro, Kerry and others in stronger terms, but you or Windschuttle, as supporters of authority, cannot ask him to do so without great hypocrisy. Chamaeleon 16:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, Windschuttle took his quote from here [10]. And once again I only have to provide the material you request it it is part of another authors arguement, anything other than that is called original research. TDC 16:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, you did not attribute all your claims. Chamaeleon 17:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And after all my claims have been atributed, then what? TDC 17:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Then you will have finished, so you'll be able to move on to the article on Gandhi and say he was a nazi lesbian. Chamaeleon 19:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
TDC, have you even looked at the article?! The picture of Fidel Castro that you uploaded is already there. Sams 18:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Should people who haven't read the article be allowed to add accuracy dispute notices? Chamaeleon 19:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hey tardo, ever think I just cut and pasted the contents into word so I could edit them more efficiently? TDC 23:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- That has little to do with not reading the article. Anyway, there is no accuracy dispute. Everything in the article is obviously true. You simply want to add your POV to it. You may discuss this on this page, and then changes will be made. There is no need to deface the article with a notice, which should at the most be a POV notice. Chamaeleon 02:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hey tardo, ever think I just cut and pasted the contents into word so I could edit them more efficiently? TDC 23:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Everything in the article is "obviously true"? Perhaps I was mistaken about you, is all of this just some kind of satirical exercise on your part. Very crafty, very crafty indeed. TDC 19:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that you were saying some specific fact was untrue. I thought you were complaining about the general slant. Please elaborate on what you actually think is untrue. Chamaeleon 21:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Citing sources
- However, Chomsky's books rigorously and extensively cite their sources
- For Understanding Power, the notes were longer than the book. This claim is not POV. Chamaeleon 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is not always the case in his writing. Many of his sources come from rather suspect sources, and many others are not sourced at all. There is an entire chapter in the Anti-Chomsky reader that deals with this. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I would really like to elaborate on this particular point, because I believe it is at the root of my and manys disgust for Chomsky both on an intellectual as well as on a personal level.
The nice think about references in books is that an author cause them to support an argument or point they are trying to make. Most people don’t need to look into the sources, because most authors, and all hones ones, will be as accurate as possible when using them (even if they cherry pick those they find most supportive and discard those that are objectionable). Most people assume that if an author provides a selective quote from someone else, it should provide a reasonably accurate summary of what the other person believes or said. Apparently Chomsky does not follow this writing convention. I realize that you do not believe me, but let me provide with two of hundreds (and I mean hundreds) of anecdotal tales of Chomsky misrepresenting someone he uses as a source.
There is a letter to the New York Review of Books by Sam Huntington which illustrates this point.
- In response to "After Pinkville" (January 1, 1970)
- To the Editors:
- In the space of three brief paragraphs in your January 1 issue, Noam Chomsky manages to mutilate the truth in a variety of ways with respect to my views and activities on Vietnam.
- Mr. Chomsky writes as follows:
- Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the Viet Cong is "a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist." The conclusion is obvious, and he does not shrink from it. We can ensure that the constituency ceases to exist by "direct application of mechanical and conventional power...on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city...."
- It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong:
- ...the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation.
- By omitting my next sentence--"Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation"--and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument.
- [11]
- It seems here that Chomsky omitted a dovey comment to stress the more hawky thrust of the guy's argument: that forcing migration would be a good way to dislodge the Viet Cong. The guy then tries to say he really is a dove. It's a matter for the two men to sort out between themselves — a disagreement on interpretation. If you think this is an example of someone's words being twisted in order to construct a straw man, then I advise you to look at anything that Dersho/Horowitz has said for a far better example of it (e.g. the attribution of opinions opposite to the ones actually held). Chamaeleon 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a question about this. Who knows more about the real meaning and context of the source Chomsky manipulated; A: you Chamaeleon, B: Noam Chomsky or C: Sam Huntington, the person who actually wrote it in the first place? Let me also ask you this, how many times has Chomsky been accused of doing this; A: Never, B: just this one time, or C: too many times for TDC to catalogue here?
- (BTW, the answer to both is C) TDC 14:12, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Why don't you apply this principle to Chomsky's writings? Chamaeleon 16:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (BTW, the answer to both is C) TDC 14:12, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Because you do not have to take his writings out of context in order to show what he means. I will have to give it to him that he writes just vaguely enough to get his implied point across, while at the same time being able to convince the McChomsky drones into believing that he never called Robert Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" (despite being fully aware that he was speaking of an antisemite and an apologist for Nazi Germany) or that he denied The Khmer Rouges rampages or that he had ever given a speech on Radio Hanoi.
- True: you manage to completely fail to understand his writings even in context. Chomsky never denied saying that about Faurisson. Why should he? Do you know Faurisson's politics in detail? I don't; Chomsky doesn't; I bet you don't. Most people who deny the holocaust do so to make the Nazis look better, but Faurisson does not at first glance appear to be one of those people. He seems to be some sort of non-partisan conspiracy-theory nutcase. It is not at all clear that he hates Jews and loves Nazis. There certainly seem to be no quotations from him indicating such ideas, and I imagine his detractors would have cited them if they could. In any case, you have to realise that Faurisson's dubious findings are rather irrelevant. The only thing that matters is his right to express them. As for the Khmer Rouge, I have seen him denounce them. A speech on Radio Hanoi? I have no doubt that if he gave such a speech, he does not deny it. You are blinded by hate. Chill out. Chamaeleon 03:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Because you do not have to take his writings out of context in order to show what he means. I will have to give it to him that he writes just vaguely enough to get his implied point across, while at the same time being able to convince the McChomsky drones into believing that he never called Robert Faurisson "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" (despite being fully aware that he was speaking of an antisemite and an apologist for Nazi Germany) or that he denied The Khmer Rouges rampages or that he had ever given a speech on Radio Hanoi.
- On Faurisson, after reading some of his writings (I do not read French as there is not much value in modern French literature, academics or engineering) I have come to the conclusion that hundreds of pundits have come to, namely that Goebbels himself would have been proud of a propagandist like him. Also if Chomsky was only interested in defending Faurisson’s right to have his say, then why the close cooperation with so many others in revisionist circles? When the Faurisson broo ha ha came up he assigned publication rights for the French edition of his book “The Political Economy of Human Rights” to long time friends Pierre Guillaume and Serge Thion. This one book sold so well in France this it saved Guillaume and Thion’s publishing company and allowed them to then publish Faurisson’s book. I would also mention Guillaume’s description of his close friendship with Chomsky (as evident by the personal correspondences between the two) as a bit puzzling. But, I suppose this will get much more attention in the anti-Semitism section.
- But consider the following for a moment [12]:
- "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East."
- Interesting, Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem (the current rave of anti-Semitic violence in Europe for example is certainly a testament to this Orwellian doublespeak), but it is an issue which is being forced and manufactured to obscure the real issues of the day. That certainly is one interesting take on the subject.
- However vehemently Chomsky denies his anti-Semitism, whatever pains he takes to conceal it behind the veil of anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism, we have to look the facts in the face. He constantly denounces a Jewish institution that represents millions of Jews, on which the lives of millions of Jews, perhaps all Jews, are dependent, as evil and vicious. He has had many opportunities to denounce anti-Semitism and anti-Semites, but has consistently failed to do so. And he has given assistance and comfort to anti-Semites, both covertly and overtly.
- As for the KR, I cannot stress enough that he only half heartedly denounced them in 1979 after defending them in 1976 when not even he could talk away the images coming out of Cambodia and usually only in passing as he directed the blame towards the “real culprit” namely the US.
- As for his speech in Hanoi, he did indeed first deny making it, then when provided evidence of it, he corrected himself and stated that he did not recall making it. But I will leave you with one last passage of that speech for you to mull over.
- We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and defiant, and carved on the bills above we read the words, 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.
- To that grand socialist society indeed! TDC 19:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- So you claim to have read Faurisson. Have you bought his book? Then you support him financially! Presumably you found a text online. Perhaps you could give us the URL instead of interpreting it for us. I note that you have still not managed to provide a single anti-Semitic quotation from Faurisson. You are convincing me that he is not. You can accuse Serge Thion and co. of profiting from a book which spreads lies/distortions, and I would criticise that too, but it is really no worse than what is done by Horowitz's publisher. It is also no good proving friendship between Chomsky and these people; he is friends with many people that he completely disagrees with, such as Quakers. Instead of trying to prove tenuous guilt by association, actually look at what Chomsky has said on many occasions.
- It is also a non sequitur to say that criticism of the state of Israel indicates anti-Semitism. It is like saying that criticism of the Third Reich indicates anti-Germanism, and wrong because the regime represented millions of Germans. Chomsky has
failed to rant on about how bad anti-Semitism is, but he has also failed to rant on about anti-Germanism. He has also made statements in support of feminism, but failed to denounce discrimination against men. Are we to conclude that this male, American Jew is anti-man, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-German, anti-...?
- It is also a non sequitur to say that criticism of the state of Israel indicates anti-Semitism. It is like saying that criticism of the Third Reich indicates anti-Germanism, and wrong because the regime represented millions of Germans. Chomsky has
- As for Vietnam, you have only shown that he supports the Vietnamese people. More context needs to be given to establish whether he feels/felt that any particular authoritarian organisation represented these people.
- As for Cambodia, no evidence has been shown so far indicating actual support for the Khmer Rouge. You say that he "acknowledged the atrocities, albeit after it became impossible to deny them". Well yes, once there was full evidence of the atrocities, he condemned them. He cast doubt on them back when there was reason to be cautious about info that damned an official US enemy. It is rather like being cautious about claims of WMDs in Iraq. On Iraq, we sceptics were proved 100% right. On Cambodia, the propaganda churned out by the biased US media turned out to correspond to some extent to the truth on the ground. Find one statement by Chomsky saying that the Khmer Rouge were fine chaps or that no atrocities took place, or that such atrocities were a good thing. Chamaeleon 15:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've just struck through my comment that Chomsky has not criticised anti-Semitism because in that article that you just linked to in order to "prove" that he is an anti-Semite, he actually gives an account of anti-Semitism that he and his own family was subjected to, which I take to be a condemnation of the same. You'll be saying that Nelson Mandela is a negro-hanging Klansman next. Chamaeleon 15:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But I digress ........ Anyhoo, just to rub some more salt into the wound her is another example of Gnome's "creative" use of sources: In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman cited figures by Bernard Fall that state that over 150,000 civilians had been killed in Vietnam by the end of 1965 (p183). Upon examining the source, it turns out that the real figure was cited by Fall was (actually 160,000) and was not an estimate of civilian deaths but rather an estimate of combat losses from Viet Cong propaganda sources. TDC 23:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the case, but I can immediately see a source of potential confusion/distortion: civilians and combatants tended to be the same people in South Vietnam. Your examples are not exactly strong. Chamaeleon 03:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But I digress ........ Anyhoo, just to rub some more salt into the wound her is another example of Gnome's "creative" use of sources: In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman cited figures by Bernard Fall that state that over 150,000 civilians had been killed in Vietnam by the end of 1965 (p183). Upon examining the source, it turns out that the real figure was cited by Fall was (actually 160,000) and was not an estimate of civilian deaths but rather an estimate of combat losses from Viet Cong propaganda sources. TDC 23:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
There is also the case of George Kennan's infamous, at least till Chomsky got a hold of it, PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy. Many have argued that Chomsky deliberately misrepresented Kennan's main point, so I will direct you there : [Russil Wvong http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan/quote.html].
The reason I detest ole Noamy so is not because he durn talked shit bout 'Merica, but because he seems to have a pathological, almost obsessive compulsive hate of it.
Conspiracy theories have always been the staple of fundies. Lacking any real evidence to demonize your scapegoat and finding ones self not exactly on the path to success, conspiracies sooth a simple mind. Arabs believe there are thousands of grand conspiracies (a subject that would make an excellent article for Wiki) to explain the sad shape they find themselves in today: loosing the 6 Day War, falling being the West over the past several hundred years, even loosing soccer matches to Britain. The anti-Semite sees Jewish interlopers as the cause for their suffering. Chomsky sees his dreams of a heaven on earth smashed by American Capitalism. That, in Chomsky’s mind is why every revolutionary movement started out with the purest of hearts (Cuba, China, Vietnam) but was corrupted by American meddling.
- Straw man. Chomsky is sceptical of conspiracy theories. Chamaeleon 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Guy is a nut and belongs on medicine, but I suppose thats a bit POV as well, even if it is the truth. TDC 00:20, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone who cannot see that Chomsky constantly sides with any regime so long as they are anti-American is kidding themselves. He may condemn a country's actions, but he'll always go on to go "perhaps had the U.S. not intervened, blah blah blah <insert massive distortion>." What really fucking annoys me is that any dumbass KNOWS this is true, it's just that some don't want to admit it, for whatever reason. J. Parker Stone 06:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So how do you explain the fact that he's always been a strong critic of the Soviet Union and Stalinism? Cadr 08:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum on Sudan
- "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.
- This is a key argument that he makes, and a direct quotation. No need to remove. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Horowitz
- he feels "there really is no need" and notably has not done so, leaving few claims to refute.
- If he shoots himself in the foot like this, it's not our fault. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Horowitz 2
- Peter Collier and David Horowitz compiled a set of critical essays in 2004, called the The Anti-Chomsky Reader that analyze some of Chomsky’s more popular work. The Anti-Chomsky Reader points out that many of the sources in Chomsky’s works are himself. Thomas Nichols essay Chomsky And The Cold War illustrates Chomsky's rage against anti-communists when the Soviet Union fell apart. There is also an extensive criticsm of Chomsky claim that the US invasion of Afghanistan would result in millions of deaths in what Chomsky critics labeled as the "Silent Genocide" claim.
- No need to further expand the Horowitz section. His views are not so important. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And why are his views not so important? If they are important enough to have a section on, then perhaps more of his criticsm other than the ad-hominmes should be included. The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a good synopsys of his criticsms and if Horowitz is to be mentioned at all, then it should be included. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Because he's a lunatic. His baseless accusations deserve limited coverage. But OK, if we have to mention him, his main rant should be mentioned. Chamaeleon 06:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Accusations at Harvard
- In a subsequent debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky initially denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to have to back down upon being confronted with the evidence. He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in "revisionist" literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.
- I think this needs checking. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Checking how? Are you doubting that the incident happened and that Dershowitz is either exadurating or fabricating the event or something else? Certainly Dershowitz has been a very vocal and noteworthy opponent of Chomsky. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes. Things like these need both citations and attributions. Who said this happened? When and where did they say it? Who were the witneses? DanKeshet 09:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, there are several points:
- The question of the binational state is a complex one and Chomsky's views on it are well documented. They cannot be summed up with a simple "yes" or "no". An attempt to do so is an attempt to distort.
- All this "tried to dispute" is extremely twisted. If you don't understand what happened in the Faurisson affair, then read the article about it and come back better informed.
- "Interest in 'revisionist'" literature" is another question that does not have a simple "yes" or "no". Is it one of his interests? Apparently not. Has it ever come up in a chat with someone? Apparently so. There is no contradiction here. I could say the same thing about myself and this topic, or about myself and cheesemaking. (Got an interest in cheesemaking? / Not really. / Ever been involved in it? / Well, I went on a school trip to a French cheese factory once. / Ah, so you're backing down on the claim of no interest.)
- I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky got annoyed at this Nozick dude for bringing up an irrelevant private conversation to make him look bad. I'd be very surprised to see proof that he actually shoved him though. If so, however, all it proves is that he has a temper on him, which is not relevant politically. Chamaeleon 11:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, there are several points:
- Your claim, but then again this is not what Dershowitz argues.
- Its it that I dont understand what happened, or I dont Buy Chomsky's bullshit excuse for it? TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Once again, these comments are made by Dershowitz, not me. The arguments make the criteria for bieng included here, and I think I am going to leave it at that. TDC 02:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It's no good saying "Dershowitz said it, not me" since you are obviously trying to express your opinions of Chomsky through Dershowitz's words. His claims are pure mud-slinging, and we need to present the other side, otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is mud-slinging. A transcript of the debate that Dershowitz reports on would be helpful. If it cannot be found, then Dershowitz's comments should only be included accompanied by a comment such as "No transcript of the debate is available to allow refutation of these claims." Chamaeleon 05:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sections
I also think that using third-level (and very short) sections makes the table of contents unwieldy and does not aid navigation. I suggest using non-section headings, which is done by putting a semi-colon at the beginning of the line. Chamaeleon 00:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- On some of the non-default wikipedia skins (in the preferences), the semicolon doesn't generate bold text, but the surrounding 3 ' marks do. Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the semi-colon marks it semantically as a heading, and you choose how you want that to display. Chamaeleon 19:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Third level would be nice. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Third level is OK for the criticism section in the actual article, but not for the external links. It's strange enough that the external links are sectioned at all (look at any other article) without making them completely dominate the table of contents. Chamaeleon 19:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Third level would be nice. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
I looking briefly at what TDC added. As for the principle, I think that what Chamaeleon added to the linguistics sections, based on Chomsky's comments, is good. There was no reason to revert it, it should stay and if someone would have further comments he could insert them there. As for the rest, some of it is displaced right-wing pov, and some of it is just weird, like adding Hitchens to the Cambodia section, with no particular relevance to Cambodia. As for Dershowitz, if you want so much to include his fantasies in the article, some comments as a response are available here, and also I looked and there's some more in the forum replies, e.g. [13] [14]. Sams 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hitchens is most certainly relevant. He did, after all, write an article in the Nation magazine defending Chomsky's odd dismissal of KR atrocities. As for it being "right wing POV" many of his critics, (Dershowitz, Delong, Welch, Hitchens) could hardly be considered right-wing. TDC 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Hitchens' article from 1985 is not only about Cambodia, and his new opinions are not relevant with regard to Cambodia, so it's weird that you added that inside the Cambodia section. I'd say that it'd be much better to remove this weirdo completely, including the 1985 article - Chamaeleon already removed him from the Sudan section. The right-wing pov referred to info that you added outside of the criticism sections. As for the last point, Hitchens is a self-described neo-conservative, Dershowitz belongs to the pro-torture liberal left, and DeLong is not right-wing in the same sense that Bill Clinton is not right-wing. I also advise you to compare some of what you've written above with Chomsky's wikiquote page. Sams 23:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Remove this weirdo? Why si Hitchens a weirdo exactly? Is it because he saw the light of day and sees the great St Noam for what he is? Is it because he voted for Bush? What exactly makes him a weirdo and how, exactly, should that disqualify his critcisms from being a part of this article. I added very little outside the criticism section, and what little I did add, was addresses. And once again, just because they are from the "pro-torture liberal left" and the "not Right Wing in the same sense that Bill Clinton is not right-wing" diminish their critical remarks? Are they not notable? Are they not widely know amongst those who criticize Chomsky? I will need a bit better than that to dismiss them. TDC 00:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, a Hitchens fan, I've never come across one yet... Why is he a weirdo? Hmmm, let's see, many possible answers I assume... How about because he describes himself as a non-socialist Marxist? Can't you pick someone more normal to discuss instead? Anyway, read again. I wrote "displaced right-wing pov"/"outside of the criticism sections", I did not say that right-wing pov should be dismissed. In fact, I challenge you to add criticism such as the Huntington or Kennan ones to the article, I'm positive that we'll then witness how Chamaeleon easily destroys them. Sams 09:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look over the edits in detail yet, but I'll be a pain in the ass and once again point out that material from Chomsky's comments is original research and should not be included in the article unless he's repeating things he's said elsewhere (which is probably the case). I understand Chamaeleon objects to the no original research rule, but this isn't the appropriate venue for trying to change it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is not original research! I am using a primary resource! Chamaeleon 08:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Original research, neither if you cite Chomsky, nor if you paraphrase him (which is better, and others could add information there later on). I remember that I read an interview with Chomsky where he said that everything that he writes is public (anti-copyrights), and that he prefers complete transparency to email encryption etc., i.e. it's best not to try to hide or protect anything at all. Maybe someone could claim that perhaps Chomsky didn't send this email, and there's a problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability? If someone thinks so, Chamaeleon could send the email to a wikipedia admin (such as DanKeshet) to verify it. I do think, however, that Chamaeleon should remove "and in e-mails to Wikipedia" from the article, it doesn't contribute anything new anyway. Sams 09:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It must be verifiable, Sams. If Chamaeleon put it online...
Whitewash
This whole article seems to mostly whitewash Chomsky's documented support of the Soviet Union, state terror and mass-murder.
Looks like this one needs to be marked for a rewrite.
- No, those loony claims are noted in the article. Chamaeleon 06:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An anon has recently added some stuff. I reverted the general criticism because it said that people regarded him as either "slightly insane crank" or "a craven apologist for totalitarianism". In reality, some people say loony stuff like that, but most people who have read his stuff respect him. Forums he attends are booked out immediately, and he is booked up for a couple of years at a time. He is the most quoted person alive in the social sciences. Let's just give the facts and let people make their own minds up.
There is no need to add to the criticism section unless it is to add something actually new, and not just rant on about allegations already summarised and linked to. Chamaeleon 02:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Faurisson Image POV?
I'll admit I know very little about the Faurisson business but it seems to me that the image included is a bit POV. Showing only Faurisson in the hospital after he was beaten up is an emotional image, and it implies that the most important aspect of the incident was an overreaction to what Faurisson said, thus implying that Chomsky was noble by defending Faurisson. These things may all be true, but they are POV and the image should be replaced with something more neutral such as a simple headshot of Faursson or a picture of the cover of his book. In any event, Faurisson getting beaten up is tangential to the story, the focus should be what Chomsky had to say about the incident.
- The affair was all about a noble defence of Faurisson against thuggery and censorship. (Of course, Faurisson is a total nutcase and his weird, paranoid research isn't worth reading, but that's not the point) If that is the impression given by the facts, then that's a case of the facts speaking for themselves. Chamaeleon 10:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Controversial edits by anon
There have been various additions of rabid anti-Chomsky stuff into the article by anonymous editors lately. I've had to revert them en masse. We really need to discuss them here first.
It is important not the weigh the article down with long rants about how terrible Chomsky is. Instead we should first give the facts, then summarise the criticism, and finally link to external articles which elaborate on the criticism. If long details are given of the silly claims against him, then the crushing counter-arguments will have to be given, and I don't want the article to look like a bickering match of one claim after another. For instance, disturbingly anti-democratic arguments (saying that there should not be equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel because Arabs would then be powerful through their numbers) are made, and I don't want to have to quote other people saying how democracy is important. Chamaeleon 11:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have not written anything controversial, beyond the fact that I have merely pointed out the truth instead of engaging in obsequious toadying before the object of your considered idolatry. Nor have I written anything "disturbingly anti-democratic", I have merely pointed out the obvious fact that many Jews object to the "one-state solution" Chomsky suggests because it would revert them to the minority status which has served them so poorly in the past. I advise you to look into the situation of Jews living in Arab countries in order to understand their concern in this matter. At any rate, what I have written is certainly less disturbing than your disgusting whitewash of the Faurisson affair. The man should hire you as his publicity agents, if he's still alive.
And my name is Benjamin Kerstein and I write the blog Diary of an anti-Chomskyite at www.antichomsky.blogspot.com; which you will no doubt fear and despise in the same manner as what I have written here reduces you to spasms of blubbering hypocrisy.
cheers
- So, you are someone who dedicates himself to anti-Chomsky bile. I don't think it is useful to argue with you. If, instead of ranting, anyone wants to add anything to the criticism section, then propose it here so that we can discuss it. Chamaeleon 20:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, does anyone have access to the text of the petition Chomsky signed? It would be helpful to have the primary resource instead of interpretations of it. Chamaeleon 20:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You need to read up on NPOV. As to the suggestion that you haven't written anything controversial, but only "the truth", you ought to realise that the truth is always controversial in politics. Writing what you think is the unhedged truth in a political article is almost guaranteed to start an edit war. I'm sorry to revert your edit because it had some factual information in it, but we really need to separate that out from the POV (to take just one example, staing that so-and-so "pointed out" such-and-such, which implies that they were correct). Also bear in mind that it is not the aim of this article to give a detailed summary of every criticism of Chomsky. The current section provdes a good summary of all points of view and references the original sources, which are the proper place to look for anyone who is interested in the details.
- Arguing about mid-East politics here is not going to help anything (especially since it is of marginal relevance to charges of anti-Semitism, if they are taken literally). Suffice it to say that not everyone agrees with your particular views, and so you will have to make some compromises. Cadr 20:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Does anyone have anything written by Faurisson? Again, it would be great to have this primary resource so that we don't have to rely on interpretations. Faurisson is a freaky, paranoid conspiracy nut (pity I can't say that in the article) regarding the Holocaust, has said the Nazis were the bad guys in the war, and describes himself as "nothing" politically (not neo-Nazi, not Communist...). This is all we know about his politics. It would be good to have more. Chamaeleon 20:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if that is representative of his writings, then I must say that his style is quite apolitical and rational-sounding, not like your average Nazi at all. He seems to have one obsession: this wacky conspiracy theory he has. Chamaeleon 21:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. It's quite reasonable to suspect that he is a neo-Nazi of some kind on the basis of his lunatic views, but I'm not sure how much direct evidence of this there is. It would seem odd for someone who was willing to come out as a Holocaust denier (hardly a popular/mainstream position!) to dishonestly deny being a Nazi, since (neo-)Nazi Holocaust deniers are not detectably less popular than their non-Nazi counterparts.
- This is also why I find it odd that some people should accuse Chomsky of being some sort of crypto-Stalinist. If he's willing to openly take positions less popular than Stalinism, why would he deny being a Stalinist if he was one? Cadr 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I've added a new criticism section (Judaism). Can anyone expand it (in a calm, NPOV manner) please? Chamaeleon 21:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My impression was that Chomsky's views on Judaism were not a point of contention with the mainstream Jewish community, at least not nearly to the extent as his views on Israel and the influence of the Jewish community in America. This section needs to be expanded and cited, and that doesn't mean cherrypicking one or two obscure rabbis with this particular point of view. Admittedly I'm no expert, but the Jewish community tends to tolerate a wide range of religious belief, from those who see Judaism primarily as a civilization rather than a religion to the ultra-orthodox. GabrielF 21:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I too think that the criticisms of him on religious grounds are absurd and not really notable, but then I think that virtually all the other attacks on him are too. I'm just trying to be NPOV by adding toned-down versions of the attacks that have been recently added to the article. Chamaeleon 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Chameleon - your edits on Chomsky's critics worry me greatly. Although I believe that you are trying to act in good faith to make this a more NPOV article, I believe that because you feel these criticisms are absurd (some surely are while others are perfectly legitimate) you write about them as if they are absurd, focusing on criticisms that are not particularly serious and writing in a tone which makes all criticism of Chomsky sound absurd. The result is that despite your best efforts reasonable criticism is delegitimized and all of Chomsky's critics are presented as nutjobs. This makes the article more POV than it was before, although in a subtler way. I would urge you not to write "toned-down version of the attacks", at least not until you have seriously read the original material. GabrielF 16:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it really is difficult to report silly stuff in a neutral way, but I'm trying my best. If anyone wants to lend a hand and add some sensible criticism, I'd welcome that. It's just that the ones adding criticism have so far tended to be foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Chomskyites. Armed with the facts, most criticism of Chomsky really does sound absurd; how can I help that? I did, however, add the section with Zerzan's criticism, and I do think I made it sound reasonable, even though I think Zerzan is another nutcase. As for the original material, I think I have read all the main anti-Chomsky stuff available online. I'm not about to go out and buy Horowitz's hate book. Chamaeleon 16:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No doubt you see yourself as not having a point of view. No wonder you created an entire page on criticism of Chomsky while whitewashing every significant criticism of his work that's ever been written. Your pretensions of objectivity would be hilarious if they weren't in the service of such reprehensible ideas. I advise you to read "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt for background on Faurisson's ideology, although, being written by a Jew and a Zionist, I dont hold out much hope for you finding it credible. Thankfully, you dont own this page (although you seem to think you do), and I and others will continue trying to get some measure of the truth into its otherwise asinine apologetics.
And the entire text of the petition Chomsky signed is available in Pierre Vidal-Naquet's critique, which you have noticeably buried in the endnotes. Fear, perhaps?
- Who is this rant directed at? Do you have any suggestions for the actual article? Also, don't insinuate that people here are in some way anti-Semitic — it's a serious allegation and it shouldn't be made lightly. And finally, why don't you get an account and start signing your posts, since it looks like you're going to be here for a while... Cadr 08:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Benjamin Kerstein commented above that Chomsky advocates a one-state solution. This is no longer the case. At a talk he gave in Vancouver last year, he argued for a two-state solution.
I think the criticism section could be sharpened considerably, and I'll propose some new text here before adding it. Main points:
- Opposition to US foreign policy. Overall objective -- an admirable one, even to a critic such as myself -- is to reduce harm US does to the Third World.
- Misrepresentation. Regard for truth is sacrificed to the overall objective; conflict between role as political leader/activist (political and moral consequences of one's words and actions are paramount) and role as scholar (truth is paramount). Role of self-righteousness. Misrepresentation pointed out even by Stanley Hoffmann, a sympathetic interlocutor. This is what induces DeLong's "allergic reaction."
- Rhetorical tricks. Disparity between literal and implied meanings. Use of sarcasm. Arguments of form "if A, then B"; implies that not-A, or not-B, or both, but ambiguity is useful in defense. Ad hominem arguments, particularly of form "opponent is stupid, immoral, or both." Admitting mistakes is extremely rare -- why? Related to what Hoffmann describes as "inflamed self-righteousness."
- Point examples: Huntingdon, Kennan, Ben-Gurion quotes. "I didn't say he said it, I said he didn't back away from it, which is literally true." (This is a paraphrase.)
- Overall result: distorted view of how the world works (Chomsky's friend Hans Morgenthau dismisses it as "devil theory", i.e. evil in the world is due to ignorant and/or evil elites, rather than human nature). Examples of misrepresentation, e.g. that the Soviet Union was weaker than the US -- in the early stages of the Cold War, the Soviet army had 175 divisions, NATO had something like 10 (the so-called "plate-glass defense").
- Unfalsifiable. There is no evidence which will contradict the theory. Eisenberg example: NSC 68 demonstrates that US officials weren't lying.
- Relation to conflict between orthodox and revisionist histories of the Cold War (revisionists include Williams, Kolkos, Horowitz in his former life). With the opening of the Soviet archives, the orthodox view -- that the Cold War was a US reaction to Soviet expansionism, not the other way around -- has the upper hand.
- Romanticizing of Asian communist movements, comparing them to Spanish anarchist movements, despite their being standard Leninist parties.
Might be worth breaking the criticism section down into "reality-based" criticism -- i.e. his picture of the world is wrong -- vs. "morality-based" criticism, e.g. his writings on Cambodia, his defense of Faurission, his reaction to 9/11 are immoral. I'm mostly interested in the former rather than the latter.
I strongly suggest that Chomsky critics review the NPOV guidelines. There's nothing wrong with adding sharp criticism of Chomsky, but it's important to describe both sides of the debate fairly and objectively. I'd suggest putting most criticism in the section devoted to criticism, and leaving the other sections for the presentation of Chomsky's views (e.g. he opposes US foreign policy, he views the Cold War as a phony war serving to justify oppression of the Third World, he views "national interest" as serving elites only).
For Chomsky fans, I'd suggest reading Louis Halle's "The Cold War as History." Russil Wvong
- I fear that most of the "reality-based" criticism — i.e. his picture of the world is wrong — is based on "morality-based" criticism — i.e. it is immoral to suggest that "we" could be the bad guys in the world. Chamaeleon 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Are you thinking of any particular criticisms? I would argue that it's important to fairly represent other people's views, even if you strongly disagree with them, or regard them as morally repugnant. Chomsky doesn't appear to adhere to this rule--the Huntingdon quote is one example--and so the picture of the world which he presents is seriously distorted. It's easy to present an argument which looks strong, even unchallengeable, if you can make up your own evidence, and if your readers don't check your sources.
- I would certainly agree that the US has done many immoral things; but it shouldn't be necessary to make them up. Russil Wvong
One further point: "Instead we should first give the facts, then summarise the criticism, and finally link to external articles which elaborate on the criticism."
Actually, I'd suggest starting with the accusation (e.g. "Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge!"), _then_ giving the defense ("he was analyzing media propaganda against official enemies, he clearly stated that the atrocity stories might in fact be correct"). Right now the presentation of the facts seems to be constructed to defend against the accusation, which is fine, but it'd be clearer if the accusation came first. Russil Wvong
- It sounds more NPOV if we put facts first. It is a choice between:
- The world, which is round, is often discussed. Mr A claims in book X that the world is flat.
- The world is often discussed. Mr A claims in book X that the world is flat, but he is wrong: it really is round.
- The world is often discussed. Mr A claims in book X that the world is flat, and Mr B claims in book Y that it really is round.
The second one forces us to take a position against someone we are quoting, and we don't do that. The third one forces us to put the facts into a certain person's mouth as though there were some doubt that stops us saying it ourselves. The first one is best: we state facts first. If there are then opinions to be expressed, we attribute them. For example, if Mr B goes on to say that Mr A is a wacko, even though we agree, it must count as an opinion rather than a fact. Chamaeleon 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem NPOV to me to assume that the Faurisson and Cambodia controversies are so baseless that they can be compared to stating that the world is flat.
- To give an example: currently, in its presentation of facts, the article states that "unlike most Holocaust-deniers [Faurisson] does seem not to be a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite." This is definitely not an undisputed fact. Vidal-Naquet, reviewing Faurisson's "Verite historique ou verite politique", summarizes the principles on which the revisionist writings are based, including the following: "Hitler's Germany does not bear the principal responsibility for the Second World War. It shares that responsibility, for example, with the Jews (Faurisson in Vérité, p. 187), or it may even not bear any responsibility at all." [18]
- If after doing extensive research on World War II, someone reaches this conclusion, I think it's fair to say that they're an anti-semite.
- I'd say that there's at least three possible interpretations of the Faurisson affair, and an NPOV presentation would require describing each of them.
- The controversy over the Faurisson petition and subsequent essay is groundless: it's simply a question of freedom of speech. (Chamaeleon.)
- Chomsky has clear links with Holocaust deniers. (Werner Cohn.)
- Chomsky's signing of the Faurisson petition was an honest mistake -- he was probably misled by his friend Serge Thion. But he subsequently compounded his mistake by defending Faurisson and vigorously attacking Faurisson's critics, instead of backing down. (Pierre Vidal-Naquet.)
- I think an NPOV presentation would require explicitly separating the presentation of the facts and the presentation of the first interpretation, rather than giving the first interpretation as if it's simply stating the facts. Russil Wvong
- Interesting summary of criticisms, although most of them need to be more specific before they can go in the article. Just to take one, I'm not sure that Chomsky has ever really said that the Cold War was a Russian response to American agression (although I could well be wrong, I've not read all his stuff by any means). He does quite often point out that the US and USSR both made the same propaganda claim, i.e. that they were merely defending themselves from the other side's agression. Of course, whatever the overall balance of agression, this was true of both sides in some specific instances. Cadr 10:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the criticisms need to be expanded and more specific. I'll try to spend some time on it over the next few weeks (and I'll propose the material here first for discussion, to avoid edit wars). Regarding Chomsky's view of the origins of the Cold War, see the section titled "The Cold War as Historical Process" in Deterring Democracy, specifically the paragraphs beginning "For the United States, the Cold War has been a history of world-wide subversion, aggression and state terrorism, with examples too numerous to mention. ..." In contrast, the Soviet Union is described as simply trying to prevent further invasions along the historical invasion route from the West, with the exception of Afghanistan. Russil Wvong
To "Chameleon"
I address you directly since you are apparently the one who has taken it upon himself; in the name of what amorphous authority I don't know; to summarily erase everything I write or add to this page, and moreover to summarily insult me and others who think like me in doing so. I refer first to your dismissive comment that I am not worth speaking to and that I traffic in anti-Chomsky "bile". I answer happily that I don't consider you worth speaking to either, most of all due to the perhaps shallow reason that you can't seem to write your way out of a paper bag; but I will digress from a discussion of the defencies of your prose and turn instead to your accusation that my writing is somehow bilious, a fact which is wholly untrue, as can be seen by anyone who takes the time to read what I have written, as you clearly have not. My critiques of Chomsky are long, detailed, specific, and documented, consisting in great part of long quotations from the subject's own writings; and my rhetoric may well be strident, but it is not bilious, I like to think that even my most violent condemnations manage to retain some measure of elegance. I can show you bilious critiques of Chomsky, but the question is ultimately irrelevent, since to deal biliously with the good professor is merely to engage the man on his own ground, and if one lives by that sword one must die by it or be a hypocrite and a coward, and, while Chomsky himself may be both, this simple truism hardly gives him or his supporters any moral weight in accusing others of rhetorical excess.
Secondly, and realizing that I here violate my assertion that you are not worth talking to, I refer to the repellency of the intellectual equation you seem to have constructed as the self-annointed arbiter of this page. Putting aside the decrepit nature of a judge who cannot even make use of his real name while passing sentance, I point to the essentials of your scales of justice: that which aggrandizes Chomsky is reasoned, moderate, sane, and documented; that which criticizes him is "loony", shallow, irrelevent, biased, inaccurate, and uninformed. As a result, you have eliminated the likes of Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Alain Finkielkraut, Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and others from the ranks of the reasoned and deliberate, and damned even those you deem to mention with faint notice and the obfuscation of contemptuous language. All of this while declaring your cause to be that of objectivity, truth, and elementary morality. Perhaps it behooves me to remind you of your purposes here: this is a page regarding criticism of Noam Chomsky. That criticism exists or it does not. Its fairness is not your business, its documentation is not your business, its accuracy is not your business, beyond the need to point out those who have accused it of innacuracy, unfairness, or lack of documentation. To summarily erase the musings of Vidal-Naquet, Finkielkraut, Berman, et al; is to pretend that things do not exist which do and thus to perpetuate lies in the service of still further lies. It is fundamentally dishonest, cowardly, and insidious. Furthermore, to claim ill motives or to impart positions which do not exist to those whose writings you claim to be summarizing is of even more vile nature, since it assaults the fundamental good faith of intellectual argument and engages in a brand of moral revisionism which would make Stalin's airbrushers proud. Thus, to claim that Chomsky was criticized for defending Faurisson's free speech, which he was not; or that he is accused of anti-semitism because he criticizes Israel, which he is not; or to posit that David Horowitz was or is a Stalinist (though you have thankfully and finally removed the ridiculous lie that Horowitz has written no detailed criticisms of Chomsky) when even the most ill-informed student of the New Left knows the opposite was the case; is not merely blatent manipulation or transparent and disrespectful dishonesty, but ultimately a felonious insult against the intelligence of the readers and writers of this page and to the process of intellectual honesty itself. The fact that you have learned such debasement from observing the master himself is of no consequence, it is an altogether odious and unjust manner to conduct oneself. I will therefore stress the essential point: THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER IN ERASING ANYTHING HERE THAT I HAVE WRITTEN. I have written nothing that is factually inaccurate, and nothing that cannot be confirmed by impartial observers or researchers who care to take a few moments to check the facts of the matters I have described. You are free to add rejoinders, comments, or outright condemnations of these statements as made by Chomsky's defenders, but you have no right to summarily excise these critics from the discussion at hand, which is, in fact, nothing more than the simple fact of what they have said and written. To do otherwise, however, is a violation of elementary intellectual honesty and of the rules of this site as I understand them. Moreover, I intend to assert this fact on as permanent a basis as I am capable, and if it means an "edit war" as you call it, then I welcome it; such, perhaps, is the price of seeking truth and exposing lies.
--Benjamin Kerstein
p.s. To whoever accused me of making accusations of anti-semitism lightly, I do no such thing. I note merely the prevailing tone of this site and this discussion, which posits that all Jews and/or Zionists are inherently biased against Chomsky due to their genetic/ideological predilictions and therefore one should not deign to mention their criticism of him. You can call that anti-semitism if you like, but you said it, I didn't.
- Hmm.
- It's extremely difficult to come up with a reference article by consensus on a controversial and polarizing subject like Noam Chomsky. But it's not unique to Chomsky -- there's plenty of controversial subjects covered by Wikipedia.
- My suggestion would be to try to work things out by consensus on this discussion page before making major changes to the text of the article itself.
- The key thing is that the article should present the views of people on both sides of the Chomsky/anti-Chomsky divide, and it should do so fairly. Some people like Chomsky because they think US foreign policy has greatly harmed the Third World, because they oppose US foreign policy in the Third World, and they believe Chomsky's description of evil US motives. The purpose of the encyclopedia article isn't to convince them that they're wrong. It's to present both their view and the opposing view, namely that Chomsky's description of US foreign policy, never completely accurate even during the Vietnam war (because his self-righteousness led him to a distorted view of the truth), has become completely unmoored from reality; hence his increasing marginalization since the end of the war, and the difficulty of communicating with Chomsky followers. It's like talking to someone from a parallel universe.
- As I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, it's also important to only refer to sources originally published in print. So including links to criticisms which are only published on web pages (e.g. mine, Bruce Sharp's, Brad DeLong's) is out of bounds. But I think there's sufficient published material critical of Chomsky (letters in the NYRB, Stephen Morris's 1981 article, Werner Cohn's book, the essays in the recent Collier/Horowitz book) that this won't be a major handicap.
- If we can stick to these guidelines, I think it should be possible to improve the balance of the article without resorting to counterproductive "edit wars." Russil Wvong 21:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Resurgance of the NLF terror support claim
TDC, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&diff=prev&oldid=6244250 where this last came up (search for "smear job" in the page text). Cadr 05:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I was being hasty. OK, that page is a diff, but it still has the relevant text, and I actually wrote "smear-job". Cadr 05:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And here's the text, copied for your convenience...
[START OF COPIED TEXT]
- Update: There appears (according to google) to be a transcript of an interview containing this quote on chomksy.info, his official site (the page is loading slowly for me at the moment: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm). Hopefully this will allow us to see the quote in context and come to some agreement about how it should be discussed in the article. --Cadr
- Update 2: The quote you used is rendered rather out of context because it omits the first and last sentences of a paragraph! This is the full quote:
- As to the NLF terror, I think Dr. Arendt and I agree in conclusion but probably disagree on the reasons. For me, her vision is too absolutistic. I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this -- and I think we should -- we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before, I don't think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved.
- This makes the whole thing look much more hypothetical, and not actually a statement that the terror was justified (in fact the omitted initial sentence suggests quite the opposite). Here's another quote supporting this: "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." I'm afraid this seems to be just yet another cynical smear-job on Chomsky. --Cadr
[END OF COPIED TEXT] Cadr 06:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Publisher for Fateful Triangle
It is a bit past my bedtime, so I will make this brief. Your inclusion of Chomsky's rebuttal to Cohn does not mention the issue of who published Fateful Triangle. In fact, after going to Amazon.com, it does indeed confirm that Noontide Press did publish Fateful Triangle[19], at least in its initial press run (June 1, 1986) and not just in its French version, but in the English version as well.
Noontide's description of itself:
- The Noontide Press has been selling important hard-to-find and politically incorrect books for more than three decades. As part of our offerings, we are proud to make available all titles from the Institute for Historical Review, the world's leading revisionist historical publisher, as well as the full catalog of titles from Ralph Myles Publisher, long-time publisher of revisionist and libertarian books.[20]
TDC 07:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Chomsky says that he doesn't keep track of translations, which directly contradicts the claim that he authorised a translation. Thus, unless there's strong evidence that he's lying, we should not state as fact that he authorised the translation, and we should link to his (very relevant) response. Cadr 07:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not talking about translations. The first press run of Fateful Triangle, in both English and French was performed by Noontide. I find it hard to beleive that Chomsky does not read his publishing contract and therefore does not know who is publishing the English version of his book. Once again, this was not the translation, but the original press run in English.
One more thing. Fateful Triangle was not the only thing that Chomsky farmed out to Noontide. TDC 07:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes sorry, I was just about to change my previous response. I agree that the article of Chomsky's I linked to wasn't directly relevant (since it was not talking about TFT), so I've removed it. However, we don't know (do we?) whether Chomsky specifically authorised the Noontide publications. You may find it hard to believe that he didn't, but we shouldn't be mindreading. Bear in mind that he's published a lot of books, and that they're published by a lot of people. Cadr 07:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Moreover, who cares who published his stuff? How does it follow that a writer necessarily agrees with opinions expressed in books not written by himself but churned out by the same publishing house? Why does Chomsky have to be a revisionist because a book was published by Noontide, but not a conservative/primitivist/Marxist/centrist/novelist(!)/etc because other books of his have been published by Penguin, AK Press, South End Press, etc? Chamaeleon 10:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah the whole thing is bizarre. Chomsky as a Holocaust denier is bona fide tin foil hat stuff. He condemned it plenty of times well before the Faurisson affair, plenty of times since, and he's Jewish FFS. He would be the most unlikely and covert Holocaust denier in history. Cadr 16:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So out of all the publishing companies in the world, including the ones he had previously used, Chomsky uses a near defunct publishing company run by his friend, Serge Thion, and no one sees anything at least a shade bit peculiar? Would you personally have found it odd if he had chosen Encounter books? Anyway, I think the company one keeps says a great deal about you.
- I would also like to throw in the following. I, nor anyone for that matter has accused Chomsky of being a Holocaust denier, but the two have some similarities. The traditional view is that Europe was so sympathetic and supportive to the creation of the Jewish/Israeli state as a kind of payback for the Holocaust. People who oppose the existence of Israel, people like Chomsky and Finklestien, find naturally allies in those who seek to remove Israel’s main reason for being. I think the whole, he's Jewish so by his very nature he cannot be anti-Semitic is a rather weak argument.
- Also, I still want a link for the HRW report on Sudan. TDC 17:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- What's peculiar about helping out a friend? (If indeed he was a friend, do we have a source for this?) The company you keep may say something about you, but the evidence for Chomsky being a Holocaust revisionist is non-existent.
- Chomsky doesn't oppose the existence of Israel, he favours a binational solution. So the supposed "natural allies" are not natural allies at all. As for it being a weak argument that Jews can't be anti-Semites, I despair. Of course it is technically possible for a Jew to be an anti-Semite, but a cursorary glance at Chomsky's past will show that he has been heavily involved in many Jewish movements (particularly youth movements). Jewish people active in Jewish political movements who don't deny the Holocaust are surely rather unlikely candidates for being anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers! The whole tone of the charges is ludicrous. Cadr 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Robert Barsky, Chomsky's sympathetic biographer, describes Thion as a friend of Chomsky's. [22]
- Jeffrey Mehlman suggests an explanation for why Pierre Guillaime and Thion -- who are radical leftists -- have been publishing and supporting Faurission, a Holocaust denier: Guillaume and his colleages may view anti-Fascism as a distraction from the more important struggle to overthrow capitalist democracy. [23]
- I wrote this a while ago: "Look, Chomsky's just a guy. Everybody makes mistakes. Vidal-Naquet's not accusing Chomsky of being a neo-Nazi -- he's saying explicitly that Chomsky is not a neo-Nazi. All he's saying is that Chomsky has a big ego, and he let it get in the way of his moral judgement, to the point where he spent a lot of time and energy defending Faurisson and smearing critics of Faurisson. What the Faurisson affair shows is that (a) Chomsky has a very thin skin, and (b) some of his old libertarian-left comrades in France have drifted into Holocaust denial. That's all." [24] Russil Wvong
- I still don't get what the criticism is meant to be. Was Chomsky really supposed to stand up in public and say "by the way, Faurisson's a loon just in case you didn't know already" after signing the petition? I presume the source of his outrage was the notion that signing a petition supporting freedom of expression was in some way "scandelous".
- I do find the use of scare quotes round Holocaust quite repulsive in the text of the petition, but they do not really alter its meaning, and I do not otherwise see a problem with it. It certainly fails to say that Faurisson is incorrect, but as Chomsky goes to great lengths to point out in Elementary Remarks, that's because it doesn't matter whether or not he is correct for the purposes of freedom of expression.
- I would suggest with regards to Vidal-Naquet that making a remark "in passing" does not alleviate the author of responsibility for its consequences. Cadr 19:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "I still don't get what the criticism is meant to be."
- It's that Chomsky has an extremely sensitive ego, and he's put his ego above truth and justice. Somehow he's gotten completely turned around, defending Faurisson and attacking Faurisson's critics. Why did Chomsky get so outraged over Vidal-Naquet's single minor criticism, in a 20-page article about Faurisson, if not because he has an extremely thin skin? Why didn't he just say something like, "Okay, I didn't know all that about Faurisson's writings until I read Vidal-Naquet's article and other articles on Faurisson. The principle of freedom of speech still applies, though." -- and stop there?
- If it's simply the principle of freedom of speech that's important, why then go on to defend Faurisson and his publishers (describing Faurisson as an "apolitical liberal" who has praised the heroism of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, describing Thion as "a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism")? Why attack Vidal-Naquet and Faurisson's other critics as state-worshipping Stalinists? Can't Chomsky accept a minor criticism without launching into a ferocious counterattack? (How many times have you seen Chomsky admit that he's made a mistake?)
- The charge that Vidal-Naquet is a "Stalinist" is particularly misplaced. Vidal-Naquet isn't advocating suppressing Faurisson, quite the reverse--he took the time to read Faurisson's writings and to write a review, because he felt that lies should be debated rather than suppressed.
- And how can Chomsky claim not to know enough about Faurisson's writings to judge them, when Vidal-Naquet's article "A Paper Eichmann"--the one that sparked Chomsky's outrage--was a detailed review of Faurisson's writings?[25]
- That said, having a thin skin isn't a political crime, and the Faurisson affair certainly doesn't discredit Chomsky's other writings (which is why I didn't include it my article "Noam Chomsky: A Critical Review"[26]).
- "Somehow he's gotten completely turned around, defending Faurisson and attacking Faurisson's critics." Presumably because some of Faurisson's critics were apparently not in favour of giving him freedom of speech, and others were making charges against him which lacked any real evidence. The raw facts are that Faurisson was being prosecuted, and his critics weren't. What would we think of Chomsky if he acted in the opposite way and signed a peetition saying "Faurisson's a loon and I'm glad he's getting what he deserves"?
- "describing Thion as "a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism" That was presumably an accurate description so far as Chomsky knew.
- "describing Faurisson as an "apolitical liberal" who has praised the heroism of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising" That is apparently a fairly accurate description as well. It's not at all clear that Faurisson is a neo-Nazi, unless we take neo-Nazi to be a term completely devoid of any meaning beyond "something to be disapproved of".
- "Vidal-Naquet isn't advocating suppressing Faurisson, quite the reverse" So what exactly is he criticisng Chomsky for then? Like I said, it can only be that he didn't jump up and down shouting "Faurisson's wrong! Faurisson's wrong!".
- "Why did Chomsky get so outraged over Vidal-Naquet's single minor criticism, in a 20-page article about Faurisson, if not because he has an extremely thin skin?" Because it apparently criticises Chomsky simply for defending Faurisson's freedom of speech. I don't see how the length of the comment compared to the length of the article changes much.
- "And how can Chomsky claim not to know enough about Faurisson's writings to judge them, when Vidal-Naquet's article "A Paper Eichmann"--the one that sparked Chomsky's outrage--was a detailed review of Faurisson's writings?[" Just take a look at some of the "reviews" of Chomsky. Would anyone who had read them know enough about Chomsky's writings to publicly condemn him for their contents? Now, I'm not passing any judgement on Vidal-Naquet's review, but it's silly to suggest that reading it would be equivalent to having read Fuarisson's own work. IIRC, Chomsky claimed that no-one was able to provide him with any real evidence than Faurisson was a neo-Nazi.
- Now I will agree that Chomsky's actions were a bad move in political terms, since they created a scandal which could have been avoided. But Chomsky is not a politician, and I think he was right to stand up for his principles. Cadr 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The indentation is getting a little out of hand--my reply is below. Russil Wvong 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia newbie question: how do I include the date and time? Russil Wvong
- Just been reading the beginning of "Partners in Hate". Apparently Cohn believes that Chomsky has a secret neo-Nazi following, as demonstrated by this bizarre quote:
- Everyone knows Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his linguistics and his left-wing politics. But the fact that he also plays an important role in the neo-Nazi movement of our time that he is, without any doubt, the most important patron of that movement is well known only in France. Much like a bigamist who must constantly strain to keep one of his families secret from the other, Chomsky and his most initiated supporters try to prevent his liberal and left-wing followers from knowing too much about his other, his neo-Nazi life.
- The man is clearly an idiot. Cadr 19:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just been reading the beginning of "Partners in Hate". Apparently Cohn believes that Chomsky has a secret neo-Nazi following, as demonstrated by this bizarre quote:
- I'd suggest reading Vidal-Naquet instead of Cohn. The relevant links are here: [27] Russil Wvong
Russil, use four tilde signs in a row to sign your name and the date and time (e.g. ~~~~). Jayjg | (Talk)
- Thanks, Jayjg. Russil Wvong 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In reply to Cadr: let's start with the question of whether Faurisson is an anti-semite or not (a "relatively apolitical liberal"). Vidal-Naquet presents compelling evidence that he's an anti-semite in his article "A Paper Eichmann." (I assume you've read it?) To avoid the potential problem of misrepresentation, it would have been easy for Chomsky to look up Vidal-Naquet's references in Faurisson's original text.
After posting my earlier comments, I did think of one possibility: how well does Chomsky know French, if at all? I've seen Chomsky refer to Hebrew-language sources, but otherwise his references are all to English-language sources. He might not have been able to read Vidal-Naquet's article.
That said, once Chomsky knew that Faurisson denied the Holocaust occurred, claiming it was the invention of a Jewish conspiracy, did he really need any additional evidence in order to figure out that Faurisson was an anti-semite?
What's your personal opinion of Faurisson? Do you agree with Chomsky's stated assessment that there's no evidence he's an anti-semite?
If Faurisson is indeed a serious historical researcher, simply attempting to find the truth, as opposed to a propagandist using sophistic arguments to claim that one of the worst crimes of the Nazis never happened, then of course the fact that Chomsky is defending Faurisson against charges of anti-semitism (not just the principle of freedom of speech) is admirable. I'd be really astonished if you thought that was a possibility, though.
There's not one principle at stake here, but two. One is freedom of speech, which of course is important, but a second one is truth. In Vidal-Naquet's view, Chomsky has gone beyond defending freedom of speech; by defending Faurisson against charges of anti-semitism, he's demonstrating disregard for the truth. Russil Wvong 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I hadn't read "A Paper Eichmann" previously, I've now had a quick look through the relevant sections. Chomsky, it should ne noted, did give some positive evidence for Faurisson not being an neo-Nazi anti-Semite, i.e. the various comments praising Nazi resistance, etc. (I can't remember exactly what they were so I'm not sure how accurate that is as summary).
- I did a web search and found a 1994 article in which, far from praising the "heroic insurrection" of the Warsaw ghetto, Faurisson seems to be intent on downplaying it, describing it as a German police action rather than a Jewish insurrection [31]. This seems like evidence in favor of Faurisson's being an anti-Semite, rather than against it. (Faurisson complains about the amount of attention given to the Warsaw uprising.) But of course this article was published many years later, and Chomsky may have been given misinformation, either by Faurisson himself or by Thion.
- Faurisson did write (in a letter published in Le Monde) that he was not a neo-Nazi: "I am neither objectively nor subjectively ... a neo-Nazi. I feel admiration for those Frenchmen who courageously struggled against Nazism. They defended the right cause. If today I state that the 'gas chambers' did not exist, it is because the difficult duty to be truthful obliges me to say so."[32] Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how well Chomsky speaks French. I do remember that in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, he quotes a couple of French passages without giving a translation, and in another passage which is translated there is a footnote stating that he is departing from a standard translation in some way because he believes it to be incorrect. I expect he speaks French to some extent, but I have no idea whether he would feel up to reading Vidal-Naquet (his prose style doesn't seem to translate into very clear English; not sure what it's like in French).
- I did a web search and found that he had a public discussion with Foucault, Foucault speaking in French and Chomsky in English. This suggests that Chomsky's command of French is pretty good, although it's not conclusive. Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Re anti-Semitism, I think Chomsky takes a pretty strict view of what it is. Believing that there was a Jewish conspiracy to cover up the Holocaust is not in itself anti-Semitic. It would only be anti-Semitic if this belief derived from some general belief in the evil/devious tendencies of Jews, according to which such a conspiracy would be typically Jewish, in some pejorative sense. It is easy to see that this is the case. If there was in fact a Jewish conspiracy along these lines, it would clearly not be anti-Semitic to believe in it, and the same is true even if no such conspiracy existed, although our natural dislike of people who believe in such conspiracies can obscure this fact. Has Faurisson ever expressed explicity anti-Semitic views? If not, we can only speculate as to whether or not he holds them. I certainly suspect that Faurisson is an anti-Semite, but I know of no proof.
- I'm afraid I'm not really following your reasoning here. Faurisson claims that the Holocaust is the invention of a Jewish conspiracy. Obviously, this Jewish conspiracy must be vast, powerful, evil, and devious beyond belief, since it's been able to fabricate huge amounts of evidence, generate false eyewitness accounts, coerce testimony from Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg, and cause billions of people to believe in something that never happened. It's not the Matrix, but it's close. We're getting into ZOG territory here. I don't see how you can call this something other than anti-Semitism.
- You give a hypothetical counterfactual: what if there _were_ such a conspiracy? If Faurisson believed in such a conspiracy _based on evidence_, then I'd say yes, in that reality, he wouldn't be anti-Semitic. But back in our reality, Faurisson's claims aren't based on evidence, but on sophistry: he ignores evidence or claims it was fabricated. I don't really see how the hypothetical counterfactual is relevant. Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't yet read "A Paper Eichmann" thoroughly, but as far as I can see Vidal-Naquet has ample evidence that Faurisson is a loony Holocaust denier, but he has not shown that Faurisson's views are rooted in a hatred of Jews, or indeed in a love of Nazism (although if he is correct that Faurisson lays part of the blame for WW2 on the Jews, this comes quite close). I would not be in the least bit surprised if Faurisson was guilty of both these things, but as Chomsky said, such charges require evidence (which he claims no-one was able to provide to him).
- Thanks for looking at the article, at least. I'm curious if your opinion would change after reading it more thoroughly, and perhaps reading some of Faurisson's writings, such as the Le Monde letters. Faurisson doesn't appear "loony" at all. He appears to be a quite rational and articulate sophist, claiming that the Holocaust is the invention of a powerful Jewish conspiracy. Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Chomsky himself seems to allow that it is quite possible that Faurisson is a "raving anti-Semite" in Elementry Remarks.
- I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Chomsky's statement in Elementary Remarks. He's giving a hypothetical argument. "Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged 'anti-Semitism.' Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. ... Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion."[33] Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is always tempting to diagnose people who hold views completely opposed to our own with some sort of debilitating psychological disorder, usually anti-this or pro-that. However, personal suspicions of this kind are sometimes not as well evidenced as we might like them to be. If anything, Faruisson seems fanatically dedicated to providing non-anti-Semtitic explanations for Nazi attrocities — rather strange behaviour for a raving anti-Semite. Cadr 08:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. You mean that he goes to great lengths to argue that Nazi actions were rational rather than motivated by anti-Semitism? Or do you mean something else? (To me, this would make him seem like an apologist for the Nazis, attempting to justify their actions and to claim that their anti-Semitism and their extermination of the Jews were inventions of their enemies.) Russil Wvong 21:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I should probably add that I'm closer to being convinced by your argument than I was before. I expect Chomsky believed in good faith that Faurisson was not an anti-Semite, and not without good reason, but he probably should not have defended him from this charge, given that by his own admission he was not familiar with Faurisson's work. It was a somewhat pedantic exercise which had predictably bad consequences. Cadr 08:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cadr. Maybe we should leave the argument here; I'll move on to proposing some text for the article regarding the Vietnam War. Russil Wvong 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Horowitz as a Stalinist
The passage on Horowitz seems to imply that he is an ex-Stalinist, or at least that some "consider" him to have been one. Criticize the man all you want, but to imply that he is an ex-Stalinist simply has no basis in reality. Linking to sites that refer to him as such out of ignorance or spite is pointless, and is no more legitimate than linking to an article which calls Chomsky a Stalinist as some sort of "proof" that such an opinion is mainstream. user:J.J.
- What makes you think that they're referring to him as a Stalinist out of "ignorance and spite"? I think the point is not so much that those articles are necessarily correct, but since the Guardian one at least is from a mainstream media source, it shows that Chomsky was not particularly exceptional in regarding Horowitz as a Stalinist, although of course he may still have been mistaken to do so. Cadr 07:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that section made Horowitz look like a Stalinist at all. It made Chomsky look bad for calling him it. Chamaeleon 10:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I just think there has to be a higher academic standard here than just "so and so says it too!" It's quite blatantly not true, and that should be clear. I'll re-word it to make it a bit more of a compromise. user:J.J.
- The article includes many criticims of Chomsky which are blatantly not true, shall we remove them? Anyway, as I said, the point is not that the article was correct, but just that Chomsky may have genuinely believed Horowitz to be a former Stalinist. The whole thing is silly IMO, Chomsky made an off the cuff remark with two pretty minor factual inaccuracies. OK, so he got the wrong Communist ideology, and he may once have read Horowitz thirty years ago. In any case, he probably meant that he didn't used to habitually/regularly read Horowitz. When you consider what names Horowitz called Chomsky, Chomsky's response was pretty truthful in comparison. Cadr 09:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jean Lacouture thankfull for the corrections?
After reading the the New York Review of Books article that this was taken from I think that someone admires Chomsky too much and is now using Chomskyesque techniques for sourcing. Please read the article by Lacouture and discuss. The impression I got from reading it is not what is presented in this article. TDC 17:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the article, or is it not available online? Thanks. Cadr 20:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The full text of the article doesn't appear to be generally available, but it's available to New York Review of Books subscribers [34]. It's short (900 words). Would it be appropriate for me to post the whole thing here?
- If not, here's some quotes that seem particularly relevant:
- Noam Chomsky's corrections have caused me great distress. By pointing out serious errors in citation, he calls into question not only my respect for texts and the truth, but also the cause I was trying to defend. I particularly regret the misleading attributions I mentioned above and I should have checked more accurately the figures on victims, figures deriving from sources that are, moreover, questionable. My reading of Ponchaud's book was hasty, emotionally intense, too quick in selecting polemical points. But if I must plead guilty in handling the details of my review, I would plead innocent concerning its fundamental argument. ...
- I fully understand the concerns of Noam Chomsky, whose honesty and sense of freedom I admire immensely, in criticizing, with his admirable sense of exactitude, the accusations directed at the Cambodian regime. He is seeking to establish the truth and also, I would think, to combat criticism which may have the effect of serving the interests of the Nixon-Ford establishment and its allies. Such criticism may please the champions of intervention in Indochina, who were responsible for the war in Cambodia and who are guilty—as I said in my review—of initiating and prolonging the blood-bath which still afflicts that unhappy country today. However, because denunciations of Stalinism pleased Senator McCarthy, would that have been good reason for remaining silent about the Gulag?
- The pseudo revolutionaries in Cambodia have locked their country away from the eyes of the world, have turned many of their people into cadavers or mere cattle; they have not only killed Lon Nol's officials but have also murdered their women and children, maintaining order with clubs and guns. I think the problem that presents itself today is that of the life of a people. And it is not only because I once argued for the victory of this very regime, and feel myself partially guilty for what is happening under it, that I believe I can say: there is a time, when a great crime is taking place, when it is better to speak out, in whatever company, than to remain silent.
- Russil Wvong 17:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Afraid I have to disagree. I don't think the current text is accurate: "Some of the people he corrects have largely conceded the point [that the media coverage of the atrocities in Cambodia was exaggerated]." In the case of Lacouture, I think it'd be more accurate to say that while he acknowledged the errors pointed out by Chomsky in his original review, he continued to maintain the importance of speaking out against the genocide in Cambodia. In Lacouture's view, truth is more important than politics.
- I don't know of anyone criticized by Chomsky who has "conceded the point." Russil Wvong 20:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that should probably be changed. Lacouture certainly conceded a point (or two) but perhaps not the point. Wouldn't object if this was rephrased. Cadr 22:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to delete entirely the paragraph beginning "Some of the people he corrects have largely conceded the point." -- without Lacouture as an example, there's no backing for the paragraph, and I'm not sure how important it is to say that Lacouture acknowledged being wrong on details but stuck to his main argument. Any objections? Russil Wvong 23:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
Do we still want the notice on the page? Not really decided either way on this one, but it's been there for a while, and given that this article is always likely to be a bit controversial, we might want to consider taking it down during the clamer periods. Cadr 22:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is the only featured article I've ever seen with an NPOV tag. Since any NPOV disputes about this article seem to have calmed down, I think it's time to "be bold" and take off that ugly tag. Szyslak 07:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure I'd say they've calmed down. See Benjamin Kerstein's most recent addition to this page. I'd leave it there for now. Russil Wvong 16:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theory Links
Do we really need the conspiracy theory subsection of the external links subsection? At present there are three link, the third link appears to be dead and the other two don't seem particularly encyclopedic. The first link is brief. The title is Chomsky's links to the military, but the page says nothing about the military and merely refers to Chomsky as an "illuminati shill" and claims that he got a job at MIT without any experience (they neglect to say he was a top Harvard grad student). The second link is a rant on Chomsky's opinions of the JFK assassination. I only skimmed it but it didn't seem to have much value. If someone thinks the JFK business is useful than maybe it can be added to the miscellaneous links, or if there actually is something to write about we could make a page on Conspiracy Theories Concerning Noam Chomsky or something and link to that, but there doesn't seem to be much need for a section on conspiracy theory links. GabrielF 04:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)