Talk:Noam Chomsky: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:32, 20 June 2005

Latest revision as of 20:15, 24 August 2025

Line 1:

{{featuredSkip to talk}}

{{todoTalk header }}

{{Controversial}}

{{Round in circles |search=no |canvassing=yes}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=FAC

|action1date=02:53, 9 Sep 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noam Chomsky/archive1

|action1result=promoted

|action1oldid=5766771

|action2=FAR

See also: [[Talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism]], [[/Archive_1]], [[/Archive_2]], [[/Archive 3]], [[/Archive 4]], [[/Archive 5]]

|action2date=22:28, 15 January 2006

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Noam Chomsky

|action2result=demoted

|action2oldid=35307618

|action3=FAC

== Please discuss ==

|action3date=17:45, 27 October 2007

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noam Chomsky/archive2

|action3result=not promoted

|action3oldid=167110977

| action4 = GAN

Trey and TDC are making some edits that I feel are mostly destructive and have been forced to revert. If they want to put forward some arguments for such edits, they can do it here. Until I see some justifications, I'll have to just revert them. — [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 12:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

| action4date = 20:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

| action4link = Talk:Noam Chomsky/GA1

| action4result = listed

| action4oldid = 912724756

| action5 = PR

| action5date = 17 April 2023

| action5link = Wikipedia:Peer review/Noam Chomsky/archive1

| action5result = Reviewed

| action5oldid = 1150270184

|maindate=December 13, 2004

Naturally you would feel these edits are destructive as they tarnish Chomsky's halo. I might also add tat this article is the one of the worst examples of creep around. As soon as it becomes balanced and well written, it slowly devolves into love fest for the topic.

|currentstatus=GA

|topic=Philosophy

|otd2date=2019-12-07|otd2oldid=929742627

|otd3date=2023-12-07|otd3oldid=1188780590

|otd4date=2024-12-07|otd4oldid=1261408275

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Chomsky, Noam|1=

{{WikiProject Anarchism}}

{{WikiProject Anti-war|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=high}}

{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high|american=yes|american-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=top|theoretical=yes|applied=yes|philosophy=yes}}

{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Philadelphia|auto=inherit|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid|philosopher=yes|language=yes|science=yes|mind=yes|contemporary=yes}}

{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}

}}

{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=

{{refideas|1=https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/noam-chomsky-select-bibliography-secondary-sources-8c55f4402dfb

|2=

}}

{{Top 25 Report|Jun 16 2024}}

{{Annual readership}}

{{section sizes}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 16

|minthreadsleft = 3

|algo = old(45d)

|archive = Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive %(counter)d

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

== Road to FA, pt. II ==

At any rate, back to the matter at hand.

<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 05:46, 14 April 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1997070370}}<!-- END PIN -->

Some remaining tasks to take this article to [[WP:FA|featured status]], with some imported from the recent peer review:

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Review all citations for [[WP:TSI|text–source integrity]]

: Communist movements in Asia that he believed to be grassroots in nature

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Replace primary sources with best-in-class sources

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Replace chomsky.info sources

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Bundle citations with {{tlx|sfnm}} where feasible

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Rewrite the parts that rely on "Brain from Top to Bottom"

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Rewrite the beginning of {{alink||Universal grammar}} and add a paragraph break

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Define "rationalism" as parallel to definition of "empiricism"

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Get a better source for Saudi Arabia political views; try McGilvray

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Get a better source for views on partition of Palestine

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Reduce hagiography in {{alink||In politics}}: remove quotes, pare second paragraph, expand on Srebrenica massacre remarks, consider page number for Rabbani 2012, consider paring re: Horowitz, Kay, ADL, Dershowitz

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Address history of controversial statements on genocide in the political beliefs section {{doi|10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1738}}

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Turn the achievements laundry list into readable prose

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Confirm with sourced prose or remove the flatlist items from the infobox

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Add commas after "in year X" clauses

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Consider whether to expand on his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Incorporate noteworthy anti-Chomsky critique into the Political views section so the final section can focus on Influence/Legacy

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Cross-reference {{IEP|chomsky-philosophy|Noam Chomsky}}

* {{Template:Checkbox (colored)|unchecked|color=green}} Invite reviewers to the FA nom

<span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 04:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Stating that marxist/maoist movements in Asia were "grassroots" is factually incorrect. No major group during the cold war was either independent from Soviet/Sino control or not heavily influenced by them. To simply call these grassroots, is factually incorrect, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

== Does his political work count as academic? ==

Providing a biased description of the Hoover Institute on this page is nothing more than a subtle attempt to smear it. This article is about Chomsky and to a lesser extent what others have had to say about his works and opinions. This article is not the place to preoperatively label people who have had things to say about him. Descriptions of the organization and individuals belong on their separate Wikipedia entries, not here. [[User:TDC|TDC]] 17:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The infobox seems to think so, as it describes it under the academic section. I know very little about the structure of US academia, but this strikes me as somewhat implausible. Has Chomsky ever published anything peer-reviewed regarding politics? [[Special:Contributions/94.44.239.68|94.44.239.68]] ([[User talk:94.44.239.68|talk]]) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Two thoughts:

:Since no one has responded to this in 3 months, I'm adding a Citation Needed template to the infobox, after the claim that "political criticism" is an academic discipline of his. [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 19:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

::{{talk quote block|Has Chomsky ever published anything peer-reviewed regarding politics?}} Yes, e.g.: {{doi|10.1080/03056249108703884}} {{doi|10.1080/19187033.1985.11675610}} {{doi|10.1017/S0260210503006053}}

::He also taught a course on politics at the University of Arizona. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 12:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

== The top picture ==

:First, the article no longer describes the Communist movements in Asia as grassroots, which I agree borders on POV. It mentions the "grassroots level" and "grassroots aspects." The American Heritage dictionary defines grassroots as "people or society at a local level rather than at the center of major political activity." I think it's fairly obvious that people at a local level were involved in Communist revolutions in Vietnam and China (just as ordinary Germans were active in the Nazi Party -- it isn't a normative definition), and it is their activities that Chomsky was praising, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my book, but that's beside the point).

It seems to me unattractive and inappropriate to have the photo of Chomsky at the top of this article (in the infobox) be a very recent one, showing him as a really ancient old man. Isn't there any guidance from WP about how to choose such pictures? I think one of him in his 50s or 60s, showing him as many people think of him, and as many people will remember him, would be better. I'm not 'good at' photos in WP, so I'll leave it to someone else. [[User:Himatsu Bushi|Himatsu Bushi]] ([[User talk:Himatsu Bushi|talk]]) 00:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

:Second, on the Heritage Foundation. Virtually all non-profit organizations, including most of those engaged in political advocacy on the right and the left, receive foundation funding which originates in corporate profits. Seeing as we're not engaged in an in-depth discussion of Heritage, I see no clear need to discuss their funding. What we do need to make clear, however, is that Heritage is a conservative think tank, so that readers understand that the critic being named is not without his own political motives.

:Perhaps the best solution in my view would be to revert it to [[:File:Noam Chomsky portrait 2017 retouched.jpg|the previous one]] for the time being, and then open an RfC to discuss which image to use as the posthumous portrait after his passing (e.g. [[:File:Portrait of Noam Chomsky used in the April 1961 issue of The Technology Review (cropped).jpg|1961]] or [[:File:Noam Chomsky (cropped).jpg|1977]]). [[User:Mr. Lechkar|Mr. Lechkar]] ([[User talk:Mr. Lechkar|talk]]) 10:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

:[[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 19:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:It is custom to have the latest normal picture of the person in the infobox. More flattering youthful pics relevant to the peak of their career are placed when the person is dead. I thought the pic was alright even though its quality was not good. If it is removed solely by the reason of quality I get it. [[User:Nurken|Nurken]] ([[User talk:Nurken|talk]]) 20:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. groups have to fund themselves, and if Hoover takes donations from corporations rather than personal fundraising then so be it. some corporations, anyhow, support Democratic candidates pretty strongly, so this is a red herring meant to smear Hoover as a "corporate tool" (i guess only far-left publications like Z-Mag and Democracy Now! would qualify as "independent") [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 22:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:: OK, so are we going to apply a label to everyone in the article, and if not, then why? [[User:TDC|TDC]] 19:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

:::TDC, here are the three points I can extract from your comment: (1) a personal attack (2) a misunderstanding about what the word "grassroots" means (3) offence at any info being given about the Hoover people. You then bring up (4) the question of whether people in the article should be described. Here are my replies: (2) you can alter the wording however you like, but the gist should continue to be that Chomsky was positive about some grassroots aspects (i.e. the ordinary people on the ground) of Communist movements in the Far East whilst opposing other things such as the authoritarian nature of such movements, their marxist ideology, and their various other failings, as is to be expected of any anarchist. (3) It is important to point out one or both of the following things about the Hoover Institution lest they be mistaken for something they are not (a) their position on the right of the political spectrum (b) the fact that they are bankrolled by big corporations. (4) Plenty of people are described and labelled in the article, especially Chomsky himself. The Hoover Institution is one described in virtually no detail whatsoever. Your argument about no labelling leads to the ''reductio ad absurdum'' that most of the content of the article should be stripped. The word "preoperatively" makes no sense here; I can only assume you mean "pejoratively". If facts about an entity seem pejorative (i.e. put it in a bad light) to you, you should examine the merits of the entity rather than attacking the facts. &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I have to question your thought process if you think that taking donations from corporations automatically affects an organization's politics. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 22:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: Well I may as well start by hauling out some evidence, there is lots (especially from Gabriel Kolko's Anatomy of a War), but for now I will stick to what is currently at hand. Starting with what Chomsky actually says because it JUST MIGHT be an important desiderata for authoring an article about him that people should have read a good-sized sample of his work, without preconceptions, having SINCERELY TRIED TO UNDERSTAND HIS ARGUMENTS.....

from the interview in the Chomsky Reader published in 1987. p.26-27

"Take the Vietnam War. It was clear by the end of the sixties that the United States had achieved its primary objectives. It had effectively destroyed the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam and the Pathet Lao in Laos, ensuring, as I wrote at the time, that only the harshest and most authoritarian elements in Indochina would survive, if any would. This was a major victory for U.S. aggression. Principled opponents of the U.S. war were therefore in the position of, in effect, helping to defend the only surviving resistance in Vietnam, which happened to be highly authoritarian state-socialist groups. Now I don't think that was a reason for not opposing the American War in Vietnam, but I think it's a reason why many anarchists could not throw themselves into the struggle with the energy and sympathy that they might have. Some did, but others were reluctant because they were highly critical of the regime that was going to emerge, as I was. Within peace movement groups, I tried to dissociate opposition to the American war from suppport for state socialism in Vietnam, as many will recall. But it was no easy task to undertake serious opposition to imperial aggression, with the very real personal costs that this entailed, on such a basis. This was easy enough for bystanders who were satisfied to cluck their tongues in dismay, but it was quite a different matter for those- primarily young- people who were really trying to do something to end these atrocities. In fact, the American movement tended to become quite pro-North Vietnamese, segments of it, at least. They felt that they were not simply opposing the American war, but they were defending the North Vietnamese vision of a future society.

:: jp: I think that there was the wish on the part of some to see a genuinely humane alternative society.

:NC: Yes. And many felt that this was what the North Vietnamese, the state socialist bureaucrats would create, which was highly unlikely, particularly as the war progressed with mounting terror and destruction. It's worth trying to come to grips with these questions, but that is a very difficult thing to do, for one reason because we're not doing it in outer space. We're doing it in the United States, in the midst of a society which is devoting every effort to enhancing the most harsh and authoritarian and oppressive elements in that regime, or to destroy the country outright. We are doing it in a society which will use our very critique for destructive purposes. Those are facts which no honest person will suppress or fail to attend to. And this remains true today, just as it was during the war. The United States has never terminated its effort to win the war in Vietnam. It's still trying to win it, and in many ways it is winning. One of the ways it is winning is by imposing conditions which will bring out and emphasize the repressive elements which were present in the Vietnamese Communist movement..." (and so on)

Next something to consider from radical historian Carolyn Eisenberg, who you should be familiar with from the criticism section : "To take the case of Vietnam. It took the antiwar movement years to drive home the point that the NLF was an indigenous movement, and that rather than being a Soviet creation, the NLF was, if anything. struggling to get Russian aid." (Radical History Review, 1989). (Note: I do realize that indigenous is not synonymous with "grassroots", nevetheless take it for what it says, the NLF was not anyone's puppet."

Finally from Gabriel Kolko, who Chomsky has cited for amny years on Vietnam, an excerpt from his classic history, "Anatomy of a War.":

"The (NLF) Party always understood the crucial role of local initiative and mass participation, particularly as the increasing demands of security reduced the higher level’s quick access to grass-roots organizations, and adaptively strove to overcome any elitist, passive tendencies which existed, all the while defining a broad, common framework for action. The Peasants liberation Association was the largest of the NLF mass groups, and in many older revolutionary areas it was the real local administration. By mid-1965, according to the CIA, the various liberation associations had roughly half a million members. Other U.S. estimates for a later period showed that anywhere from one-half to three-quarters of the rural society in the NLF-controlled regions participated in the many facets of the local administration’s work – compared with one-fifth in "contested" areas and with less in solid RVN regions. The local Party branches, too, were instructed to assume as many key responsibilities and possible and to operate autonomously of the higher Party on local administrative questions. This made local Revolutionary government far move responsible to the masses than was the typically bureaucratic RVN system, as well as capable of surviving on local resources for military and for other functions." [http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/kolkoch10.html Anatomy of a War- Chapter 10]

[user: BernardL]

:once again, if the Viet Cong were "indigenous," WHY did they disappear after the NVA took over South Vietnam? [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 22:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:: To me it's readily evident in the excerpts what Chomsky would likely give as an answer. Just as an exercise, what do you think Chomsky would say in reply? [user: BernardL]

:i don't care what excuses Chomsky would make. the Viet Cong were a tool of the PAVN. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Why would Chomsky make an excuse? You do understand that he is an anarchist, right? &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 23:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:yes. an anarchist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for anti-American Communist dictatorships. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 23:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I hope you understand that that is rather unlikely (like "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists") and that the burden of proof is therefore on you. If you can find a quote by Chomsky supporting any régime, I'll be happy to add it to the article. &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:you have to be seriously deluded if you really believe everything you just said. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::OK, I'll take this as an exercise in patience. When I said I hope you do understood that he was an anarchist, I didn't just mean that I hoped you knew that the word was applied to him, but that I hoped you understood that he was actually an anarchist, i.e. someone opposed to all authority, in particular government authority. With me so far? Tell at what point you think my argument breaks down. OK, so if he is an anarchist, it is ''a priori'' unlikely that he would support a dictatorship, right? Before you answer that, tell me whether you agree that "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists" would also be an inherently unlikely assertion and one that would require a lot of evidence to back it up. &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 01:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:the problem is that for Chomsky, pure anti-Americanism trumps whatever "anarchist" ideology he may possess [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 07:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::OK, so you bring in a second ideology to explain it. Great. But you do at least see that "an atheist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for religious fundamentalists" or "an [American] anarchist with an inordinate amount of sympathy for anti-American Communist dictatorships" are assertions that seem rather unlikely and require a lot of proof? &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 08:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument that Chomsky support grassroots aspects of SE Asian Marxist/Maoist movements while simultaneously criticizing the authoritarian nature of such movements might be convincing had he done the latter. During the timeframe of the conflict, late 1960’s and early 1970’s Chomsky was silent on any authoritarian or totalitarian bent in these organizations or regimes. And once again, there are no specific “grassroots aspects” of theses movements spelled out in the article.

There are hundreds of adjectives that could be used to describe the Hoover Institute, describing them as “corporate funded” is not only POV, but is also inaccurate. The list of donors to the Hoover Institute clearly shows them to be foundations, not corporations. I realize that you may not see a difference between the two, but anyone familiar with the causes and organizations supported by the [[Ford Foundation]] can see that they are most likely not in line with the interests of the Ford Motors. At its core the Hoover Institute is a libertarian think tank, and if it to be described with any adjectives at all in the article this would be the most appropriate. [[User:TDC|TDC]] 15:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:I didn't say he had criticised specific movements or governments. There is no need for him to do so. His anti-authoritarian ideology has already been clearly stated on numerous occasions. He has also explained on numerous occasions why he focuses the vast majority of his criticism on his own government. Even if he had never specifically criticised any government in the world except for the American one, that would not prove that he supported those governments. The burden of proof is upon those who claim he has specifically supported them.

:That said, of course, he ''has'' criticised such movements in passing, which adds up to a large amount of condemnation over the years. For example, in the following:

::''If you look at all of the stuff I wrote about the Vietnam war, there's not one word supporting the Vietcong, [...] The left was all backing Ho Chi Minh: I was saying that North Vietnam is a brutal Stalinist dictatorship. But it wasn't my job to tell the Vietnamese how to run the show. My view is that solidarity means taking my country, where I have some responsibility and some influence, and compelling it to get its dirty hands out of other people's affairs. You give solidarity to the people of a country, not the authorities. You don't give solidarity to governments, you don't give it to revolutionary leaders, you don't give it to political parties.'' [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19940603.htm]

:To this we can add the countless occasions on which he has used adjectives such as "brutal", "atrocious", "gruesome", "Stalinist", "authoritarian" etc. when describing (so-called) Communist organisations, leaders and actions in a variety of countries, including Cambodia and Vietnam. &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::"So-called?" No, they were Communist (and communist,) plain and simple. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Whilst I realise that we are talking about parties that were wont to use the word "Communist" in their names, and that it is customary in the West to call such movements and governments Communist, in my own writings I am careful to note that they are only "so-called" because these people never brought about any sort of communist society as theorised by Kropotkin or even by Marx; and furthermore I believe that such authoritarian movements are the worst enemy of communism (in the only meaningful sense of the term). &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Once again, all well after the fact. All the adjectives you listed, Chomsky never applied to the Khmer Rouge (for example) until well after no one would dare deny what had taken place.

:: The quote you provided was interesting and would be relevant had he wrote it in 1964, or 1974, but for him to provide his condemnation of the Vietcong in 1984 (how ironic) does not live up to the burden of proof in this situation. His passing criticism the North Vietnam as a “brutal Stalinist dictatorship” was new in 1984, as he never made any such mention of it when it would have been relevant. Nothing I have found during the relevant time period, including the New Mandarins, even touches on the authoritarian nature of the North Vietnamese or any other Maoist/Marxist movement. Seems to me, that during the relevant period in the 1960’s and 1970’s the only thing had had to say about North Vietnam was cutesies and cuddlies about its glorious revolution.

:: And while I have to admit that you do have a point when you say that because he did not condemn them means he did not support them, actions often speak louder than words. Going to Hanoi as a guest of the North Vietnamese and making a sugar coated propaganda broadcast over the radio could be viewed in some circles as support for the North Vietnamese regime, because thats exactly what it was.

:: Or from his April 13, 1970 speech in Hanoi:

*:: ''While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by [[Le Duan]] on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements.''

:: I also find it interesting how Chomksy tried to distance himself from this issue by claiming that he could not recall making a speech.

:This is what Chomsky had to say about that speech, in an e-mail to me:

Something appeared in FBIS in 1970, purporting to be a transcript of

a speech of mine over radio Hanoi. I never gave any speech over

radio Hanoi, or anywhere. It's possible that informal remarks were

picked up of mine, or someone, at a meeting of some sort after Doug

Dowd, Dick Fernandez and I spent a day travelling through parts of

the bombed out countryside and some villages in the neighborhood of

Hanoi, a pretty shattering experience. Can't say any more than that.

My own report was in the NY Review a few weeks later, reprinted in At

War with Asia. This particular item has been circulating for about 30

years, at least.

:So, one: he doesn't say he "could not recall making a speech"; he specifically says he did not make one. So, we have two pieces on his reaction to his trip to Vietnam: one, which bears his byline, is obviously his authorship, and is open for everybody to read. The other first appeared in a US government propaganda outlet during wartime in a war Chomsky was specifically opposing, which Chomsky disclaims. I don't think that that highly questionable single datapoint can truly establish a pattern of him "supporting" the North Vietnamese government. Especially when you compare to, say, many other activists at the time who really did support the North Vietnamese government [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 19:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

''One of my opponents, a Chomsky defender & self-described "anarchist" of the anti-capitalist variety, Dan Clore, immediately denied that Chomsky had ever made any such speech, & called David Horowitz a "notorious liar". He also accused Horowitz of using a fabricated quote from the socialist historian Ronald Radosh about Chomsky's alleged policy of keeping quiet about the negative aspects of North Vietnam that Chomsky had seen on his tour of the country. Unfortunately, Collier & Horowitz didn't indicate what their source for Chomsky's Hanoi speech was, so I kept looking. I found the primary source in the book '''"POLITICAL PILGRIMS: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society"''', by Paul Hollander. Then, with the irreplaceable help of Stephen Denney, an archivist with the '''UC Berkeley Indochina Center''', I was able to obtain a transcript of the entire speech, which I have provided above.'' [http://www.no-treason.com/Starr/3.html] [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 20:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: So? IIRC the original trascript comes from the FBIS; we've had this discussion some time back. The point is Chomsky denies it's genuine, so we should be fairly skeptical of it. Chomsky is pretty notorious both in politics and linguistics for sticking by more or less everything he's ever written, however unpopular. I find it unlikely he'd lie about this one speech, which isn't even very well known. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] 20:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::No, I was right in the first place. Read your own post again (and I will assume that the email from Chomsky is legitimate). Although he claims to have not given a speech over radio Hanoi (in a sound studio with a microphone in front of his mouth) he does not discount the possibility that that “informal remarks were picked up” and apparently rebroadcast. I also do not understand the “propaganda outlet” remark. Are you claiming that the Foreign Broadcast Information Service made the whole thing up? And if you are, you better have some more evidence other than a hunch. The transcript of the speech can also be obtained from the Berkeley Indochina Center’s archives.

::And as for your claim that one “single datapoint can truly establish a pattern of him "supporting" the North Vietnamese government” is not for either you or I to say. Fact remains is that this “one single datapoint” has been brought up on numerous occasions by his detractors, making it a notable criticism. [[User:TDC|TDC]] 21:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:::I think you're confusing another poster's comments with mine. The above is the first post I've made on this page since it was last archived (I think). Anyway, if "informal comments" were picked up, it's hard to be sure that this is actually a transcript and is at all accurate (presumably informal comments would not have been recorded?). Anyway I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn't be included in the article, but it should be clear that Chomsky (uncharacteristically) dissociates himself from it. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Read it again people, according to [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet’s]] email, he does not deny that he said these things, simply that he did not make a broadcast over radio Hanoi. [[User:TDC|TDC]] 21:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:::Well, that's very interesting. I had thought that the style of writing was very different, but I hadn't realised it was actually a fabrication. One question: does anyone know what language this broadcast was supposed to have been in?

:::But let's put this aside for a moment, because it doesn't actually change anything. Even in the fabricated transcript, the closest thing to supporting leaders that Chomsky did was to allude positively to a book by a politician. There is nothing even as close as that in stuff actually written by Chomsky. As I pointed out above, the burden of proof is on those who make the improbable claim that Chomsky, a life-long anarchist, would support a particular authoritarian organisation or leader. Nothing approaching proof has ever been given. The article must therefore reflect the well-established fact that Chomsky is an anarchist, whilst duly reporting the insinuations made against him.

:::Let me point out again, in case it has been forgotten, that we do not need to find a quote from Chomsky written in a certain year, saying "I'm currently against movement/politican X" in order to understand that he was indeed against movement/politician X. It is enough to note that he has been against things like X his entire life, and has on several occasions specifically denounced X and even pointed out that he did indeed oppose X in the given period (e.g. "''The left was all backing Ho Chi Minh: I was saying that North Vietnam is a brutal Stalinist dictatorship.''"). &mdash; [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::people can deduce tacit support from your writings despite attempts to deny it. at most, Chomsky makes a parenthetical remark about the wrongdoings of America's enemies, then goes into a bashfest against American policy. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 21:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Chomsky_hearts_Castro.jpg|center|]]

'''the improbable claim that Chomsky, a life-long anarchist, would support a particular authoritarian organisation or leader. Nothing approaching proof has ever been given.'''

I know, I know, the picture means nothing. He was just there to ...... um ....... argue .... his ..... displeasure with the US embargo. [[User:TDC|TDC]] 21:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

== Origins of supposed "Radio Hanoi" speech ==

If you follow the webpage Trey links to above, it clearly states that the speech was first published in a journal of the FBIS, that is, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service [FBIS] of the CIA. The publication was therefore made at a time of war by the intelligence/counterintelligence arm of one of the belligerents. Just weeks later, Chomsky set out a piece under his own byline describing his time there, which was quite markedly different from the piece published by the CIA. These are just some of the many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the piece. [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 21:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:i have a hard time believing that the FBIS would just up and fabricate such a long speech about a (non-mainstream) antiwar activist. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 21:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:but, i mean, there's a simple way to solve this -- say that Chomsky himself denies ever having made such a speech. [[User:Trey Stone|J. Parker Stone]] 21:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)