Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 4

message: Queued images Chamaeleon 18:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get exactly where you want each picture.  Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know.  I have just a video of the debate.  It in turn is presumably taken from either TV or Manufacturing Consent.  Chamaeleon 14:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the full debate? The movie only has an short excerpt. Sams 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 12 minutes and 50 seconds of debate.  It starts off with Chomsky saying "Let me begin by referring to something I've already discussed..." (perhaps the beginning of the debate, after an initial question) and ends with Foucault making rather extreme judgements on the concept of justice, and the camera fades out.  Chomsky speaks English, Foucault speaks French, and it's all subtitled into Dutch.  I found the file on eMule. Chamaeleon 04:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have the same file (from emule), but I don't know French:( Its filename says that it's taken from the dvd extras of the movie. As I mentioned above, I could take screenshots from the movie, but I hoped that someone with the dvd could do it, in order to get the highest possible quality. From it we can take a picture of Chomsky when he was younger in front of a board, talking to Jean Piaget. Also a picture of him talking to students (including Michael Albert) outside at MIT during the Vietnam War. Maybe also a newspaper clip of him being arrested. There's a common old picture  that we could use for the Contributions to linguistics section, instead of a picture such as that with Jean Piaget, but it's only available online in low quality, it appears. Sams 12:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queued images 

message: ;"Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum. 
:This is a key argument that he makes, and a direct quotation.  No need to remove. Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Reductio ad absurdum'' on Sudan

message: ;he feels "there really is no need" and notably has not done so, leaving few claims to refute.
:If he shoots himself in the foot like this, it's not our fault.  Chamaeleon 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horowitz

message: This whole article seems to mostly whitewash Chomsky's documented support of the Soviet Union, state terror and mass-murder.
Looks like this one needs to be marked for a rewrite.
:No, those loony claims are noted in the article.  Chamaeleon 06:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash 

message: I'll admit I know very little about the Faurisson business but it seems to me that the image included is a bit POV. Showing only Faurisson in the hospital after he was beaten up is an emotional image, and it implies that the most important aspect of the incident was an overreaction to what Faurisson said, thus implying that Chomsky was noble by defending Faurisson. These things may all be true, but they are POV and the image should be replaced with something more neutral such as a simple headshot of Faursson or a picture of the cover of his book. In any event, Faurisson getting beaten up is tangential to the story, the focus should be what Chomsky had to say about the incident.
:The affair was all about a noble defence of Faurisson against thuggery and censorship.  (Of course, Faurisson is a total nutcase and his weird, paranoid research isn't worth reading, but that's not the point)  If that is the impression given by the facts, then that's a case of the facts speaking for themselves. Chamaeleon 10:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faurisson Image POV? 

message: Do we still want the notice on the page? Not really decided either way on this one, but it's been there for a while, and given that this article is always likely to be a bit controversial, we might want to consider taking it down during the clamer periods. Cadr 22:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I'd say they've calmed down.  See Benjamin Kerstein's most recent addition to this page.  I'd leave it there for now. Russil Wvong 16:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: Do we really need the conspiracy theory subsection of the external links subsection? At present there are three link, the third link appears to be dead and the other two don't seem particularly encyclopedic. The first link is brief. The title is Chomsky's links to the military, but the page says nothing about the military and merely refers to Chomsky as an "illuminati shill" and claims that he got a job at MIT without any experience (they neglect to say he was a top Harvard grad student). The second link is a rant on Chomsky's opinions of the JFK assassination. I only skimmed it but it didn't seem to have much value. If someone thinks the JFK business is useful than maybe it can be added to the miscellaneous links, or if there actually is something to write about we could make a page on Conspiracy Theories Concerning Noam Chomsky or something and link to that, but there doesn't seem to be much need for a section on conspiracy theory links. GabrielF 04:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory Links