Talk:Noam Chomsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleNoam Chomsky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleNoam Chomsky has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
September 9, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
January 15, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
October 27, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 27, 2019Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 7, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


Hello @Czar: This primary sources should only be used to fill in the necessary cracks where secondary sources don't go[1] is not correct. WP:PRIMARY sources are routinely used when they are the subject's description of the subject's positions. Additionally this is a crack – Chomsky's opinion that mass education is a form of propaganda is not covered by other text in the article.

I unlinked the link that I because MOS:SEAOFBLUE and because it is unnecessary next to a link which links to that. The person's article links to the group he belongs to. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

In a biography about arguably the most cited living scholar, we have a world of secondary source analysis available to us. We should only be resorting to primary sources as a last resort, as the guideline recommends. There are plenty of academic sources you can cite on his education views if the points are noteworthy. And two links next to each other are not a "sea of blue". czar 07:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a scholarly matter in linguistics. This is a political opinion. In any case I see no reason why WP:V isn't sufficient.
And two links next to each other are not a "sea of blue". That is precisely what MOS:SEAOFBLUE is. When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue"), Invasive Spices (talk)
This isn't some random person with a paucity of sources. He's the most cited person alive. With this much content, the bar for inclusion is much higher than having said something once. If it's important, there should be plenty of secondary sources on the subject.
Again, I'm more than familiar with the guidelines, and two links in a row, even per the linked example is not a "sea of blue". It is more confusing for a reader to not know what a "Black Panther" means than to potentially think there was a person named "Black Panther Fred Hampton". czar 02:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chomskys Denial of the Bosnian Genocide[edit]

May I ask Wikipedia doesn't at least mention his denial of the Bosnian genocide? It mentions his other controversial options and beliefs of rumored anti Semitic talk and protests against continuing US Imperialism but doesn't mention his blatant changing of context and utter denial of the Bosnian Genocide.

Link to Video of loads of evidence by Kraut- TreySutt22 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide reliable secondary sources about this. nableezy - 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
most of my sources are mentioned/ in the comments of the video i posted the link to. Even though its not my work, Kraut has put the research into one comprehensive and connecting video TreySutt22 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kraut the Parrot doesnt really seem like a source we need to consider here, if you have third party secondary reliable sources please provide them. Academic sources would be best. Thanks, nableezy - 20:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im begining a school/ college project related to thise subject. May I ask why Kraut the parrot isnt considered a good source? Many of his videos point out both sides in an argument and usually is political in nature but tries to remain unbiased TreySutt22 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TreySutt22, Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains in full what Wikipedia considers reliable and why. In general, reliability is a function of the publisher's rigor: whether they fact-check, have a reputation for accuracy, employ experts with a pedigree, etc. Some of the links in Kraut's video fit this description but then the question becomes what to include and why. For why this article does not cover Chomsky's views on specific political regimes, see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. czar 03:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently Wikipedia does acknowledge it, just not (currently) in this article. See,existence%20of%20Bosnian%20concentration%20camps. I hope that might provide you with some help in sourcing the matter to Wikipedia's standards. Be under no illusion that this article is under heavy watch by Chomsky-stanning gatekeepers who'll use any procedural trick at their disposal to stifle criticism that doesn't tick every box they can dream up. Such is Wikipedia. Lordrosemount (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chomsky drew criticism for not calling the Bosnian War's Srebrenica massacre a "genocide". While he did not deny the fact of the massacre, which he called "a horror story and major crime", he felt the massacre did not meet the definition of genocide.
— Noam Chomsky#In politics

It's been in this article for quite some time and discussed multiple times, but nice try. czar 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with Dates RE: Chomsky's Second Wife[edit]

For some reason, this page currently claims (in the fact box on the top-right) that BOTH of Chomsky's wives died in 2008. This is despite the fact that his second wife, Valeria A) is currently alive and B) didn't even marry him until 2014, so it'd be pretty weird if he married her six years after her own death. I can't seem to find any error in the actual page code when I go to edit it... but it's consistently there on the page. Anyone know where this is coming in from? What am I missing? Bishop2 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bishop2, not sure where you're seeing that but it reads to me as "Carol Doris Schatz (m. 1949; died 2008) Valeria Wasserman (m. 2014)" which is our standard notation. Wasserman is not marked as dead there. By the way you can sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). czar 04:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]