Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 5

message: The text currently says:  "... from around 1964, he became one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War."
Shouldn't this be "from around 1967", with the publication of "The Responsibility of Intellectuals"  in the New York Review of Books?  He was active against the war prior to that, but as I understand it, it was really "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" that brought him national prominence.  Robert Asprey, War in the Shadows (1994):
:Increasingly influential and strident voices were questioning not only the conduct but the very raison d'etre of the war. In February 1967, Noam Chomsky's explosive essay, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," appeared in the New York Review of Books and thereafter was widely circulated--one of the "... key documents in the intellectual resistance to the Vietnam War," in that it called for the nation's intellectuals, who passively opposed American participation in the war, to become engage--in David Schalk's term--and even embrigade or counterlegal if necessary "... to speak the truth and to expose lies." 
--Russil Wvong 06:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Chomsky become a leading opponents of the Vietnam War? 

message: Any objections if I move the criticism of Chomsky's political views one level up?  Instead of being a subsection of "Political views" (6.6), it would be a separate section, renamed "Criticism of political views" (7). Russil Wvong 20:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section breakdown 

message: This article is very long, and many things are mentioned multiple times, and not always linked on their first occurance. Should we clean this up or just leave it? Should the link go where its most relevant, or where it first appears or both?
:Things should ideally be linked on the first occurrence.  I don't see what's wrong with the length as long as we trim any pointless bits.  Chamaeleon 10:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Length/Links

message: I object to the description "socialist" in the sentence "Outside of his linguistic work, Chomsky is also widely known for his activist socialist political views and his criticism of the foreign policy of the U.S. and allied governments."  
I wouldn't describe him as a socialist, he doesn't describe himself as a socialist;  I've only seen his detractors describe him as a socialist.  Maybe save what his detractors say about him for the criticism section? 
I'll probably remove that word if there are no objections, or if anyone has something better to replace it with.  "Libertarian-socialist?"   But then the next sentence is too awkward. Perhaps "anarchist?" --I know who my sister is. 04:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to quote Chomsky saying "I am a..." because he rarely writes about himself, but about the issues.  However, it is easy to find a huge number of articles written by him that say again and again that "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are meaningless if they are not forms of socialism, and that Leninism was always fundamentally anti-socialist and anti-liberty.  He is a libertarian socialist (anarchist).   :) — Helpful Dave 09:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I also object to removing "socialist". Lets be straightforward in presenting him as a he defines himself in his writings. Symes 00:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I also think it's accurate to describe him as a socialist. Cadr 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand how he is socialist in one sense of the term, but based on how Wikipedia defines socialism in the article the word links to, I don't think it fits. I think saying libertarian-socialist instead of socialist would be much better.  But, if more people think socialist is better, than so be it, it's not too bad, IMO. --I know who my sister is. 03:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Socialist" doesn't need "libertarian" attached to it all the time.  It already refers to the sort of beliefs Chomsky has; "libertarian" just clarifies it.   — Helpful Dave 08:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if "libertarian" clarifies it, surely it should be included? Cadr 10:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is used in the article isn't it?  It doesn't need to be used systematically every time the word "socialist" comes up.   — Helpful Dave 10:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist? Objection to intro text. 

message: Contrary to what the article says, Skinner did not believe that there were no mental states, just that they weren't fit for scientific study. Also, he did not believe that the mind was a blank slate. His theory of operant conditioning draws explicitly from Darwin's theory of evolution. --Heida Maria 11:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On Skinner

message: I can see why some people would want this removed (being pretty pro-Chomsky myself), but it seems a reasonable addition. I suppose it depends on whether "related" implies that Chomsky is somehow sympathetic towards Faurisson, which he obviously isn't. Cadr 09:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the other people in the list, and they were all people similar to Chomsky: radical academics etc.  The sole purpose of putting Faurisson in this list was to imply that Chomsky is a holocaust denier.  I therefore removed it.  If the list is turned into a list of people involved in controversies in which Chomsky has been involved, then of course Faurisson can be on it, but Horowitz etc would also be on the list.  There is also the issue of whether there is any point listing people who are already mentioned in the article.  — Chameleon 10:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Perhaps the title of the list should be clarified a little, if it is limited to people with similar views to Chomsky. Cadr 11:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Robert Faurisson]] a "related" person?