Talk:Noam Chomsky

Support for terrorist organisations, genocide and antisemitism
criticism of Dershowitz http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

and a list of people http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

Chomsky support for Hezbollah : anti-Semitic and genocidal organization on the terror list of US, Israel, EU.

Is there an objective reason not to mention those aspects of his war ideology?

--Vanlister (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) Ingenpedia only cites reliable, secondary sources. Surely we can do better than Dershowitz's op-ed in a student paper. If you have other sources, we can discuss. (2) This is an already long, overview article on Chomsky. We don't go into all of his political views, but cover what is most prominent in the sources. Proportionate coverage is an aspect of neutral point of view. Ingenpedia has additional coverage of his political views in the summary style split article "Political positions of Noam Chomsky". czar  03:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is then who decide what is proportional. When you begin selecting information, you cannot pretend to be non-partisan at the same time. --Vanlister (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ingenpedia editors build articles by policy and consensus. I linked to the policy that helps us determine due weight and gave a reasonable answer for how we'd consider including this kind of information. czar  06:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So first you write the policy, and then you share a consensus between those who share your views. The most corrupt system I have ever seen. Maybe Chomsky should be exempted of " unfair" criticism. Habemus pampam. So censorship is deserved, so people can easily identify the very real official and trustful thuth. So smart.--Vanlister (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear you didn't read any of those links. I didn't write the policy and it's not even unreasonable here? I don't know why it would come as any surprise that editors have systems of discretion. This is an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all. czar  19:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please examine righting great wrongs and gain some experience editing Ingenpedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes what we need is more experience and less academic freedom. Bureaucracy is superior, especially when it is easy to reach. Hail to the popular consensus. This editorial trick against criticism is such a just cause, therefore maybe there is no need to worry about presenting the unworthy, filthy and poor criticsm, as a gesture for the weak. It will certainly reinforce confidence in our propaganda, as the illusion of a dialectical reasoning is presented. Let's not limit ourselves, our ego deserve better. --Vanlister (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rocket Labs' 'Gnome Chomsky'
Rocket Labs named its mass simulator for "Return to Sender" mission after Noam Chomsky on 19 November 2020. 162.207.203.26 (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that covers this as noteworthy in relation to Chomsky's life? Otherwise it is presented as trivia and I doubt it would belong in the related Half-Life article either. czar  20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes section
The references in this article are fairly unwieldly. The Bibliography's length is not conducive to anyone who wants an actual bibliography on Chomsky, mainly because it contains a bunch of sources that are sourced as brief asides in the article. If instead those single-use refs were listed as Notes (alongside the other short footnotes), the bibliography would naturally pare down to a reasonable length. The idea is to shorten the bibliography by turning more of the short footnotes into the full citation (as refs 162/163/164 are currently). Wanted to check before I proceed with this. czar 06:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone wants a bibliography we already have Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography, which is linked from the article. For reasons why the citation style you suggest is so bad, see the very long pinned "thread" on my talk page here. (I put "thread" in quotes, because although it started out as a thread like any other, once the OP didn't respond it slowly developed into a place where I could record all the drawbacks of that citation style.) If that "thread" is too long to read, the main points are summarised at User talk:NSH001 (which is itself a sub-section of the "thread"). I also recommend reading the examples sub-page linked there User:NSH001/ETVP/examples.It makes no sense to try to reduce the "unwieldy"-ness of the biblio list by making the "Citations" section more unwieldy. That saves nothing, besides which full citations really, really don't belong there at all, for the reasons described in the links I have given. If anything, I have been looking for ways to reduce the size of the "Citations" section, possibly by making more use of parenthetical referencing, but that has been set back by the recent RfC. (I was fully expecting that RfC to close as no consensus, so it is quite likely that after a decent interval I may wish to revisit it, either to get it reversed, or at least modified in some way.) No, a much better way forward is to split the "Sources" section into separate sub-sections, say one for books and academic journals, and another for everything else; there are numerous other possibilities, say splitting out news sources, or cites to stand-alone web pages, or showing books and journals separately. I have been considering for a long time adding option(s) to my ETVP script to do this sort of thing, but so far I haven't encountered a pressing need. This isn't the sort of change to the script that can be made in a day, but if you are patient, I'll see what I can do. I am very open to making reasonable changes that people might suggest for my script, and fully intend to support any reasonable citation style, with the sole proviso that it will never allow any long, horizontally formatted templates (aka "turds") to remain in place. --NSH001 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bibliography of Chomsky. This article's section is a bibliography about Chomsky (it's actually more of a Works cited right now). That talk page link is extremely troubling, start to finish, for reasons I hope I don't have to explain ("turds"? really?) but nevertheless are tangential to this discussion: My post is about how citations appear to readers, not in the wikicode. I hope you'll let other talk page editors participate and not make this about a personal preference for line breaks in citations, which is not the point. czar  17:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)