Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 April 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Chomsky is hardly by any stretch of the imagination a liberal, unless you're a Conservapedian who defines "liberal" as "not conservative." PFoster 20:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I've removed the bit about Chomsky being "popular and well known in almost every country of the world except his home country of the United States," and that "he reason for this is that the powers to be in America don't like what Noam has to say so they use their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, to marginalize Professor Chomsky and shut out his opinions" because 1. a lot of the language is vague, 2. the statements are completely without any documentation to support them and 3. I'm not sure how "marginalized" Chomsky really is - he's Professor Emeritus at one of the most reputable universities in the country, and I can buy each and every one of his books at the Barnes and Nobles or the Borders at the mall. PFoster 15:38, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Hugo Chavez[edit]

The comment about Hugo Chavez and Chomsky's book seem to be true-ish.

I don't know if one can conclude that Chomsky has become increasingly popular due to this though. I'll leave it out as it's not really a very important point about Chomsky.JoeDuffy 08:57, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I changed the article to reflect the story above. CreamTwoSugars 09:33, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

His linguistics is not so good.[edit]

Computer programs based on Chomskian linguistics are poor translators, statistics-based devices translate much better. Modern neurology shows that real brains are based on statistics, which they must to be able to circumvent unplanned obstacles like those commonly found in nature (which robots steered by classical computers cannot). It has also been shown that statistical processing makes it possible to infer all grammatical rules from infant-directed speech without innate preconceptions, and that all universal or near-universal grammatical rules can be explained as innovations out of linguistic laziness without any need to invoke any common instinct(Francisco Lacerda) and that it is possible to develop/recover any cognitive ability, including language, after brain damage destroying any specific part of the brain, provided just that there is no rigid curriculum to prevent unconventional approaches to learning (Mind, Brain and Education). (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

I don't know of any computer programs that attempt to use chomsky linguistics to form the auto translation - and in fact Chomsky himself would say a computer cannot (yet) do language, so it would not be a basis for translations. Brains are not based at all on statistics, they are based on a process of interlaced awareness - that is, linked memories, linked assumptions, and linked creativity which produce novel solutions to novel problems. "statistical processes make it possible to infer grammatical rules?" are you kidding me? if that were teh case, we would have computers that could understand language. we do not, and so far we cannot. Lacerda does not, as far as I can tell, talk about "linguistic laziness", but rather stresses the way the mind reinforces language into simple patterns of sound. I assume you've studied ASL, yes? Cause that should strongly challenge your "statistical rule" theory. Further, I'm not sure that I've seen studies that actually support the idea that parts of the brain do not control language, or that they have been rewired, for all it is an intriguing possibility.--Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
When I wrote that brains are based on statistics, I did NOT deny the importance of connectivity, I just meaned that neurons process information in a non-binary way that allows gradual comparisons instead of absolute yes and no. And yes, statistical computers are fairly good translators. Statistics can reveal any correlation patterns and do not need to test every rule separately. It is just that inferring the rules in the grammar do not mean understanding what the language means, because no "disembodied brain" (intelligence without sensory input) can have any frame of reference to learn what the words mean. Another contributing limitation is that in non-binary brains, brainpower is all about improving neurological precision. It is often said that human language differs from animal communication by having specific words instead of just signals for whole contexts, which is mostly correct with some modifications for brainy animals like apes having intermediate levels of neurological precision (more specific than normal animal signals but less specific than proper human words), meaning that a statistical computer with much less capacity than a human brain should, by statistical language theory, have animalistic language limitations. Maybe I should call it "interferometric brain" instead of "statistical brain". Consider that during sleep, different parts of the brain do not communicate with each other. Voices heard in dreams speak complete nonsense, just like non-recovered aphasia patients. That some parts of the brain show more activity than others during specific tasks do NOT mean that part of the brain does the task alone, only that that task activates a statistically higher number of connections passing through that brain region. Destroying such regions may cause seemingly specific impairments, but it is just because of the number of connections involved, NOT because some regions is anyhow specialized for tasks others cannot learn (such iron-clad specialization is impossible because non-binary brains act by pattern emergence from examples and therefore cannot treat instinct-information fundamentally different from how they treat sensory information) And yes, there several documented cases of people recovering after having parts of the brain destroyed. Brooke had almost his whole left hemisphere removed at age 11. He could not speak just after waking up from the narcosis, but after six weeks he could say "mama", after one year he could have a decent conversation, and barely three years after the surgery he could attend a normal school class. It is all described in the show "Mind, Brain and Education". And yes, the metastudy shows that the key factor in recovering is a tolerant, flexible environment. The show contrasted the plasticity of the brain itself with the implasticity of the peripheral nervous system, remarking that the origin of dyslexia is in the sensory cells such as the retina, which I am sure is because the brain is a lump, allowing easy formation of new connections, while the peripheral nervous system consists of linear threads incapable of horizontal communication. (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

I don't know anything about computer translators, but you're wrong that neurons process information in a non-binary way. They operate on the all-or-none principle. When you say that the brain is "statistical" and that information is processed in a non-binary way, do you mean a Bayesian-style connectionist model? I think you're confusing some terms here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because neurons either fire or not fire do ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that they always fire at the same intensity when they fire or that other neurons react as if it were the same intensity. In fact, neurons can and do fire at different intensities, and that variation affects not only whether or not the receiving neurons fire in turn, but also at which intensity they fire if they do fire. Furthermore, there are synapses of different degrees of permeability, some let almost the whole signal through but there is a scale with more and more weakening of the signal for some synapses. The evolutionary reason why brains must be non-binary and statistical is that nature is full of unplanned obstacles, which robots with binary steering units cannot circumvent. (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Regular Expression[edit]

Regular Expressions were invented by Stephen Cole Kleene before Chomsky worked on the topic. Chomsky only invented the Context-Free and Context-Sensitive language classes.-- (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories[edit]

I don't know much about Prof. Noam Chomsky, but I have seen his work used a lot by conspiracy theorists. I know for a fact that he has denounced 9/11 truthers, but does he ever mention in his words anything of the likes of "New World Order" or such? Mr. Anon (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really in the way you're looking for. He doesn't go about arguing for secret cabals or hidden political formations; he's looking at political power and class interests. Some people read that as a conspiracy theory in itself ("the NTY is in the back pocket of the Republican Party/big business/etc. etc.") but basically he sees power as a structural phenomenon, in which business interests, politics, the media, etc all play their parts. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 19:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias Regarding 'Genocide' and Faurisson Affair[edit]

I've altered this section to be more accurate, and less biased/irritating. Whoever wrote it knowingly failed to include Chomsky's rationale for avoiding the word 'genocide', and falsely stated that Chomsky contributed his essay to Faurisson's book. It was unknowingly used, and Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to express and publish his opinions on the grounds that freedom of speech must be extended to all viewpoints. Chomsky also said, 'I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it).' That is not a 'collaboration'.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 11:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


I too have looked into the allegations of chomsky engaging in "genocide denial" (it's simply not there) which as far as I know is a separate concept including more than denying genocide and found that his complaints about the treatment of srebrenica are entirely centered around the colloquial usage(as revealed by the use-reference quotes of his)/the criteria for the UN's methodology for it (there is no downplaying or denial that the UN has deemed it so) and the lack of attention towards a large number of other even larger massacres

from one email "As for (1), it's certainly true, though the bulk of the atrocities were Bosnian Serbs. As for Srebrenica, the most extensive study, by the Dutch government, concludes that Belgrade didn't know about it, and that Milosevic was appalled when he heard about it. That's being kept under wraps because it explodes the Tribunal, which is unusually dishonest even by those not glorious standards."

"As for (2), it depends on how one wants to use the term "genocide." Personally, I prefer to keep it in its original intent: the Holocaust, Rwanda, maybe a few other cases. I never even called East Timor "genocide," though maybe 1/3 of the population was killed by Indonesia-US-UK, along with others who thought they could make a buck. Or Vietnam. Or Guatemala and El Salvador. But by now the term has been so cheapened that anything can be called "genocide" as long as some enemy carries out it. So there's no answer." .

from an email conversation "I purposely mentioned only one aspect of the book, which I do think is important, particularly so because of how it is ignored: namely the vulgar politicization of the word “genocide,” now so extreme that I rarely use the word at all. The mass slaughter in Srebrenica, for example, is certainly a horror story and major crime, but to call it “genocide” so cheapens the word as to constitute virtual Holocaust denial, in my opinion. It amazes me that intelligent people cannot see that."

"A second point raised in my letter to you (and in the article) is the vulgarization of the phrase “genocide,” so extreme as to amount to virtual Holocaust denial, and the reason why I rarely use the term. Take a concrete case: the murder of thousands of men and boys after women and children are allowed to flee if they can get away.

I’m referring to Fallujah, different from Srebrenica in many ways, among them that in the latter case the women and children were trucked out, and in the former case the destruction and slaughter was so extreme that current studies in medical journals estimate the scale of radiation-related deaths and diseases at beyond the level of Hiroshima. I would not however call it “genocide,” nor would you, and if the word were used, the more extreme apologists for western crimes, like Kamm, would go utterly berserk. Another of many illustrations of the two basic facts."

Another snippet of bias[edit]

He also attempted to downplay refugee escapees stories of the events, on the grounds that no independent verification could be done, despite the fact the Khmer Rouge kept meticulous records of the atrocities, as well as records and photographs of their victims (many of which are openly on display at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum).

Presumably this is referring to the book review he wrote in 1977, (and reprinted in Political Economy of Human Rights Volume 2, published in 1979). Isn't it intellectually dishonest to expect him to be able to independently verify the early reports using meticulous records that were only available to the rest of the world after the Khmer Rouge were deposed in 1979? (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The nature of the Khmer Rouge regime was already pretty common knowledge in 1977. Even by 1972, there was already disturbing evidence of the brutality of the Cambodian communists, and only a naive romantic would have seen them as just and noble freedom fighters.Thannad (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we add the category "Extreme moonbattery"?[edit]

As a leftist myself, I'll admit Chomsky has promoted some reasonable things, but he's still a little too extreme. He flirts around with genocide denial, hardly ever condemns horrible acts committed by other countries, advocates anarchism, and even promotes some of his own crazy conspiracy theories. Even some other leftists have criticized him. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I'm a leftist as well, but in order for Chomsky to be a moonbat, he has to say extremely crazy stuff on a VERY constant basis. In other words, he's more of an inverse stopped clock. (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've likewise argued against this categorisation on User talk:Arisboch (he added the category), because:
  1. Arisboch claims that because Chomsky uses a variant of the not as bad as-fallacy to justify not applying the term genocide to describe anything but the Holocaust this makes him a denialist (I think this is stretching the definition of denialist way too far, even if I think Chomsky is wrong on this point).
  2. This one instance, which pertains to linguistics, not disputing the facts of, say, the Armenian Genocide, is hardly something that means Chomsky can unequivocally be labelled an extreme moonbat (that, to me, would require the kind of consistent craziness as mentioned by .239 above).
  3. Seriously, look at the other entries in the category (cue Arisboch making another "Haha! That's a not as bad as falllacy!"-post). Even a relatively sane example such as Naomi Klein deals in quasi-conspiracy theory arguments in The Shock DoctrineWikipedia (Klein ought to read up on Hanlon's Razor). I agree that Chomsky's argument is spurious, but it doesn't involve bizarre conspiracy claims or even outlandish logic.
Also, none of those who keep reinstating the category has offered any justification beyond the (to me) rather flimsy one by Arisboch on his talk page. So, I'm going to stick my neck out and delete the category (again) until I see some more solid grounds for reinstating it. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Close enough to denialist, just like Neo-Nazis, who don't outright deny the Holocaust, but try to diminish it (push the body count down, make excuses for the perpetrators, demonize the allies and similar). And it's not only the Armenian Holocaust, he did it to the genocides in Srebrenica, Kosovo, Rwanda and to the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge. A constant history of using the Holocaust to diminish other atrocities warrants that category.--Arisboch (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but pointing out that the Armenian Genocide was on a far smaller scale and using this "not as bad as"-argument to refuse applying the "genocide label" to it is nothing Neo-Nazis who try to diminish/deny the Holocaust or Turkish nationalists trying to diminish/deny the Armenian Genocide by "push[ing] the body count down, mak[ing] excuses for the perpetrators, demoniz[ing] the allies and similar."
This was my gripe to begin with: Chomsky is not denying or even minimising the facts, but using a (flawed) argument about the relative scale of these genocides as the reason for calling them something else. If Chomsky had said that this "not as bad as"-argument even minimally justified these other genocides or made them less abhorrent, you might've had a point, but (to my knowledge at least) he hasn't.
Oh, and if you do feel the need to revert, please manually reinsert the category or at least keep the correct alphabetisation I also put in when I deleted the extreme moonbattery category. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
He did, by being publicly reluctant to call them genocides by using the Holocaust as a pretext. It's not outright denial, but it's close enough.--Arisboch (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's nowhere near outright denial mate, it's an argument over semantics. This is not extreme moonbattery. Tielec01 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You don't have consensus here, Arisboch. Let it go. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So, because he makes a (bad) case for rhetorically distinguishing between the Holocaust and (other) genocides because of their relative scale this puts Chomsky in the same category as Holocaust denialists and Armenian Genocide denialists who either play down the actual and absolute number of victims, claim that the perpetrators were somehow justified or weren't deliberately carrying out a genocidal campaign, or deny that the events took place altogether? I hope you can see the rather obvious difference here.
Instead, Arisboch's criticism of Chomsky actually sounds quite like part of what Norman Finkelstein has criticised as The Holocaust IndustryWikipedia: rhetorically downgrading other genocides based on the ludicrous notion that calling all of them genocides would somehow "water down" the particular horror of the Holocaust. Sure it's a load of crap, but it isn't denialism. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's close enough to denialism. Because denying genocides is in today's day, thankfully, unacceptable anywhere except in the fringe of the fringe of the fringe, people wiggle around it by either being publicly reluctant to use the word "genocide" (read the article on this very wiki about him!) or using the tu quoque in case of the Khmer Rouge.--Arisboch (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Again: You don't have consensus. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting silly, Arisboch. You now have three people telling you why Chomsky's sophistry is not the same as denialism by citing the examples you yourself provided, and your only comeback is that it's "close enough"?
And then you start speculating about possibly nefarious motives without actually providing any of the examples I've already asked for: Instances of Chomsky using his "not as bad as"-argument to make these other genocides seem somehow justified or make them less abhorrent on their own terms (rather than, correctly, identifying their smaller scale relative to the Holocaust when it comes to total casualty figures).
Also, what's tu quoque in case of the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields? Hell, I'll even grant that the Cambodian case sits ill with legal(!) definitions of genocide since these typically don't mention socio-economic class, but only "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". ScepticWombat (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Read the article about him on this very wiki.--Arisboch (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I did, and I also read what I could from the source on his criticism of the Khmer Rouge tribunal. Chomsky doesn't claim that the Khmer Rouge didn't kill a shitload of their countrymen, but criticised the prosecution for being limited to the time between the end of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia and before the U.S. started to support the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese, or at least that's as much as I can read for free. This is not an exceptional criticism, indeed this aspect of the Khmer Rouge tribunal has been widely seen as a case of UN/US hypocrisy or at least selective justice.
Basically, I think that this source, or at least the free excerpt, actually doesn't support the text in the RW article, so it's not so much an argument in favour of your genocide denial allegations as a case for revising the RW article's text, or finding some sources that actually match it. I've also noted that the following allegations of Chomsky's denialism vis-a-vis the Khmer Rouge are completely unsourced, and in need of some good references that aren't snapshots of the event while they took place (when the scale and horror made many outsiders reluctant to believe the all too true stories coming out of isolated Cambodia), but at a point when the atrocities were well-documented and -published so as to avoid Hanlon's Razor. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Argument examined. Stating that the Armenian Genocide does not meet his standards of what a genocide would actually be, IE, Holocaust-level, is neither genocide minimization or genocide denial. It's a statement of opinion that he does not agree with the current standards of genocides and how they should be reassessed. I think Chomsky's opinion is shit-fuck wrong, but it's a valid statement of opinion. He doesn't deny the existence of the Armenian Genocide. He makes no qualitative comparisons about killing Armenians versus killing Jews (and others). A wrong opinion, but simply an opinion nonetheless.
Therefore, not extreme moonbattery.
(No, I am not a leftist.) --Castaigne (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Added quote[edit]

I added the quote from Chomsky's Managua Lectures. I did this because the first, short quote with the editorial comment (while nice snark) unduly tilts the page in an anti-Chomsky direction, and is in any event misleading as to his full position. The quote I added contextualizes his views and approach.---Mona- (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Reverted. --Castaigne (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless an until you state a good reason for disagreeing, I will reinstate my edit. To avoid an editing war, please engage in good faith discussion of your objections. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The quote you added is very nearly the same in more words. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Mine much more seriously communicates Chomsky's position. So if it would be cleaner to use just one quote, how about mine?---Mona- (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Jesus on a Rubber Cross. Why is the quote Mona added being continually reverted? It is bang-on contextually and does not smell of quote mining.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't tell whether you are addressing me and referring to the longer quote I added? You think my quote = quote-mining?! Because I think the shorter one definitely does constitute that.---Mona- (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Clarified above. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm (sincerely) sorry, I just don't know whether your issue is with my edit, and if so, what that issue is? It is clarified where above? ---Mona- (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear Mona: "Why is the quote Mona added being continually reverted? It is bang-on contextually and does not smell of quote mining." --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I am capable of compromise, but if it is only going to be one quote, I will fight to have it be the one I added, because it fairly represents what the man actually believes. Moreover, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Glenn Greenwald, extensively cites that quote and adopts it as his own view.---Mona- (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It seriously communicates... that he blames America for everything, and can pull a "justification" for doing so out of his ass. Great. So why agsain are we removing the quote saying he blames America for everything? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
TheroadtoWiganPier, if I'm reading the fossil record correctly are you not reverting my quote? Or is PacWalker doing that?---Mona- (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I never reverted your quote... Indeed my name is not even in the fossil record for this article!! Please read carefully.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"It seriously communicates... that he blames America for everything" Ok, so let it stand then. If that's what it communicates you should love it, since you clearly hate Chomsky. I think it does not communicate that, and it is important to me that his actual position be set forth, while you, at worst, think it is redundant -- so leave my quote be, or leave it be the only quote.---Mona- (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
TheroadtoWiganPier, Jesus, I seem fucking retarded. Look, I'm still learning how to read the fossil record and even use it, and I overlooked that your stuff was for the "talk" page. Ok, NOW I really am going to bed before I further disgrace myself.---Mona- (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky doesn't blame America for everything. Does he seem excessive? Possibly. But he doesn't blame the Syrian conflict or Assad's regime on the US for example. Chomsky criticizes the holier than thou attitude among Westerners towards criticizing the moral conduct of others while not exerting the same proportional moral criticism to theirs, or even justifying such actions. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Merp. I think that's a mild understatement of his position, but what the hell. If I'm as right as I think I am (this never happens for real) the quote Mona added agrees with me. If I'm oversimplifying, it's a decent way to show that off. So I guess unless someone thinks some other quote goes into more detail or something... Let's keep either both or the one Mona put? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding Edit War[edit]

This article was waaay anti-Chomsky when I got to it. It (glibly) misrepresented his views about criticizing America and also the bit about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. At a minimum, the latter is a point on which the different views should be presented, because there is no consensus "right answer" among reasonable people. I intend to keep reinstating my edits unless and until someone makes persuasive arguments why I am wrong, or until it is clear the majority disagrees. Moreover, I'm not done yet, so those who really hate Chomsky had better be prepared to defend their positions with substantive arguments and facts.---Mona- (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You will do no such thing, because you're willfully ignoring what he can actually be cited as saying. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. IS. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know what your words mean. And yes, I will do such a thing.---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, where can I mail this child's dictionary? What words of mine do you not understand? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You are not engaging in good faith argument or discussion. My edits are intellectually respectable, notwithstanding your opaque objections. ---Mona- (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, he's on a clear record saying "but look the US bombed them, guys!" WalkerWalkerWalker 06:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To quote: "after all, an international trial that doesn’t take into account Henry Kissinger or the other authors of the American bombing and the support of the KR after they were kicked out of the country – that’s just a farce" No, actually, that's Nürnberg's premise that tu quoque is not a justification but an accusation. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think as a matter of compromise, we could incorporate some of Mona's text and some of Walker's text. Focus on what you both agree with to start with. Blacke (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So Walker, add that quote with your explanantion of what you think it means in terms of tu quoque (tho I think that's wrong) but leave the my other edits and the Hitch stuff in?---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to go to bed. But this article is SERIOUSLY deficient in analysis of Chomsky's extensive contributions to political analysis. He's being reduce to a wingnut-style caricature suitable for David Horowitz's site.---Mona- (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take quoting Chomsky's own wordsC over someone else's defense of Chomsky's words when they conflict, thanks. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
They don't conflict.---Mona- (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
OMG! I'm REALLY GOING TO BED NOW1111!!!! But I left Walker's paragraph essentially alone, and just added a short one following.---Mona- (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"'after all, an international trial that doesn’t take into account Henry Kissinger or the other authors of the American bombing and the support of the KR after they were kicked out of the country – that’s just a farce'. This resembles a tu quoque argument, the difference being that it invokes the actions of a third party, much like a third-grader complaining that little Bobby was also chewing gum yesterday. The same line of reasoning would have said at Nürnberg, 'well, you might have helped carry out the Holocaust, but the Allies did bomb Dresden, and it wouldn't be right to just try you on the basis of your actions.'"

I Think this is a faulty argument that's clearly not what Chomsky is saying, what hes saying is that American activities (bombing and support of the Khmer Rouge) effectively destabilized the region and assisted those responsible making America partially responsible for their actions (ie if bombing or support never occurred then they might never have risen to power or had the capacity to conduct such things). It isnt as though Chomsky is saying 'Well, America does it too so who gives a fuck.' that clearly isnt his position at all and to assert that it is, is simply facile. (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Chomsky's linguistics are by no means universally accepted. Could somebody with the necessary qualifications add a section about criticism of his work? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Enough of this shit[edit]

What's next? "Then again, Chomsky would probably object to the murder of Julius Caesar since it conflicts with euclidean geometry...."

Fuck off Walker, and trim this article back to the state where it was readable. He's a grammer nazi when it comes to terms like genocide, got it. (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He uses such pretexts as grammar and stuff to minimize genocides of countries, if it lets him take a shit at the US (just like Western Neo-Nazis do it with Shoa-denial, Turkish nationalists do it with Armenian Holocaust denial and "pro-Palestinian" activists kooks such as Mona do it with the expulsion of Jews from Arabic countries in the wake of the Israeli war of Independence 1948-1949).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"This resembles a tu quoque argument" Oh, lick my ass. The wars in Asia played a factor, however big or small, in the rise of the Khmer Rouge. That's the thrust of the argument. And one worth making, considering how Americans are kept in the dark about what we're doing to these countries until they start killing each other or turn around and hurl a bomb at us. (Never-mind the erstwhile Margret Thatcher on Blue Peter teaching children about how there exists a 'good Khmer Rouge' and a 'bad Khmer Rogue'...) You chuckleheads threw this in to shore up the allegations of genocide denial. Noam has made some gaffes in his long, otherwise-productive career, but to anyone remotely familiar with the guy, this smacks of libel. You're butthurt about his non-interventionist stance, that's clear, but get rid of this wall of text and stop being so mealy-mouthed about it. (I don't agree with the Globalization article but at least it cites examples and doesn't read like a meth-addict watching C-SPAN.) (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky whitewashing[edit]

Why the fuck did you remove SOURCED criticism?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't mean shit unless they're relevant, you know that. My sourced edits get removed all the time. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What's with the quote?[edit]

"We Americans to blame". ....And? I've read some of this guy's interviews and he didn't have a kind word to say about anyone. Yeah, it verges on Gunnery Sergeant Hartman at times but at least it's consistent. I was curious because a lot of pundits claim he's a Sandinista apologist, so I checked his views. His words: "Ortega seems to have become just another right-wing opportunist. He always was an opportunist."

Another interesting tidbit on Arafat: "Well, you know, I've always said the PLO was the most corrupt and incompetent third-world movement I've ever seen." He stopped just short of calling them Sith lords. The idea of Chomsky being a self-hating Jew/American/Whatever is overblown, in my view. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This comment about the PLO, was that before or after the Hamas started to do more terror than them?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, when did Noam stop beating his wife?

I'm get the feeling you're very competitive and aren't going to back down, no matter what I say. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No really, was that after or before Hamas started to do more terror than them? Cause when they did, the so-called "pro-Palestinian" clown car shifted their cheerleading from the PLO to the Hamas.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph...[edit] pure whataboutery by Chomsky.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No. He's addressing media-wide double standards. Not saying this or that person or group is wrong for for spending time fighting X while not fighting Y.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And the difference being...?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So you (Arisboch) think that. And now what? What's the problem with reporting accurately what is? (in this case what Noam Chomsky thinks about matters). You know, you can still disagree. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker, yup it's totally fuckwitted[edit]

I've been on the receiving end of that bullshit on many, many occasions. Because I largely follow the Chomsky rule, this causes reactionaries to allege I'm some sort of Putin devotee, or love ISIS, and assorted bullshit along those lines. To suggest I'm supporting these people and groups via an "argument from silence" is utterly offensive, not to mention stupid.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not fuckwitted. Mistaken, okay, but it's rooted in some fairly generic assumptions that (a) those topics have reached your attention, (b) you know enough to discuss them, and (c) that you would criticize what you deem wrong. C is a false assumption, but it's more or less the assumption that you'll follow what's otherwise a generally accepted norm. There's nothing fuckwitted about it, and the confusion isn't someone else's fault. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Assuming A is often sensible, B is not necessarily, and C is the basis of whataboutery. No one has the moral or intellectual obligation to condemn the entire universe of Bad Things because they primarily focus on Bad Things X, Y and Z. To accuse those limiting their topics of criticism and analysis of supporting other Bad Things is, indeed, fuckwitted -- and usually bad faith and mean-spirited.---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Assuming A is often sensible, B is not necessarily, and C is the basis of whataboutery." More or less correct, yes. "No one has the moral or intellectual obligation to condemn the entire universe of Bad Things because they primarily focus on Bad Things X, Y and Z." Entirely correct. "To accuse those limiting their topics of criticism and analysis of supporting other Bad Things is, indeed, fuckwitted..." Is indeed a mistake; that you support something does not necessarily follow from your lack of criticism. But in ordinary cases, that logic will, despite its failings, yield correct results often enough that it's an understandable mistake to make. So write something like this, maybe: "But yes, those who invoke the Chomsky Rule do tend to attract fallacious accusations of loving al-Queda/Putin/the day's boogeyman from both people accidentally overinterpreting their silence and people deliberately doing so as a dishonest smear tactic." Eh? WalkerWalkerWalker 19:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I put it this way: But yes, those who invoke the Chomsky Rule do leave themselves open to accusations from both fuckwitted "patriots" that they loves them Osama bin Laden as well as that nice Mr. Putin, as well from the merely mistaken who fallaciously think silence constitutes endorsement. Better?---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The split "both this (that they...) and this" is a bit odd, but I'm struggling to come up with better. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You both have to take into account that the Chomsky rule in debate isn't the problem. It's a very good conviction. It is rather the demand that other people who momentarily have their focus somewhere else basically shut up and instead make it their priority to talk about the shortcomings of their own government (which happens to be in there interest of the person saying it), which is where the Whataboutery comes into play. This accusation can be warranted, but it can also be a silencing tool. After all, not everyone is a public intellectual who has to make strategical choices on which hills they are prepared to die on, and not everyone is American. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated note[edit]

To whoever wrote the jokenote about "thanking" him for regexes, you are both genius and cruel. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Taken up at the insistence of The Roadto Wigan Pier[edit]

Taken up and undone. Snark is expressly wished for by RW and as for silliness, that is for each one to decide. In any case silly remarks are OK too. If you want to improve, just add to the article. There's abundant evidence of Chomsky's hypocrisy and that is the least of his sinsThis is not supposed to a hagiography of Chomsky, but it has been moving in that direction for quite a while. I don't remember whether you're a moderator or not, but in any case this does not call for any activity by any moderator. All there is to it is, like quite a few articles now, our mutual civil rights activist friend cannot stand the thought of an article they touch not entirely written by them or at least conforming absolutely to their views. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly for the record, let me state I am no great fan of Noam Chomsky, a position held for nearly 25 years now since I first heard him speak and afterwards met him in person. But the snark comment you are trying to defend is simply untrue. Chomsky has criticised plenty of non-US regimes, not only Israel. Even the bloody Khmer Rouge (eventually). --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
What is it that you don't like about Chomsky? I'm pretty much an admirer, tho I don't agree with him about everything.---Mona- (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I will not clog up this talk page but drop you a note instead. Also, I did not mean that I actively dislike the man or his views. Just "no great fan" in the way that many liberals of my generation are.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. No priority -- I was just curious.---Mona- (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
As for what I don't like about him, there are his linguistic theories (find out how you can get a built in grammar, infinite sentences (although to be fair, that was not his idea in the first place) and so on), his gathering of a cult, dishonesty in discussions and references, his hypocritical politics - pretty much everything. But I knew you were a fan, but you too can't always be right. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know, what a list of things Chomsky doesn't believe is doing on the page. I'm also curious about why this Greenwald character is featured. He seems to be as extraneous in this context as possible. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mona: I forgot to ask in the undo comment, but is it possible that somebody with your devotion to human rights has not heard of Rummel? I'm amazed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

David Greenwald's overexposure[edit]

I can not believe that anybody rational, who knows anything about Chomsky, would say that Greenwald's part in this article is in any shape or form needed, and he if he must be mentioned, then he's definitely quoted out of proportion. But as long as he's in, he's fair game, no matter whose darling he is. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In appreciation, Mona, it must be said that you are tenacious. But you called for a defense. Here is my stance. Greenwald is not a saint, he doesn't belong here, anf if you have anything to say about the authors of chpters 8 and 9, refer to them. Wheter this wiki's position is „correct“ or not is not for you to say, and it is questionable whether „the wiki“ has a stance per se. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Weaseloid: It was just a rule I was taught, first author last name first name, and the other way around if there are more. It's possibly an English custom or whatever, but I'll just go and check any book. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


@Mona, again. You do not decide what are non-references. I explicitly referred to the chapters on linguistics. You probably don't know much about the subject, but they are sound. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussions of wingnuts[edit]

I'm surprised that an experienced lawyer, self-described expert on religious studies and who knows how many other studies can't grasp, that the discussion on Chomsky's page should be about Chomsky. Discuss Horowitz all you want. He has his own page. There is also a link to him. There is probably an article about wingnuts in its own right. But your God delusion (not in Dawkins' sense) is really getting the better of you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"discussion on Chomsky's page should be about Chomsky". So how come the "further reading" is all books by other people? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
They all have something to say about Chomsky, usually a great deal. You can find most of this on the net, I suppose. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: I see that Mona has removed „The Anti Chomsky Reader“. That will be reinstated. That book is really pertinent, and Mona can just insert anything pro-Chomsky she likes. She already has. After all, under the See Also section you'll find Chomsky's official propaganda site listed. Comrie has the least to say about Chomsky per se, but he explains why Chomsky's idea, that studying a single language thoroughly enough is all takes to discover most or all there is about language is wrong. Every linguist knows this whether they admit it or not, and Chomsky himself may have changed his official opinion by now. His followers have had to be on their toes to follow each new version of his views. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You're missing the point. If these books are so important, cite them where it's relevant in the text rather than just telling the reader they're something they should read without explanation. But if you really must have a "Further Reading" section, when writing about a notable author, it should include at least some of his own works rather than just what other people have written about him. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Why should I do that? I'm representing one side. I'm sure Mona can put a long list together. Chomsky is a very prolific author. In any case, what I have suggested is all relevant. I even included Fromkin et al., who are or were (Fromkin has passed away) definitely Chomskyist as an example of Chomsky's influence. As it happens, I have had to read that book. My criticism of Chomsky is both because of his linguistics and his politics. Mona removed a linguistic reference. That's called suppressing information. Too bad she doesn't agree with the rest of the book. But a book about Chomsky is fully appropriate in an article about him - I'm sounding like a broken record pointing that out. In response to the reference, Mona started on a new section, counting those whom she hates, who in turn are supposed to hate Chomsky. And then she removed the reference. None of them wrote the chapters I quoted. She falsifies history, when she can just as easily insert sources of her own. And then she will continue with a section about people who already have their own articles! I'm sure you think I'm dumb, and that's your prerogative, but I honestly can't see any excuse for whitewashing any particular figure who makes an appearance in RW. This is not a place for hagiographies. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm ready to wait[edit]

@Mona „u r ignorant of both the foundational purpose of this site, and of Chomsky's role in U.S. intellectual discourse. stick to the linguistic“.

I think this quote speaks for itself. Chomsky's theories have been carefully torn to pieces many times over. The wonder is that he still has any followers, but that lies in the nature of a cult.

RationalWiki is not restricted to America. There is a world outside that you don't seem to know about. I'll happily indulge you and pick his linguistic theories apart. I am aware of this wiki's rationale. It is not to allow you to usurp articles and copy-paste the same stuff many over and over again in different articles. Your tragedy is, as has been pointed out, that you don't have the sense of humor to recognize snark when you see it, and you regard this and probably all other places where readers have had your wisdom pressed upon them as your forum, blog, article or whatever as your personal territory. The fact is that your contributions are so incredibly boring, that we can say like was said about Attila: Where his horse has trodden nothing grows. The European title of Sokal and Bricmonts book was „Intellectual Impostures“. That fits Chomsky. He may be considered an intellectual, but being an intellectual is not synonymous with being intelligent. And I even haven't begun discussing Chomsky's faithful Jerry Fodor, a philosopher who undertook to explain how the brain works. He is not qualified to do that. In any case, Chomsky's theories will die with him. His politics will not, but that is because there will always be wingnuts to carry on. Chomsky's status is in sum zero, and you can gather as many people like you as you want, just wingnuts on the „right“ in this case, and you'll either set up lots of opportunities to blow balloons or perhaps your polished speech should be left there. You do any cause you support a disfavor. Leave the writing to those who can write. And don't call for mama, when you don't get your way. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of Chomsky's followers are basically the same type of people who believe in disproven conspiracies; people who want to feel more intelligent than everyone else so they adopt a contrarian position or latch on to some "secret" that proves their own intellectual superiority. The rest are a bunch of anti-American nutjobs who just want any excuse they can find to compile into some sort of anti-American screed, such as Osama bin laden. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorte, you have a disturbing idee fixe on me. You wax and wane between overly solicitous comments on my talk page -- huge chunks of over-the-top friendly stuff about various obscure topics -- on the one hand, and on then other, then revert to wildly crazy things about my being full of hate; lacking in humor; believing I control this site; what a wretched writer I am; and my purported role as a Svengali in leading the RW sheep astray, including on the matter of Avenger. It really is creepy as hell.
Look, I do not regard the Chomsky article -- or any other -- in terms of a feud with you. You keep telling me how you can wait, how you only need to pop in every week or so to make edits I don't like, but, you also you have all the time in the world to make your tendentious edits. Here's how it is with me: I know a great deal about Noam Chomsky's role as a public intellectual, especially in the United States, where Chomsky is a citizen and professor. About his politics and his almost-half-century role as the American right's supreme bete noir, I know very much. My edits will reflect this knowledge. My edits will reflect this because they are fact-based and almost always accurate.
Additionally, when the Edward Snowden matter arose, Glenn Greenwald had been researching a book on Noam Chomsky's role in the U.S. as a public intellectual, with a focus on how the media and establishment political parties react to him. The two men have engaged in public appearances together and are friendly. Both because Glenn and I are good friends, and because I sometimes perform editing and research, as well as other tasks for him, I know a great deal about matters he engages with. None of that makes me right, but it does mean in some areas the odds are increased that I am. For this I do not apologize.---Mona- (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not have an idee fixe on you. But when I check out an article about someone or something I despise, you are amazingly often there defending the indefensible. I did make two attempts to make peace with you. It's just that there can never be peace between you or anybody, unless that person, not me in particular, absolutely agrees with you or at least doesn't write anything you disapprove of. I was slow to accept that conclusion, but there is. You are not engaded in a particular feud with me - you have feuds going all of the time in different places. But you obviously regard your „causes“ as your property. For proof see your entire history. You are correct that RW's rationale is demolishing wingnuts. But it is your idee fixe, that that only applies to the „right“ wing of the spectrum, however each one defines that concept, or even more narrowly, only those you disapprove of. Also, RW is not only about American debates. You seem to have missed that. You have never understood the concept of snark, but that is expressly wished for - otherwise the entire RW would become as dreary as your writing. The ability to write LOL is not indicative of humor. That's a learned response, at least least in your case. Now do something productive for a change - it would do you good. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Please. You pick edits in articles you fully well know I deeply oppose, and usually can undermine factually. Repeatedly you have pledged to stay away from anything I-P related, and then not only fail to abide by that, but you make bait-edits to articles where I have been active and which are all about the I-P issue.
Bottom Line: My understanding of Chomsky's politics and role as a U.S. public intellectual in his country is vastly superior to your own. I hold a command of the facts that run the course of his career in politics. Further, I am aware of how the right-wing has, for many decades, set him up as Chief Villain, and can and do document it. I am also cognizant that David Horowitz is a clown whom this wiki appropriately excoriates with much snark, and he is somewhat obsessed with Noam Chomsky. All of that is relevant to the article at this wiki and will be included (absent some unlikely consensus from others that it is all wrong), whether your right-wing views fit with that or not, and whether you like it or not---Mona- (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line: You're deluded. I came across Chomsky, because I wanted to see what RW had to say about him. So with everything else. You seem to suffer from a persecution complex. In any case making material disappear is not honest, and you are a charlatan. Another bottom line is, that you don't call the shots. You're not clever enough for that. But running for help, crying is apparently a favorite tactic of yours. How old are you again? And to repeat, RW is not for Americans exclusively. Also, to keep articles readable, you have to be able to write. And how do you justify the disappearance of a mention of a book about Chomsky in an article about Chomsky? You are really a thick as a brick. As for left and right, not everybody, who doesn't share your hallucinations about what is left or right is actually on the right. Just as a finale this time: I'm by no means the only one you don't get along with. Those you do get along with are most likely in the single figures. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"you are a charlatan" "You're not clever enough" "How old are you again?" "You are really a thick as a brick." "your hallucinations" "crying is apparently a favorite tactic of yours" -- Nothing to add to all that: Res ipsa loquitur.---Mona- (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Uh, Mona, when citing out of context, it is usually best not to do it directly under the very short original. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


To do David a favor, I'll state some terms, as they spring to mind. The first is that The Anti Chomsky Reader stays as a reference, and possibly as a source for quotes. That is not open to discussion. Now you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

David Horowitz and numerous other wingnut haters of Chomsky -- across decades -- are going to be set forth in the section I have started. If you can marshal a majority for also including in External references or whatever that which is also cited and referenced in the wingnut section, have at it. About this: "That is not open to discussion." [rolling eyes]---Mona- (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Equally rolling eyes. It will be there, or there will be no article. Period. I referred to specific chapters not written by Horowitz. And your take on what is appropriate seems to include „disappearing“ records - I think I have seen that used as a transitive verb. That's called faking history. The guest appearance by Greenwald is totally unwarranted, but if you insist on having him, you have to take the flak. Listing the things Chomsky doesn't believe in is simply idiotic. And, The Ministry of Truth has an opening for you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: Sorry for mentioning it here, but I saw no need to insert an addition to the Apartheid talk page. I have faith in most people's abilities to detect sarcasm. And if you can, it's virtually certain, that almost everyone will. You still haven't got quite a number of remarks. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"And, The Ministry of Truth has an opening for you" See folks? He simply cannot be reasoned with. Certainly not when it comes to me. Ever since what he sees as my Svengali spell over this community that "caused" Avenger to be perma-binned, this is how he's been again. (It's happened before but he apologized for the last bout in which I was Satan and romantically involved with editors who agreed with me & etc. ad absurdum.) Please review his statements to and about me in the immediately above section, as well as in the Avenger coop case archives. Then, judge my impatience with trying to negotiate any kind of peaceful resolution accordingly. I'm saying: it can't be done.---Mona- (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
When you've finished digesting the outright lies in this one - and yes there are, based on the usual relentless literal reading (when it suits her), pass her a hankie, will you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if both parties take a breather for a few days and let things cool off? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I asked David Gerard for an assist and he protected the page for a bit. About a week I think. It was mildly annoying that he set that as I was editing in material on Ben Shapiro and Bill O'Reilly vis-a-vis Chomsky, but I saved the links and the quotes. And there's more wingnuts to collect -- as you may know, especially in the U.S. Chomsky's been their fav monster for a loooong time.---Mona- (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nicely inserted. You do realize that keeping your lists of enemies, things Chomsky doesn't believe in and overrepresenting Greenwald just leaves the more to work with, don't you? The presentation is ridiculous, and probably hurts Chomsky. In any case, you were not alert enough to remove the references I gave in the text, so the Reader goes back in - under any circumstances unless you can find an excuse to remove The Skeptic's Annotated Bible from the article on the Bible. And I'll treat you with a few choice quotes from Seuren. You have something to look forward to. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"so the Reader goes back in - under any circumstances" I see. And I'm the one who acts as if I own and control this wiki? pfft ---Mona- (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not quite that. It's because the Reader is relevant under any circumstances. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it absolutely is relevant, which is why I have included it an analyzed it in the wingnut section. I am also culling the reviews from reasonable people slamming it. You really should check out David Horowitz more thoroughly, Sorte, He is one of the most reactionary and fact-free wingnuts in the U.S. Chomsky is certainly not immune from reasonable crticism of his views, but that Reader, I assure you, is not such a work. Horowitz is not capable of editing a reasonable work on anyone who is to the left of Reagan. Sorte, he's a clown, which is why this wiki's entry on him takes the approach that it does.---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) As for the page, we are taking a breather. We'll see how long it lasts between edits here. But the question I was about to post was this: How many people do you really think are following this with a semblance of interest? That was intended for Mona, but you can perhaps give an estimate (3-4 at most I assume), but I have a feeling this is not a top priority for most of the world. Good night, it's late over here. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mod assistance please[edit]

Sorte Slyngel has been making endless tendentious edits at the Noam Chomsky page; TheRoadftoWiganPier and I had to mess with Sorte much of last nite. He's hot and heavy at it again today. He's still miffed about the Avenger resolution and is acting Avenger-like. So petulant and into edit-warring he's removing embeds to our own wiki, specifically to the David Horowitz article that accurately calls Horowitz batshit crazy. I've politely asked Sorte to stop and advised I have better uses for my time here, to which he replied " I have lots of time." And then continued with the edit-warring. Please assist.---Mona- (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh, there's no talking it out with Sorte. And (sniffle) you protected that just as I was editing in great stuff from Bill O'Reilly and Dinesh D'Souza. Ah well, it did have to end. I'll save the links.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I thought I would find my friend Mona here, running to mama. And there's that word „tendentious“ again. TheRoadtoWiganPier actually played a minimal role and left, after a factually untrue statement was reworded. And no, Mona cannot be reasoned with. One of her strategies is removing solid references. Hardly honest. We'll see what happens, when this expires. In any case, some clarification would be appreciated about whether RW is there to pick wingnuts apart generally or just those on the American right. Mona seems to lean to the latter understanding. I hope that's a misunderstanding, otherwise the R might be dropped from RW. And yes, I have my stuff too, don't worry. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"is there to pick wingnuts apart generally or just those on the American right. Mona seems to lean to the latter understanding" Nothing you say about me is true. Including that. Nor do I "remove solid references" unless I think they are wrong and that isn't the dispute here. (And if it is the case I removed one of your linguistic references it would have been an error when I was moving your serious citation to the clown David Horowitz to the main text.) And Sorte, David Gerard is not my "mama." He's a moderator at this wiki. "Running to" a moderator is to ask them to perform their jobs; it's part of what they're for. And nice passive voice there Sorte: "after a factually untrue statement was reworded." What you mean is both he and I objected to your false nonsense and you finally had to change it. Then, yesterday you proceeded with yet more nonsense. ---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kids, kids! I'm sure we can sort it all out in a collegial manner on the talk page! Now let's see how well you can both get along, okay? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath. If Mona insists on dictating the entire content of her pet articles, then there's not much to talk about. I did think, for instance, that it was appropriate to refer to a book about Chomsky in an article about Chomsky. Mona disagrees for personal reasons. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have full faith in both your abilities to interact in a productive manner! - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
David, if you hold that faith vis-a-vis Sorte you might want to review his performance in the Avenger coop case. Just sayin'. He is very angry at me and regards me as the cause of that "injustice." Somehow I have inveigled you and a majority of the community via my evil powers.---Mona- (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, Mona, now you are being irrational above your usual sense of duty. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, because I don't actually care - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sound move. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My only interaction here was to insist that Sorte Slyngel not tell lies in a footnote (an unfortunate habit he shares with his friend AvengeroftheBON). But I do think it is more than a little distasteful that he seems to be stalking Mona and posting in a rather unpleasant manner.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That was an exaggeration. Chomsky is selective in his criticisms. I don't tell lies on purpose. I don't stalk Mona. I was unfortunate enough to meet her in my first days here and as it turned out, she is pretty reliably there, when I check out pretty distasteful articles. As for the Chomsky article itself, she's trying to sanctify the guy, and that is not the purpose of RW. As I understand it, any loon is a target, left or right. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: As for lies, what do you call suppressing references which you do not like? That's a lie in itself and seems to be one of Mona's favorites. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Chomsky is a lot of things, but he's not a loon. Perhaps that misconception is why your edits aren't passing muster? Queexchthonic murmurings 16:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Chomsky's viewpoints on genocide makes him a loon. The guy is reluctant to call anyone who he supports on what they actually do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone doesn't think somebody is a loon, that does not make him immune. He's a saint to Mona, who's the only one showing any interest. The article speaks for itself. And suppressing quotations and reading material is dishonest under any circumstances. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If editors have evidence that Chomsky holds views on genocide that render him a loon, they are certainly free to argue that and have that edit accepted if their argument is persuasive. For my part, I rely on facts, including the huge record of right-wing vicious and dishonest attacks on Chomsky that have been made over many decades. I can document all that and am in the process of doing so. Sorte claims: "suppressing quotations and reading material is dishonest," which is, of course, false. There have been many decisions made at this wiki not to cite or use a particular quote or source, or not to use them approvingly. This is called prudent editing and writing and is often a community decision -- it is not the least bit dishonest. Finally, it is possible I inadvertently removed a non-political, linquistics source. If I did I apologize. I know almost nothing about that field and am competent to edit only the portions of the Chomsky article that pertain to his role as public intellectual in the political realm. That said, I have concern that Sorte, who admits he despises Noam Chomsky, may be editing the linguistics portions very poorly and therefore hope other more reasonable editors with some knowledge of that field assess Sorte's edits in that area.---Mona- (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
ADDING: Sorte wants to rely approvingly on a text edited and promoted by David Horowitz, a clown whose entry at this wiki includes him in these categories: Batshitcrazy Conservative wingnuttery Conspiracy theorists Insufferable assholes Internet kooks Islamophobia Racists. Whatever criticism Chomsky merits, no reasonable person is going to conclude that such criticism is likely to be sensibly and rationally on offer from David Horowitz, and it is in fact not on offer.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
How often do I have to tell you, that the chapters referred to (yet) are by specialists, not Horowitz, and that Horowitz is perfectly acceptable as a reference. He is presumably right some of the time. You are engaging in some sort of Reductio ad Hitlerum here. Did you ever learn any logic? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not competent to assess the chapters on linguistics, but those chapters I am competent to assess are absurd and dishonest. Further, I have read many reviews in which the linguistic chapters are scathingly dismissed; I tend to accept those assessments because that is the assessment proper to the political sections. In any event, surely if linguists have reasonable differences with Chomsky those can be culled from many sources other than one by a reactionary asshat like David Horowitz! He's not a linguist, either, nor is the other editor, Peter Collier. This is not remotely a scholarly work.---Mona- (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to answer this. Never mind the editors. I have not yet referred to them. Of course Postal's, Levine's and Williamson's articles have been referred to scathingly by linguists. There's still a cult out there, so anything unfavorable to Chomsky will be criticized as mercilessly as Chomsky himself deals with dissidents. Chomsky's response to Everett was to call Everett a charlatan. The jury is still out on Everett's results, but the research is not thanks to Chomsky himself, the guy is as old as the mountains, so he can be excused for not saying much of anything, but Everett is still the world authority on Pirahã. As for Chomsky's infinite sentences, I came across this tidbit which will be referred to, when the time is right. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)He has had to been chased into admitting ever being wrong. You were suppressing material, and in case of the Reader, something only distasteful to you. The following people have all one thing in common: Barack Obama, Mother Teresa, Stalin, Gandhi, Jesus and Chomsky. They are all here on RW and they are all legitimate objects for criticism, snark and what have you. And I'll just say it out loud: You are dishonest. You remove a book reference, but took that reference as an excuse to write more of the same about your pet objects of hate. As for the linguistics, no, you clearly don't know anything about the subject. I do, and the reason I was led to Chomsky is that I am regrettably exposed to his wingnut theories in real life. But, still, you will not admit that he can be criticized or made fun of, so there will be no compromise. You are unable to do that. But your silly lists do give a lot of ammunition. You don't seem to realize that the very extreme style of your contributions are repugnant to quite a number of people. Finesse is something you don't possess. And just to save you the trouble: Pot. Kettle. Black. I'm certainly guilty of some of your idiocies, but never so consistently. By the way, I'll mention Daniel Everett in the near future, as well as citing Seuren and mentioning Chomsky's infinite sentences. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well Sorte, I'm willing to stand on my record of supporting what I claim. As for your accusation that so many find my ways "repugnant," a few weeks ago in the Avenger coop case, to you I was incomprehensibly popular to many here and leading them astray with my wily lawyer powers. Your "defense" of your editing preferences are replete with nasty personal attacks. It's been that way for you forever -- you've even implied I am mentally ill and romantically involved with other editors to get my way.
It is very difficult to try to negotiate edits with an individual who is so hate-filled and personal in his opposition to me and my edits. So, I'm simply going to go about my research and make edits according to my research and write when the page is unlocked. I will rely on the general good sense of this wiki's community to assess whether my edits are satisfactory.---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I said „your boyfriend“ or something to that effect referring to a supporter. That was a throwaway line which anyone with half a brain would have recognized as such. I did speculate that you are mentally ill and to tell the truth, I haven't seen anything to counter that. Write away, please. I did, once upon a time, have the impression that you have more influence than you actually do. As for insults and such, you resort to them as you please - you're just not very good at it. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"I did speculate that you are mentally ill and to tell the truth, I haven't seen anything to counter that" Good-bye, Sorte.---Mona- (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish that were true, but unless you keep removing everything you disapprove of, we'll meet again, regrettably. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to sum up[edit]

I'm studying linguists as is and have been for a while. I've followed the subject as an amateur, albeit a well-informed amateur (yes, sue me if I'm boasting here) for much longer. Chomsky is inevitably mentioned more than once in any lecture (excepting Historical Linguistics) and linguists can be divided pretty clearly in two camps. Those who disagree with Chomsky, and say why they do. Those who follow Chomsky on the other hand, just say „Well, it's obviously so“, when questioned. It is telling, that historical linguists rarely mention Chomsky at all, and when they do, it's to disagree. Linguistic typologists mention Chomsky for historical reasons. Others usually owe their promotion in academia from being given tenure by a committee of other followers of Chomsky. Quite a few outside two these specialties mentioned above have other opinions, but the cult, and I use that word advisedly, is still strong. Syntax is still often or even mostly taught according to Chomsky, but the weight Chomsky is given depends on the local culture, so to speak, and underlying structures are still resorted to even if that results in a very far fetched and really incredible „explanation“. Once upon a time, Chomsky did something new, and that spawned a cult. Now he's out of date and has been shown to be wrong in most or all cases. That's just his linguistics. As for his politics, just read the article about him. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to reassure. I am culling the professional literature. I have to anyway. I'd be grateful for the information, where the linguistic chapters in the Reader are scathingly dismissed. The chapter by Williamson is actually the story of getting information out of Chomsky and Chomsky's wriggling and maneuvering. He's very adept at lying his way out of admitting being wrong, even when the evidence is there. I have access to a number of journals, thanks to a government decision many years ago, that allows the entire country access. If the dismissal is in a professional journal, I should be able to find it. If it is in The American Revolutionary or something like that, I'm unlikely to find it, and unlikely to bother. And no, I am neither obsessed with Chomsky nor Mona. I just have to read about Chomsky's „ideas“ more than is really healthy which in turn led to me checking on him here again. I had read the article before, but not bothered much although I did mention something or other. It's sure to be in the fossil list. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to some serious faking, Mona wrote a block of text around this, drowning it in verbiage, but here it is:

Whatever you say about Williamson, have you read the chapter? It doesn't sound like it. And Postal and Levine are another chapter. So you want to throw them out too? Guilt by association? That is the entire rationale of your section, or better put, tell me who your most deranged enemies are, and then you will be declared a saint. By that criterion Horowitz would be a saint too, since he's hated by the lunatic left fringe. He is certainly hated by others, more reasonable, but Chomsky himself is on the lunatic left. And the lunatic right is not alone in criticizing Chomsky although you seem to think so and made an American brand right wing conservative out of me. That doesn't really show much knowledge about the world outside the US. But don't worry, both chapter can be quoted individually. But this still belongs there - along with Seuren, Tomasello, Evans, Pullum, Everett etc. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Wiliamson is a supporter of David Horowitz and was criticized by academics for addressing linguistic arguments in a polemical screed like the Anti-Chomsky Reader. To which Williamsons replies:

...he has been able to take his outsized and largely unchallenged reputation in linguistics out into the larger world in order to use it as a platform for his America-bashing. Since he chose to come out into the larger public arena, that is where we chose to attack him - not just his politics, but his linguistics. Through The Anti-Chomsky Reader and, we have been able to talk about his linguistics theories in ways that the general public can understand, without having to worry about having a scholarly paper accepted by any of the highly buttoned down academic journals.

The Reader and Frontpage are as shabby intellectually as anything on the Internet. (And yes, I am very sure Willimsons can get all kinds of stuff published on Frontpage that a scholarly journal would throw in the trash bin.) Whatever else is true, Williamson wrote his claims about Chomsky with a strong political motive that has nothing to do with linguistics. I'm highly skeptical that neutral scholarly assessment comes from someone who is majorly pissed that Chomsky has a platform for his "America-bashing."

As for the ACR itself, this Amazon review is cited often. The author dissects and debunks the first two chapters (one by the unhinged Tom Nichols who still sees reds under beds), then concludes:

The Anti-Chomsky reader is nothing more than a collection of misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies, and consciously willed lies. The rest of the essays that follow are of the same intellectual-scholarly caliber as the ones previously discussed. I urge you to read through them and confront the evidence they present, I'm sure you will find that it collapses upon quick inspection.

Everything preceding that conclusion supports it.---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I also recommend this review at Amazon. To quote: "Another thing that I find amusing about THE ANTI-CHOMSKY READER is the allegation that Noam Chomsky doesn't back up his arguments with evidence. Why, the footnotes to UNDERSTANDING POWER, the book I reference at the beginning of this review, are so extensive that they are stored in a website and not in the book. The footnotes and supporting evidence if printed would be longer than the book itself! (To see these footnotes, put ".com" behind the book's title.)"---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is also interesting. I had forgotten they couldn't get a mainstream publisher to take the ACR:

Each chapter assumes to refute one or another of Chomsky's contentions or theories, or to address one or another of Chomsky's views. Accordingly, each chapter is tackled by a "who's who" roster of B-grade neoconservative pseudo-scholars and wonks from nefarious groups like the American Enterprise Insitute, the Heritage Foundation,, and Lacking any sort of value or intellectual appeal, the book apparently couldn't find mainstream support which is why it's published by a company (Encounter Books - [...]) that is owned by one of the authors (Peter Collier).

For example, the section by Eli Leherer on Chomsky and Ed Herman's "Propaganda Model" (published in the book "Manufacturing Consent") fundamentally misrepresents the entire Propaganda Model as articulated by the authors. He sums up the Propaganda Model as having three tenets (it has five), and essentially puts an inexorable amount of words into the mouths of Chomsky and Herman, setting up straw man arguments never advanced by the two in order that he might easily knock them down. He also takes portions of the text out of context. Anyone who has actually read "Manufacturing Consent" will find find Lehrer's critique utterly lacking in any substance whatsoever.

Yes. Manufacturing Consent bears no relationship to it's descriptions in this polemical screed.---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And Amazon reader reviews are scholarly sources? Read the stuff and judge. If you want something pro-Chomsky, I can recommend The Cambridge Introduction to Chomsky, fawning articles, even one by Bricmont. But your logorrhea failed to make a point as usual. And you faild to get the point. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've read a good deal of Chomsky himself. And actually, there are some scholars reviewing the book at Amazon, tho obviously not in a scholarly format. (Williamson has an interaction there with one of them.) The reviews I cite include a factual and logical debunking of this screed, published by a company owned by Collier, Horowitz's co-editor. That's why I quote them here on the talk page.---Mona- (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec)And apart from deranged linguistics - he hasn't come up with a new idea for half a century - Chomsky is mostly known as an America basher. I can quite agree, that America is not God's own country (that would be my country, of course) and that America has a lot to answer for, but unless pressed, Chomsky lays the blame of practically everything, either directly or by extension on America. And that's the truth. He had to be practically (mind you practically) tortured to accept, that Pol Pot was a mass murderer, and even then he chose to engage in polemics, as he usually does, about the meaning of genocide. Donald Knuth is on record as having had an inspiration, when he first read Chomsky. That was not because of his linguistics, but because Knuth found what he needed at the moment and then emended and went on to write TeX and METAFONT. Then he gave both labors of love to humanity. Chomsky on the other hand, commands or commanded exorbitant fees on the lecture circuit telling people that America, Israel and whichever country was the culprit of the day stank. Knuth is a benefactor of mankind. Chomsky is just a self populizer. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I see.---Mona- (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way: What makes Manufacturing Consent anything else than the propaganda piece it is, attractive to the leftist fringe to which you belong? Again, just because Chomsky says something, it does not have to be so. And noone should be tortured by reading everything he has ever written. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly on Manufacturing Consent, my emphasis:

Herman of Wharton and Chomsky of MIT lucidly document their argument that America's government and its corporate giants exercise control over what we read, see and hear. The authors identify the forces that they contend make the national media propagandisticthe major three being the motivation for profit through ad revenue, the media's close links to and often ownership by corporations, and their acceptance of information from biased sources. In five case studies, the writers show how TV, newspapers and radio distort world events. For example, the authors maintain that "it would have been very difficult for the Guatemalan government to murder tens of thousands over the past decade if the U.S. press had provided the kind of coverage they gave to the difficulties of Andrei Sakharov or the murder of Jerzy Popieluszko in Poland." Such allegations would be routine were it not for the excellent research behind this book's controversial charges. Extensive evidence is calmly presented, and in the end an indictment against the guardians of our freedoms is substantiated. A disturbing picture emerges of a news system that panders to the interests of America's privileged and neglects its duties when the concerns of minority groups and the underclass are at stake. First serial to the Progressive.
---Mona- (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times review of Manufacturing Consent finds that the authors sometimes overstate their case, but overall declares the work to be valuable:

With highly detailed research, they move through a series of case studies: the press's trumpeting of the murder of the Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko by Communist state police in 1984, while paying little attention to priests murdered in our client states in Latin America; the press's praise of elections in El Salvador and its criticism of the 1984 voting in Nicaragua; the disinformation campaign that surrounded the supposed K.G.B.-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope in 1981; and what the authors see as the press's voluntary self-censorship in covering events in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

...many of the book's raw-data comparisons are compelling indictments of the news media's role in covering up errors and deceptions in American foreign policy of the past quarter-century. And Mr. Herman and Mr. Chomsky deliver a dark prognosis for America's ability to conduct a successful and moral foreign policy.
---Mona- (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You can always count on somebody to write favorably about your propaganda. Chomsky, Marx and Freud all have in common that they had bad ideas, gathered a larged following and never tolerated dissent from within. Marx and Freud have already been assigned to the rubbish bin of history and Chomsky is on his way out. For easy reading, I recommend Paul Postal's Skeptical Linguistic Essay's (2004 - and yes, Postal is competent) and Geoffrey Sampson's The Language Instinct Debate (with a foreword by Postal, but that is coincidental to my having the book, indeed Postal declares himself *agnostic on the questions at issue“, you may believe that or not, the words are his), as well as the more technical Chomsky's Minimalism (Seuren, 2004) which deals with the newest Chomsky-incarnation or Michael Tomasello's The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, 1999. None of these deal with politics, and this is only what a very short stint of research turns up. A couple of hours or so, and then you have to get the books of course, but that's easy. Calling Manufacturing Consent anything but a polemic is idiotic. Das Kapital was an idiotic polemic too. Both works have in common that they are presented matter-of-factly at length and are very tedious. It doesn't make them right. I remember a great cartoon by Bo Bojesen showing the attempts of Willy Brandt trying to converse with Walter Ulbricht through telephone, Fernsprecher in Brandt's case, Volksfernsprecher in Ulbricht's and Brandt commentin, „He answers in the East when I ask in the West.“ In this scenario, you would be Ulbricht. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then.---Mona- (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It's getting late over here, so I will have to take my leave for now. I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, but RW is just a sideshow. Every now and then I can check, while doing other things. RW is apparently all you do. When the protection expires you will work on your new section and probably other things.
I want to be fair, so I'll just tell you what can be expected. A criticism of Chomsky's linguistics, supported by references, and Postal's and Levine's chapter will feature. Williamson's chapter is very quotable since it documents Chomsky's dishonesty - regardless of where that article appeared. That applies to the other chapter too, although Postal and Levine are more substantial. And if you should succeed in banishing the Reader, don't worry, there are other sources, reputable by any standard, documenting intellectual dishonesty - showing how Chomsky manufactured consent himself in building his legend. I have an array of sources for that part, and I'm in no hurry, but the authors I've mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg.
As for the section on deranged right lunatics, you cannot possibly have overlooked, how beautifully that lends itself to snark, and there is nothing you can do about it. The same applies to The Chomsky rule at all levels.
The list of things Chomsky doesn't believe is also prime snark material, and you can do nothing about that either. That Chomsky doesn't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theory is hardly newsworthy. In fact, I don't believe in any of the things Chomsky doesn't believe in, at least as mentioned so far. I might add, just to take an example, that Chomsky probably doesn't believe in dowsing, astrology or UFOs. Neither do I but since every little thing is brought up, I think it's appropriate to list these too - and if that turns out to be factual, as it will, you can't remove those comments either. They would fall under the headin true but snark You wouldn't be able to exclude a comment of that kind on grounds of triviality, since the other things are fairly trivial too.
One possibility would be a quick check to find out whether Horowitz and cohorts believe in 9/11 theories. I suspect they don't, but that would be mentioned, quite appropriately. I might also reword your section change Dawkins' Pettiness to something more appropriate - and, no, I didn't see that until I followed your link to Greenwald. Greenwald already has snark about him, even if you didn't get it.
You see, it is not enough to mobilize all the invective at your command. That you can do, as proven many times over. So can I, as a matter of fact, but I mostly keep it to the talk pages, and I admit, that I have been harsh - but then again so have you. I don't remember running to the nearest moderator for sympathy, when things weren't going my way. While Paravant was here, he bore the brunt of your whining, now it's David and he couldn't care less, as he pretty much said himself. But, as long as there is rhyme, reason and snark, you can not get away with undoing everything - although I've discovered that reason is apparently defined differently in America and Europe - or that may possibly just be you. I sincerely believe, that there are a lot of reasonable and rational Americans, since I have both met them and read their works. But my reading would probably not appeal to you.
I'll also change a few paragraphs to their original wording - you have diluted quite a bit. So, you can start reading, I'm just doing you a favor. Wow, I've written quite a lot. Don't worry on my behalf. It took a couple of minutes, that's all. Goodnight and sweet dreams, perhaps the kind of dream that colorless green ideas have, when they sleep furiously. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok.---Mona- (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to oblige. If you ever feel the urge to categorize me politically again, have a look at this first. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No thanks.---Mona- (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No thanks, meaning you won't look or no thanks you won't categorize? In either case, you have been given the proper coordinates for me. Doesn't matter. I only popped by, because I forgot to provide this link, since you love reviews: The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate. Look forward angel. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Agreed.---Mona- (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Who said we couldn't agree on something? None of us matter in the long run. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't resist satisfying your unstated and unsated curiosity: Social Democrat. :-) In any case, you have missed the opportunity to use a lovely Oscar Wilde quote on me, so I'll indulge you, paraphrasing: Of the people you have met, I'm the one who talks the most and says the least. I was born to be a public speaker. This will come in useful to you some day. I can also please with an Hercule Poirot reference, although I can't remember whether that was in the book. Poirot was told by Captain Hastings that he might show a bit of humility when accepting congratulations, such as: Oh, please! It was nothing. Poirot doesn't quite get the point since he is after all the best. At the conclusion, Poirot nevertheless says Please, that was nothing making Captain Hastings laugh. But as Poirot states, he has now shown himself to be capable of humility, and now that he is, he will break the world record in being humble. There's a message buried in there. :-) Cheerio and till next week Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to say it clearly: If you hadn't pushed Greenwald (or whoever pushed him) into the Chomsky-article, I never would have bothered. As it is, the Greenwald-article is the usual, deadly boring saint stuff. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte Slyngel[edit]

It is most likely I will revert the majority of his edits. I will generally do so without explanation. Any who wish to learn why this is more than justified should see the discussion here.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Check it out. Since my blocking history was invoked as a reason for undoing edits, you should look at her's too. The last block I received was apparently just vengeance on Pb's side. I asked for a reason for several separate changes and asked for a rationale for each of those. Apparently none have been given yet. As far as blocking is concerned, Mona and Pbfreespace3 now take turns undoing what I write. It's nice to have such devoted friends, who do not look at the edits they're undoing. Cheers. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Direct everyone to here for explanation of my block of Sorte. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Documentation of someone's relevance[edit]

What sometimes happens with claims that something or someone is not relevant, is the article ends up so over-written and over-sourced it's editorially unsound. In this instance, I've reference-noted the crap out of the Greenwald portions, and could continue. The "Chomsky rule" has been popularized by Glenn Greenwald, who has been targeted for animus and criticism for that. This is a subject with which I'm very familiar, and frequently do research for him. Before the Edward Snowden/NSA bombshell, Greenwald was working on a book about Noam Chomsky's role as a public intellectual, and the two men were friendly. They appear together for public discussions at venues like Harvard.

If some question whether Greenwald is a significant figure, I can and will link to all the "Top [fill in the number] lists" of major voices and pundits. Also, I can document all the major outlets that treat him as such. But the article itself shouldn't be about all that.---Mona- (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)