Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive GA1

This page is an archive of comments made during the course of the Good Article Review

1 Early life

First two sentences should be merged into a single paragraph. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ✓

In the lead section just before Early life there are some footnotes, especially Univ of Arizona, which need to be brought into the main body of the article. The cites, after being transferred out of the lead section should then be removed from the lead section. CodexJustin (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC) {{in progress}} @Czar: Let me know when 'in progress' is ready for review. CodexJustin (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC) ✓

In Early life something about Chomsky starting university at 16 years old should be stated: was he a prodigy, was he precocious, did he skip grades in high school, how did he end up in university at 16 years old? CodexJustin (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Both Barsky and Sperlich mention the age of 16 purely biographically without rationale, so I think we should do the same. High school/college also worked differently back then, as Chomsky alludes elsewhere czar 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Phrase "behaviorist currents" should read 'behaviorist currents in the mode of Skinner...". CodexJustin (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this necessary if Skinner is addressed below? czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The point of emphasis is that it was the Skinner school of behaviourism which was being challenged by Chomsky for which he made significant progress. Skinner is the target of Chomsky's critique more than the general behaviourist approaches of that time. CodexJustin (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I think it's fair to say that Chomsky was critical of behaviorism in general (at least within the realm of linguistics), and that his criticisms of Skinner in particular were moreso because of Skinner's explicit attempts to explain language as learned behavior. Even without Skinner, the pre-Chomsky approach to studying language was still behaviorist simply because behaviorism was the accepted psychological methodology of the time (for example, Skinner did not even publish Verbal Behavior until 1957, but Chomsky was already criticizing behaviorist approaches to language in 1954). In other words, Chomsky's criticisms of behaviorism are not inseparable from his criticisms of B.F. Skinner. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky co-author of Miller at Harvard appears to be misplaced here. It is covered later in the article. Give dates for their first paper co-authored. CodexJustin (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be more on Miller at the GA for Miller stating: "At the university he met a young Noam Chomsky, another of the founders of cognitive science. They spent a summer together at Stanford training the faculty, and their two families shared a house. In 1958–59, Miller took leave to join the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto, California, (now at Stanford University)". There are also more cites which look useful in the Miller bio which might serve here on the Chomsky bio. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the article's current sentence is sufficient for a general readership, based on its coverage in Sperlich 2006. I.e., not sure the summer details contribute much to the biography. Does the date of their first paper have particular import? czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

More than simple friends, they appear to have been a "joint front" in their co-authored works together to displace the old school approaches. CodexJustin (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Caption for Orwell and Rocker dual photo can be improved. Possibly state that Chomsky was still a student then and that Rocker was a journalist. CodexJustin (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Do the images give those pictured undue weight? The article doesn't assert that Rocker/Orwell were any more influential than others czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"He avidly read..." sentence appears garbled and makes odd use of italic. CodexJustin (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ✓

Text just above Later life is garbled in its reference: "Journal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorVolume 13, Issue 1". Reference needs to be fixed. CodexJustin (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ✓

Identify Halle by first and last name. CodexJustin (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ✓ on first instance

There remains something insufficient in calling Chomsky an amalgamation of the perspectives of Rocker's anarcho-syndicalism and Orwell's democratic socialism. The article seems to lack a short definition of Chomsky a la Rocker, and Chomsky a la Orwell. There seems to be more to Chomsky's unique viewpoint than is captured by calling him a anarcho-syndicalist-democratic-socialist, which the article currently attempts to put forward unsuccessfully. Can you clarify this in the article? For example, did Chomsky ever vote in any Presidential election? When was the last time he voted in a Presidential election? Did he ever vote for anyone in Massachussettes? Does he now vote for anyone in Arizona? CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Might be useful to have a sentence on his position towards voting, but I think getting into specific candidates/elections would be trivia or original research if his specific position isn't in itself covered in sources as noteworthy czar 02:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Basic agreement with you on this, most casual readers will think that Chomsky's general interest in democratic socialism will make him lean towards being a Democrat, though that does not always work. His voting position as viewed through your Quora link seems to suggest he is pragmatic in occasionally leaning toward Green party orientations though nearly always avoiding Republican candidates. Something better than calling him a anarcho-syndicalist-democratic-socialist would be useful. Ping me when you are ready with your article edits for this and my other comments above and below. CodexJustin (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If the Rocker/Orwell image gave the impression of "anarcho-syndicalist-democratic-socialist" without textual support then that's a good reason to remove the images: Done! czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. CodexJustin (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin and Czar: I disagree that including photos of Rocker and Orwell somehow reduces Chomsky or his political views to "an amalgamation of the perspectives of Rocker's anarcho-syndicalism and Orwell's democratic socialism". The caption states that they influenced him, not defined him. Reading Rocker's work played a major role in Chomsky's adoption of anarcho-syndicalism as an ideology, as evidenced by the preface he wrote to Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice in which he says the following:

Speaking personally, I became acquainted with Rocker's publications in the early years of the of the Second World War, in anarchist book stores and offices in New York City, and came upon the present work on the dusty shelves of a university library, unknown and unread, a few years later. I found it an inspiration then, and have turned back to it many times in the years since. I felt at once, and still feel, that Rocker was pointing the way to a much better world, one that is within our grasp, one that may well be the only alternative to the 'universal catastrophe' towards which 'we are driving on under full sail', as he saw on the eve of the Second World War.

As for Orwell, Orwell's work significantly influenced Chomsky's views on State power & hegemony and thought control through mass media. In the interview "Democracy Is a Threat to Any Power System", when asked about how the media suppresses popular movements, Chomsky responded:

Actually, I think it was pretty well-described by George Orwell. He didn’t say much about it, but everyone here, I’m sure, has read Animal Farm. But probably very few people have read the introduction to Animal Farm; the reason is it wasn’t published. It was discovered about thirty years later in his unpublished papers. Today, if you get a new edition of Animal Farm, you might find it there. The introduction is kind of interesting—he basically says what you all know: that the book is a critical, satiric analysis of the totalitarian enemy. But then he addresses himself to the people of free England; he says, “You shouldn’t feel too self-righteous.” He said in England, a free country, I’m virtually quoting: unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. And he goes on to give some examples, and, really, just a couple of common-sense explanations, which are to the point. One reason, he says, is: the press is owned by wealthy men who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed. And the other, he says, essentially, is: it’s a good education. If you have a good education, you’ve gone to the best schools, you have internalized the understanding that there’s certain things it just wouldn’t do to say—and I think we can add to that, it wouldn’t do to think. And that’s a powerful mechanism. So, there are things you just don’t think, and you don’t say. That’s the result of effective education, effective indoctrination.

Later, when asked about U.S. efforts to disarm Iran of its nuclear weapons, he responds:

It’s interesting the way it’s discussed here. First of all, the standard line is, “The international community demands that Iran give up its nuclear programs.” Who’s the international community? Well, the term ‘international community,’ again, comes straight out of Orwell: it means the United States and whoever happens to agree with it. That’s the international community. What about the world?

And there are many other examples that Chomsky avidly read Orwell and was significantly influenced by his work. If there is any reason to remove the photos, it would be a purely aesthetic one in the case that the photos make the article look cluttered. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the section states that Chomsky "became fascinated by the anarcho-syndicalist communes set up during the Spanish Civil War, which were documented in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (1938)." This further indicates that Orwell's work significantly shaped Chomsky's political ideology. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Typically, we don't keep images that are decorative in nature. If there was some specific connection between an influence and Chomsky that warranted that sort of callout/attention, the image would make more sense. As it stood, it read as undue weight. czar 10:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: If not "decorative", then what should pictures in the article be? Vrrajkum (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And what criteria are used to determine whether or not an image is "decorative"? As I pointed out above, the work of Rocker and Orwell played a major role in the formation of Chomsky's political views. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE

I usually ask what the reader stands to gain from the image as context. In this case, what do these two headshots illuminate about Chomsky that would be detrimental if not included? If nothing major, the image is likely decorative. Could also sooner use the headshots of any other influence, hence the undue influence of picturing one and not another—appears arbitrary. czar 18:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

2 Later life

Very heavy on red links in this section, try to trim at least some of them. CodexJustin (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ✓

Section introduces Hilary but does not cover what his position is on either Hilary or Bill. What is Chomsky's position on them? CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Methinks this was added simply because it was contemporaneous at the time. I don't think his position on Hilary Clinton is particularly important when recounting his biography. Removed. czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"Numer of philosophical fields..." does not mention any relation or linguistics papers of Chomsky with Marc Hauer from 2002, etc. See [1]. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that describes the Chomsky/Hauser collab as noteworthy? Nothing jumped out at me in a cursory search. czar 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Although Chomsky appeared to endorse him, Hauser was eventually discredited for his research and lost his position at Harvard, as recorded and sourced in his Wikipedia biography article. CodexJustin (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin and Czar: This sentence has been restored to the Philosophy section, which I plan on rewriting. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on Edward Herman should state this as being 'political public talks'. The article in general should also make plain the specific year when Chomsky's political identity becomes separable and identifiable as distinct from his high reputation in linguistics. What was the year for this? Chomsky's PHD is in linguistics, he has no academic training in politics or government theory. Something along these lines of specifying the transition year into a prominent Politics figure separable from the Linguistics professor should be made in this biography article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I added the word "political". Chomsky's recognition as a political dissident began with his public opposition to the Vietnam War, and I believe that the article does make this clear (e.g., the section title "Anti-Vietnam War activism and rise to prominence: 1967–75". If you need a specific year, that would be 1967 with the publication of "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". I have modified the lede to make this more clear. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

References to Dershowitz look a little odd in the Herman paragraph, since Dershowitz generally does not think of himself as a right-wing person, as the opening paragraph on Herman seems to suggest. Alter wording here to pin down who Dershowitz is, since Dershowitz is often explicit on his political preferences. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I have moved the mentions of Dershowitz to the Reception and influence#In politics subsection. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In Reaganite paragraph there is a reference again to the 'propaganda model' of Chomsky though it is not defined anywhere in the article. Possibly define what this model is here, since the term is used throughout the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In the "Increased political activism" section state the exact date of his retirement when it is mentioned in the orphan sentence there. Merge the orphan sentence into the main body of the paragraph. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Done and done. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

3 Linguistic theory

State year of McGilvray comment on Chomsky in opening sentence here. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: It is not a "comment" per se but referenced from his full-length book on Chomsky, so I think listing the year here would be inappropriate. The original phrasing was "Within the field of linguistics, Chomsky is credited with inaugurating the 'cognitive revolution'", but McGilvray was named to make the assertion seem less bold and bring it closer to a perceived NPoV. I will restore the original phrasing; tell me what you think of that. Vrrajkum (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the references to McGilvray, but phrased slightly differently to make it more clear that McGilvray is not the originator of these observations, but merely a messenger of them. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Second paragraph should replace word "biolinguistics" with "generative grammars and biolinguistics". CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Generative grammar is an aspect of his linguistic theory, so it doesn't make sense to say that his linguistic theory is rooted in his linguistic theory. I think it's sufficient to say just "biolinguistics"; consider the overview of Chomsky and Berwick's Why Only Us?, which states that "the biolinguistic perspective on language . . . views language as a particular object of the biological world". Vrrajkum (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Later in second paragraph change phrase "unique evolutionary" to "unique and inherited". Later in sentence "unlike" seems an inaccurate word here and should read "distinguishable from" instead. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I have changed "unlike" to "distinguishable from", but I think "unique evolutionary development" should remain as is; one of the major unanswered questions about language that Chomsky continues to work on is "How Could Language Have Evolved?" In the evolutionary arc of Homo sapiens, the language faculty was completely absent and then suddenly appeared; I believe the current wording best captures this. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See also Chomsky and Berwick's Why Only Us?, which discusses language as an evolutionary development of humans that is not present in any other known species. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Under 'Universal grammar' section, the word 'inborn' should read 'inherited and inborn'. Later in same paragraph "innate" should read 'inherited and innate'. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I have changed the phrase "genetically transmitted" at the top of the Linguistic Theory section to "genetically inherited", but I think this should suffice; repeating it in UG would be superfluous. In the second case that you cite, it would also disrupt the wikilink: the wikilink is to "Innateness hypothesis", not "Inheritedness and innateness hypothesis". Vrrajkum (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Under 'Chomsky hierarchy' try to link the main articles at Formal language theory, Turing machines, and Automata theory. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Under "minimalist program' section change closing words "to create these rules" to "to apply these rules and regulate speech". CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Done. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

4 Political views

Sentence which starts "He believes that 'common sense'..." is over-long and should be broken up into 2-3 sentences and reworded. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph ends with reference to "education" should be "education and publication". Reference to "core themes" requires that they be enumerated to name them. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Section titled "US foreign policy" should read better as "Criticism of US imperialism". Chomsky also had a position of the Walt-Mearsheimer debate on Israel a decade ago which is worth including here but is fully absent at present. Third, Chomsky appears to endorse a general position on sovereign self-determination internationally as his position against US imperialism, thought this article does not cover this position or mention it. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that renaming the section to "Criticism of US imperialism" would be non-NPoV, as not everyone (especially not Americans) would agree that the US engages in imperialism. For this same reason, I have adjusted the usage of the word "imperialism" throughout the section. I will address your other two concerns at a later date. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Under "Capitalism and socialism" section, identify the years of his "youth", up to 20, up to 30, up to 40 years of age? Which is it? CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think "youth" is a sufficient point of reference for a general audience in this context. czar 06:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky criticism of democracy needs some amplification. General perspective is that Democrats are at odds with Republicans, and Republicans are at odds with Democrats. Does Chomsky consider himself above these agreements, does he consider them as secondary to his own perspective on the dilemmas of government, is the question of party affiliation irrelevant to Chomsky's viewpoint. The current article gives only vague motions stating over-simplifications akin to a general criticism of 'Plutocracy' which has little substance. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The sentence 'economic system is ... difficult to overthrow' looks undeveloped and somewhat extreme. Reword sentence and present Chomsky's viewpoint more clearly to help illuminate his recommendations. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"News media" section opening sentence can be improved by 'using' language such as 'on the one hand ideology and power, and, on the other hand media and state policy'. Reword the sentence. At the end of the opening paragraph is the phrase "grassroots democratic control" which is unclear as to what is being referred to as "grassroots"; does the text mean direct democracy instead? CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the Vrrajkum bullet above, I believe this section has been addressed czar 06:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

5 Philosophy

This is a very short section. It should be merged into main article proper. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This sentence has been restored to the Philosophy section, which I plan on rewriting. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vrrajkum, what were you planning to add to this section and can I help? (Were you expanding the Israeli–Palestine section too?) The article is already lengthy so consider covering in summary style czar 19:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Images and captions

Images and captions should be checked for compliance, and updated as required for fair use, etc. Some of captions appear without any dating, which should be added for clarity. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The caption which starts with "What started as purely.." is part of Chomsky's definition of human anthropology and human uniqueness, not of 'Chomsky's linguistic theory' as currently stated. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I have modified the caption accordingly. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The caption which starts "Chomsky's vision of a complex..." should state the year of the quote, which it currently does not state. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you think any of these photos are particularly needed? Almost all of the photos with other people come across as decorative to me. czar 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The images issue is significant. The Nixon image and the Chomsky 'bees' image both appear to be anecdotal. Chomsky is reputed to have had no sympathy for Nixon. Regarding the many photos of Chomsky in the popular culture reception of is his politics pictured with various political and semi-political figures, the quantity of these photos points to the issue of how this Wikipedia article should best deal with Chomsky the scholar, as opposed to Chomsky the popular culture commentator on Politics. It is probably worthwhile for you to check if you are pleased with the way Chomsky the scholar is depicted in this article (for which he had a formal education), and how Chomsky the popular culture commentator on Politics is depicted by comparison (he was not formally educated in either Political Science or Theory of Government). My understanding is that Chomsky used his formal academic position to bootstrap a platform for his widely received and widely popular cultural commentary on contemporary politics. Separately, the image from Language theory also looks like 4 concentric circles and does not appear to illuminate a great deal. Let me know what your thoughts are here, and ping me when you are ready to continue. CodexJustin (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(stalker) On the language theory diagram: a diagram which takes some complex-seeming text and explains it concisely so that the reader immediately feels it is comprehensible, is doing a great job. That it seems simple is exactly not a reason to remove it. Happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Another editor Midnightblue has marked the section on linguistics as underdeveloped and in need of improvement. You have mentioned an openness to discuss further. See his comments below for his viewpoint. CodexJustin (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed a few images and shuffled some others. No strong feelings on the concentric circles diagram, but I'd rather leave that to a talk page discussion if there isn't immediate need to address against the GA criteria. (Otherwise, I'm still working through the other comments from above, if there's no rush?)

In general, agreed that Chomsky is more widely known for his activities as a public intellectual than for his linguistics, though he is certainly known for that as well. It makes sense that the article would address those topics proportionate to secondary source coverage, not solely on the basis of what Chomsky studied formally. czar 02:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nixon image and Vietnam quote boxes appear to have returned now. CodexJustin (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: First, I do not think there is any rush. If another week or two is needed to get this article right then its ok to use the extra time. If you have a plan to use either more or less time than that then let know your current approach and plan. The images selection looks much improved. As an interim list of things to do, footnote 265 appears to have a cite request template still pending. Regarding the concentric circles diagram, the issue seems to be that this diagram by itself is only half of the story if a reader follows the Wikipedia links already provided; apparently the concentric circle for "recursively enumerable" has an equivalent in a one-to-one corresponding automata hierarchy which corresponds to the well known Turing machine, though the current article tells us nothing of this. Separately, it is worthwhile noting that Chomsky in academia still deserves the central attention of the starting sections of this biography, up to his 1965 Vietnam dissent activities at least, which is when he begins to earnestly bootstrap a wide-ranging popular reception in politics and foreign affairs commentary, and for which he did not have formal training.

The current article seems to suggest that Chomsky spent as much time in his pre-Vietnam dissent years studying politics as after the Vietnam years, which I do not think is reflected in his actual career leading up to Vietnam. Separately, regarding the Biography Talk page, it might be useful to simply list the Influences that you consider to be the 'higher priority influences' and the 'lesser priority influences', which might make it easier to shorten the long Infobox list currently there. Let me know what time frame you are comfortable with in terms of your planned edits for this biography article, and ping me when the article is ready to continue with review. CodexJustin (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Just checking in after a week; is the article moving in one direction or another? Any particular time frame? CodexJustin (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, was waiting on a few sources and will have time to sit down with it this weekend. (Also/btw, the {{ping}} template doesn't send unless you also sign your post in the same edit.) czar 00:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Meta

I don't mean to be too much of a downer on this, but as someone who has contributed significantly to this article over the past five years or so (according to the "Revision history statistics" I am one of the two largest contributors) I think that it may have been a mistake to bring this article to GAN at this time. Several of the sections are of really quite poor quality and the article is still quite a considerable way off being GA status. Unfortunately, I do not see that being corrected in the short term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thanks for your comments. @Czar: and myself have been trying to move this article forward towards a useful outcome for this GA-nomination for the last several weeks. I've just noticed that Midnight has made a large number of content edits and copy edits to the main article after the comments made directly above. Czar has, to my reading, been making deliberate progress towards a successful outcome and I think he would welcome your comments if you could list them here in some type of priority such as your "Top 5 edits" needed to get the article through a GA nomination, maybe even a "Top 10 edits needed". Both Czar and myself, I think, realize that this is not a featured article nomination, and I have already mentioned the missing Hauser issue/controversy to Czar above if you have any information on that. Czar's progress to date from my viewpoint has been useful to obtaining a promotion of the article in the end. Looking forward to seeing your comments. CodexJustin (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I suppose that my main concerns with the article boil down to issues in three specific areas: the first is the "Linguistic theory" section, which I think is in desperate need of an expansion and rewrite, ideally from someone who has a very good grasp of linguistics as a field and access to the appropriate academic sources; the second is the "Philosophy" section, which was (at some point fairly recently) merged into the biography sections (bizarrely) but which I have restored, for it also needs a good expansion by someone with specialist expertise; the third real problem is the "Reception and influence", which is poorly written and little more than a trove of trivia. There are other, smaller and more easily rectifiable issues throughout the article too, but I won't go into detail on that now. All in all, I really do think that this is too much of a barrier to GA status at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In the hopes of speeding things along, I've notified WikiProject Linguistics about the request for attention and directed interested members to leave feedback on the main talk page. Hopefully that helps get the necessary eyes on it. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wonder. I respect Midnightblueowl's editing but I'm not sure I agree here. The "Linguistic theory" section for instance does quite a good job of stating in five short sections the areas in which Chomsky contributed. It is, frankly, not the job of a biog. article to describe the full history and status of all the areas in which an academic has contributed (we don't expect a complete account of Relativity and Gravitation in the Einstein article now, do we), but rather to name and give a quick idea of where the guy was making waves. The three lines on Philosophy are somewhat inadequate IF we believe we have to have a whole section on that topic: merging that paragraph into the general biog. sections doesn't seem stupid to me, and I wasn't involved; but it can readily be extended from three lines to maybe six or ten if a section is required. The "Reception and influence" isn't too bad either; it certainly isn't just a list of trivia (and believe me, I've seen plenty of those). Frankly, at 148,000 bytes this article is already rather long - I'd wish to get it down to 100-120,000 really: but the point is that a GA is supposed to cover "the main points" rather than be FA-ishly "comprehensive" (whatever that could mean). I think the anxiety about reference formatting that I see in the article is also more FA than GA. This article is very close to the required GA standard and does not need much more work, let alone much more detail. It's pretty well-written, it covers pretty much what it should and it's reliably sourced. Which means GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think that we're getting close, and plan to review & polish the article in the coming weeks to help us get there. However, since it seems that others are taking an interest in the article reaching GA status, I just wanted to go on record to say that User:Midnightblueowl wrote the vast majority of the article and the final GA nomination should therefore be hers. Hopefully we can all respect that. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

While I think we should consider Midnightblueowl's opinions on the article as a major contributor to it, like all decisions on Wikipedia, GA status is based on consensus. With that in mind unilateral passing may not be a good idea; @CodexJustin: you may want to consider treating this more like a discussion closure than a typical GA review given the number and diversity of opinions expressed. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:Wugapodes:

Re: Midnightblueowl, I just meant that when the article is ready to be nominated for GA status, MBO should be the one to actually make the nomination and therefore receive primary credit for the article becoming a GA (if the nomination succeeds). Her contributions to the article far exceed those of anyone else, including myself as the individual with the most edits to the article in terms of absolute numbers. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: Thanks for clarifying, I'm not familiar with the relative contributions of people to the article so that's good to know. I think she should definitely get credit for her substantial work. At the same time, she can get credit for her work even if she doesn't nominate the article. I think your note is important in making sure that happens though, and if the nomination succeeds her contributions should be made clear. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I think it's clear that the article is not ready for GA status quite yet, so I motion for you to reject the nomination and close this discussion. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap and Vrrajkum: There appear to be mixed comments on the reasoning for the template notification caution placed by Midnightblue in the Linguistics section. Both of you have stated off-page that the section template seems largely addressed during recent editing and therefor the article appears ready to move forward. Now Vrrajkam appears to be asking for a procedural re-nomination of the article as a type of courtesy to Midnightblue who is currently #7 I believe on the top ten editors of this article by size of edits (number 2 on the quantity of edits list). @Czar: To briefly update the history of this nomination, it was nominated by Tejas last year and then I started the review earlier this year. Tejas was then unavailable to continue and Czar stepped forward to take over the duties of the nomination of this article as shown in the edit history of this review page. As far as I can see, Czar has been open to all editors who wish to make constructive edits to the article and has even made a request for comments on the article Talk page regarding concerns about the large size of the Infobox sections of "Influences" and "Influenced", for which all editors are invited to add comment and viewpoints. Presently, Czar has indicated that he plans to bring in a set of edits either this week-end or next week-end to allow for the assessment to continue toward a completed GA nomination. I have pinged him to see if there are any updates as to his previous comments and to possibly update his time frame as needed. Otherwise, the article appears to be receiving constructive edits from multiple editors and moving toward a completed GA nomination. CodexJustin (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any obstacle to moving forward, and don't really understand procedural renominations (they're not in the GA instructions). If people are basically on side then just go ahead. I don't specially see anything I need to do or say here either, unless this was it! Bon courage, as they say in France. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin and Chiswick Chap: Concerns about procedural renominations noted; nevertheless, I maintain that Midnightblueowl should receive primary credit for the article reaching GA status if and when it does so. According to the article's authorship statistics, she is top in authorship of the current article. Furthermore, the credited authorship of second-ranked NSH001, who at time of this comment has made a grand total of 23 edits to the article (of which only 10 are from 2015 or later), consists almost entirely of citation formatting, rather than actual contributions to the body of the article. If the calculations were based only on visible additions to the human-readable text of the article, I estimate that Midnightblueowl's authorship of the current article would be around ~70%. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Well, if that matters then do it. I'd have thought she could simply take the credit which she deserves, but if there's some software tool which does sums based on the nom's name then of course you'd be right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

? No formal "credit" is ever bestowed in any part of the GAN process, so not sure what's being discussed here. The article was nominated for GAN for months before the review started and authorship percentages will remain consistent through any changes as part of the review. All that's left is to make sure that the article actually meets the criteria. I've been slow to work through Justin's suggested edits but it looks like others have been working through the review too. czar 10:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

My continuation of support for Czar as recognizing him as the nominating editor of this article for GAN at this time. @Czar: Vrrajkum has left a dozen or so messages in the larger review above for my account, which I think were meant more for your eyes to review and edit as needed, if you could look at them. It would be useful to see some quote on Chomsky's own revised views of the minimalist program in that Linguistics section as he has updated his views in the last decade, preferably in his own words if you have access to his more recent articles. Someone has restored the Nixon image to the article which you had previously removed; the article looks better without the image if you could give this a second look, and besides this it was LBJ who was in office when Chomsky began his opposition to Vietnam. Otherwise, I continue to see the article as being within close reach of a useful assessment, and ping me when you believe the article is ready for a full read through. CodexJustin (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

My comments were not intended for Czar in particular (except the ones where I pinged him), but rather as responses to your recommendations as part of the GA review. If you only want to be pinged when the article is ready then that's fine, I apologize for all the pings above. If someone can find a permissively licensed photo of Chomsky's anti-Vietnam War activism I would be happy to replace the Nixon pic. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that Vrrajkum's recent work on tidying up this article has been excellent. It is much nearer to being GA quality, in my view, than when I initially commented a few days ago. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

State of the biography

After the week-end and looking at the nearly 200 edits for this Chomsky biography from the past 2 weeks, I believe that a full read through and new review (to re-do and update the assessment above in this section here) will be appropriate. At present, there appear to be 2 empty sections which need to be either expanded or dropped, in order for a new full read through and review to take place. There is also an unfilled cite request somewhere around footnote number 145-150 in the current version. @Midnightblueowl, Czar, and Vrrajkum: All three editors appear to have a green light to continue to edit the article whenever its convenient to do the above items. Czar has apparently offered to do the Philosophy section and appears to have a green light to continue. Midnightblue has stated above that the edits from the past two weeks look ok in order to continue. As soon as the two empty sections are addressed or deleted, and the cite request filled, I am ready to good ahead to complete a full read through of the article with an updated review of this Chomsky biography. CodexJustin (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl, Czar, and Vrrajkum: Requesting an update on editing from all 3 editors of the status after a week of virtually no editing. There are two blank sections in the article and one unfilled cite request at about cite #144-145. Requesting updates. @Chiswick Chap: Midnightblue and Vrrajkum are in apparent agreement about the improvements to the article now as stated above by them, and as you mentioned previously, the article is nearly complete; the article is nearly at passing GAN and perhaps you could fill the cite request and could look at the 2 blank sections to expand or drop them. CodexJustin (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Just to clarify, I don't have any plans to do any further editing on this article in the near future. Vrrajkum and Czar may well do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Resolved the citation issue. Why do we need those two empty/dedicated sections? @Vrrajkum, do you have specific plans to expand them or suggestions on what they should contain? (And if not, can we remove?) czar 10:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: The lede's assertion that "Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy" requires substantiation in the body of the article. As for the I/P conflict, Chomsky is personally connected to the conflict as a Jew who was inculcated in Zionism and has been one of its foremost critics; leaving out a brief discussion of the work he's done on the subject does a disservice to him as a person. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that Chomsky "was inculcated in Zionism"? (I don't know if he even considers himself a Jew, but my main point is about the Zionism.) Of course, you are correct that he has been one of the foremost critics of Zionism. I know that I haven't been asked here, but I noticed how long this GAN had been open, so I was curious whether it were still active. Nothing wrong with that, but I was just tidying things on Wiki and wanted to check.--FeralOink (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Nice to hear your comment. Its completely appropriate for editors to join in the discussion whenever they feel it can be useful. Czar took over for the original nominator 2-3 months ago and he should be able to answer your properly asked question when he signs on. Thanks for your comment. CodexJustin (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@FeralOink: From Barsky's A Life of Dissent:

The entire Chomsky family was actively involved in Jewish cultural activities and Jewish issues, particularly the revival of the Hebrew language and Zionism. Chomsky told interviewer Eleanor Wachtel, "I would read Hebrew literature with my father from childhood—nineteenth and twentieth century Hebrew literature, and of course older sources. I spent my time in Hebrew school, later became a Hebrew teacher, and out of all this my political interests converged to an interest in Zionism".

It should be clarified that the strain of Zionism within which Chomsky was raised differs from the contemporary understanding of 'Zionism' insofar as it did not advocate a Jewish state:

I was ... deeply involved in Zionist affairs and activities – or what was then called 'Zionist,' though the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.' I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv) ... The vague ideas I had at the time [1947] were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism).

Chomsky is not Jewish in the religious sense, but he is in the sense of belonging to the socioethnic community of Jews. And he is obviously a very complex figure, so his GAN is taking some time. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: It appears the Vrrajkum made some edits last on June 14th and little else since. If Vrraj is on Wikibreak then it looks like you have a green light to go ahead and either expand or drop the two sections. I can then make a new full read through. How does that sound? CodexJustin (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin and Czar: Sorry for my absence, real life has been hectic lately. I have started editing again and aim to have the article ready for a full review within the week. Vrrajkum (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great—thanks! I might be away when you finish and if so, happy to provide a copy edit when I return. czar 01:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Czar and Vrrajkum: Is there any update on the time frame being expected for revisions? There is still a 'section unfinished' template in philosophy, there is at footnotes 275-276 a "how" clarification template, and the lead section appears to have multiple quoted materials usually not to appear in the lede and which should be in the main body of the article. Let me know what time frame seems reasonable to both editors for the revisions. CodexJustin (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion, per before, is to integrate the two proposed sections as sufficient for GA-level and then anyone would be welcome to expand as appropriate in the future. Unless I'm missing some vital area of his life/thought that must be covered for GA? czar 12:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Czar and Vrrajkum: There appears to be no response from the other editors here and the idea put forward by Czar seems to be very reasonable. It would allow a full read through review to take place to move forward. I am suggesting to agree with Czar's suggestion here to resolve the section and to move forward. CodexJustin (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin, done! Any lasting concerns? czar 14:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have recently done some work on the Philosophy and Reception and influence#In academia sections and plan to continue enhancing them. I was going to just jettison the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section for the sake of reaching GA, but Nishidani provided a secondary source that it looks like we might be able to use to develop that section also. However, the Google Books preview is limited and none of my local libraries have the source book in stock; @Midnightblueowl and Czar: would one of you be able to get your hands on it? This is potentially another source that we could use, but downloading it costs 22 USD. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum, sent! (Also, for future purposes, you can request sources at WP:RX.) czar 02:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Indexing (1) to (3)

@Czar and Vrrajkum: Could you look at the following list:

(1) Lede section, first paragraph, please remove WP:Puffery, "Chomsky called the father of modern linguistics"; This is problematic and does not really belong in this article. Are you really telling the reader that Roman Jacobson, Ferdinand Saussure and Yuri Lotman were all chopped liver by comparison. Please remove that clause from the lede as problematic.

We're not telling the readers anything; the sources are, e.g.:

Mr. Chomsky, who turns 70 on Dec. 7, is the father of modern linguistics and remains the field's most influential practitioner.

Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor of linguistics emeritus at MIT, widely known as the father of modern linguistics, a philosopher, prolific author, and globally influential political activist.

As the founder of modern linguistics, Noam Chomsky, observed, each of the following sequences of words is nonsense ...

At 87, Noam Chomsky, the founder of modern linguistics, remains a vital presence in American intellectual life.

I believe the "father of modern linguistics" qualification is important and should stay in order to give somebody who has never heard the name "Noam Chomsky" before some idea of who he is. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Consider also the following paragraph from Decoding Chomsky: Science and Revolutionary Politics by Chris Knight (a critic of Chomsky's linguistic theories):

If you know anything about Noam Chomsky, you will not be surprised that we begin with superlatives. Think Galileo, Descartes or Einstein. Chomsky is the foremost intellectual of modern times, who 'did for cognitive science what Galileo did for physical science', to quote a respected authority. Chomsky has radically altered our perception of the human condition, overturning established thinking in what has been described as a Galilean revolution. Since launching his intellectual assault on the academic orthodoxies of the 1950s, he has succeeded -- almost single-handedly -- in revolutionizing linguistics, elevating it to the status of a genuine natural science. 'If a Nobel Prize were offered for linguistics,' comments one intellectual historian, 'he'd get the first one. Then they'd have to stop giving it out. No-one else comes close.' Much has changed over the past six decades, but Chomsky remains to this day the most powerful force in contemporary linguistics.

Or:

Now, as everyone knows, Noam Chomsky is a distinguished academic, a scholar who pretty much single-handedly reconfigured the discipline of linguistics and a strong presence in the landscape of other disciplines ...

Most introductions to Chomsky as a linguist use similar, superlative-based language. The other linguists you mentioned are of course important figures in the history of the field, but Chomsky is especially noteworthy for "establishing the field as a formal, natural science, moving it away from the procedural form of structural linguistics dominant during the mid-20th century," to quote the article. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(2) Lede section, last paragraph, might look better without exaggeration, such as: "A highly cited scholar, Chomsky has influenced a broad array of academic fields. He has notably contributed to the human sciences and to the development of a new..." Looks better in more concise form.

I have changed "in history" to "alive" which is more consistent with the sources, but his status as a paradigm shifter insofar as his role in sparking the cognitive revolution and establishing cognitive science as a formal discipline is well-supported by secondary sources and should stay. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(3) Very poor graphic and caption on Rocker and Orwell, please remove. There are too many over-qualified adjectives here to be at all useful. Are you really asking that people call Chomsky a "anarcho-syndicalist democratic socialist". That is as poor a description of anyone's politics which I have read all year. Please remove the graphic and caption. Also trim it from the lede as the isolated "ideologically" sentence which does not really belong in the lede anyway.

"Are you really asking that people call Chomsky a 'anarcho-syndicalist democratic socialist'." No, nor does the inclusion of the graphic suggest that in any way, shape, or form. Why is the picture of Chomsky's wife includable but not Rocker and Orwell? Vrrajkum (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, Chomsky is one of the most prominent socialists & anarchists alive today and he is very relevant politically in that capacity; as such, a single sentence on Chomsky's ideological position most certainly belongs in the lede. Keep in mind that the lede is the only section of the article that most visitors will actually read and it "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" per WP:LEDE. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It already refers to his affiliation with anarchism. czar 20:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: If you're referring to the "Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism", that statement would be orphaned and not make sense without the more explicit declaration of his ideology above. Vrrajkum (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with Czar on this. The ideology comment does not belong in the lede and should be removed. CodexJustin (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should Chomsky's political ideology be mentioned in the lede?

The current article says that "Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism" at the end of the first paragraph of the lede. Should this sentence stay in the lede? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Chomsky is one of the most (if not the most) prominent anarchists & socialists alive today, and a mention of this ideology 100% belongs in the lede. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• We don't need an RfC for the blindingly obvious. For example, see the lead of Jeremy Corbyn: "Ideologically, he identifies himself as a democratic socialist." (incidentally in exactly the same place, the end of the first para). It belongs in the lead, not because Chomsky is a prominent example (which he is), but because it's an important part of Chomsky's identity, dating all the way back to when Chomsky wrote that essay on the fall of Barcelona at the age of 10. --NSH001 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• (Don't think we need an RfC either.) I think it would be sufficient to have a sentence that mentions his ideology as a function of how he is known or how his politics were developed. I.e., the lede sentence should not just identify the ideology but identify why it's noteworthy for purposes of inclusion in the lede. czar 02:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify, my argument is mainly that the lede reflect its weight in the article. The claim is backed in the cited sources so I don't think it's unreasonable in itself. czar 13:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  (Don't think we need an RfC either) Restating the "blindingly obvious" as your co-editor calls it, is not what Wikipedia is all about, especially for a lede section which is already fairly comprehensive as a summary of the article. Still, if all 3 of you wish to insert the "blindingly obvious" then its still there. CodexJustin (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agreement with Czar's previous removal of this isolated sentence. Unless the sentence is further qualified as Czar states in his comment directly above then the sentence should be removed. The lede is already long enough and its doubtful that it will look better with an add-on optional sentence. Agreement with Czar's previous removal of this isolated sentence from the lede. CodexJustin (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Indexing (4) to (7)

(4) The article is really getting a bit long, which another editor, Chiswick, has already noted earlier in this review. For the Anti-Vietnam section, the entire section appears just too long and should be shortened by at least 10-20%, by a full paragraph at least. I could find no justification on the Wikipedia article for Dissent on Vietnam which does not even cover Chomsky as a major figure in this movement during the 1960s. It is wonderful that Chomsky felt passionately on this issue, though his national prominence was not felt nearly as highly as that of the leading dissent figures of that generation. The section should be trimmed by at least 10-20% and a See also link to the Wikipedia Vietnam dissent article should be added. Links: Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War and Protests of 1968.

I agree that the Vietnam section is too long, mostly because of the military-related discussion which did not used to be part of the article, and was planning on trimming it anyway. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Trimmed! czar 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(5) Chomsky's Minimalist program section has become so minimalist as to almost have disappeared from serious scholarly attention. Chomsky has not kept up with important progress in the genetics of language development as in the FOXP2 article. Normally something like this should be covered in the article. There are many commentators who have written articles that Chomsky has not kept up with current research in this field. The Hausner incident was also a significant embarrassment to Chomsky; Chomsky was really backing up the wrong academic on this issue.

@CodexJustin: Can you be more specific about the changes you're requesting? I already added some additional critics & references to the Noam Chomsky#In academia section. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: You might be surprised by the number of links which come up on google when you search Chomsky and FOXP2 together, mostly criticising Chomsky for not keeping up with the literature on the molecular genetics of language inheritance though some is positive and supportive of Chomsky. CodexJustin (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: I'm still not clear on how you want FOXP2 to be mentioned in the article; I Googled chomsky foxp2 and found that FOXP2 is a potential 'language gene' that corroborates Chomsky's theory that some component of language is genetically predetermined in humans. Is that how you want it to be covered in the article? This paper co-authored by Chomsky (which both you and I have linked to elsewhere as part of this GA review) says that "Recent research has determined that Neanderthals possessed the modern version of the FOXP2 gene, malfunctions in which produce speech deficits in modern people. However, FOXP2 cannot be regarded as “the” gene “for” language, since it is only one of many that have to be functioning properly to permit its normal expression." Vrrajkum (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: As a start you could look at MacAndrew for a review which is not overly sympathetic to Chomsky here [2], and to the Guardian article which places the context for Chomsky's importance here: [3]. The point is that FOXP2 is just the tip of the iceberg on this research in molecular genetics which seems to have largely passed Chomsky by even though it appears to be directly relevant to his field with references to his name. It would be nice if you could pin down why Chomsky is detached apparently from this research which hinges upon his name. CodexJustin (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
@Vrrajkum, did you mean to ping CodexJustin? I don't believe I've request changes on this. czar 17:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Yes sorry Vrrajkum (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(6) Generative Immune system graphic should be removed. Chomsky had nothing to do with this research and I doubt that he knows any academic thing about Immunology as a medical science. Graphic is anecdotal and not particularly informative; it should be removed.

@CodexJustin: I have replaced the pic with a quote on Chomsky's academic impact. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(7) Having said that, it has been impressive to see the significant amount of development that both of you have put into the article over that last two weeks. I think the trims I have mentioned above when done would put the article into ready striking distance of completion. Try to remember that the article is getting a little long now, as stated by Chiswick, and its trims that should be the emphasis for the most part now. CodexJustin (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some comments below but otherwise I've addressed the other points. Thanks! czar 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some responses to your comments below with some added links. CodexJustin (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• (edit conflict) re: "father of modern linguistics", there is reputable sourcing supporting the claim so I added a ref to the lede per MOS:LEADCITE czar 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no question that many people like Chomsky. There are also any number of scholars who have criticized him in no uncertain terms. Picking a favorite accolade from the 'like' list is not how Wikipedia generally handles issues of divided opinion in the press. I do not see Wikipedia as writing an accolades preferred article for Chomsky. Wikipedia should offer both sides of the story and not arbitrarily promote only the rosy picture of Chomsky in the lede without any note of his critics and scholarly opponents. The 'father' statement does not appear to belong in the lede and should be removed from the lede. CodexJustin (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is beyond just liking—the NYT referring to Chomsky as "the father of modern linguistics" is as canonical as it gets. Even the lede doesn't put it as incontrovertible truth, but the sources back up the hedged assertion that yes, he is Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics" What is the "other side of the story"—who says otherwise and where? czar 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the Rocker image per your note but do see Vrrajkum's related comments earlier in the review; if objectionable, let's take to talk page discussion outside the GAN czar 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with the previous removal of this graphic. It is an awkward collection of adjectives which does not look informative. The article looks better without it. CodexJustin (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• "There are many commentators who have written articles that Chomsky has not kept up with current research in this field." Perhaps can you start us off with one? czar 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. This is Chomsky's last paper on the minamalist program from 2014 as I recall: [4]. And here is Chomsky again: [5]. Some further Chomsky quotes and comments on Hauser are here: [6]. More if needed. CodexJustin (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Aren't we looking for a reliable, secondary source source to show that Chomsky has not kept up with current research? It would be original research to assert that based on Chomsky's own writings (the first source). The second source, Truthout, starts with this:

Journalist and radical chic reactionary writer Tom Wolfe was the latest to do so in his laughable new book, The Kingdom of Speech, which seeks to take down Charles Darwin and Noam Chomsky through sarcastic and ignorant remarks, making vitriolic attacks on their personalities and expressing a deep hatred for the Left. Indeed, this much-publicized book not only displays amazing ignorance about evolution in general and the field of linguistics in particular, but also aims to portray Noam Chomsky as evil due to his constant and relentless exposure of the crimes of US foreign policy and other challenges to the status quo.

And then an interview with Chomsky (primary source) follows—not sure where it asserts that Chomsky has not kept up with current research such that we can cite it? The third link is some kind of blog post by Martin Haspelmath with the following quotes:

Chomsky himself seems to largely agree with the anti-Chomskyan view. ... Noam Chomsky [...] does not seem to be relevant to linguistics anymore ... it is clear that Chomsky's thinking since at least 2002 is not really compatible with the practice of mainstream generative grammar.

So this can be cited, but it feels like one person's hot take (with a fair amount of disagreement in the comments) until someone says it more definitively/officially. I personally wouldn't cite this in the article without some meatier support, else it will read something like, "German linguist Martin Haspelmath has written that Chomsky's recent rejection of rich universal grammar is 'not really compatible with the practice of mainstream generative grammar'." czar 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

8 Bibliography and filmography

More review comments once you confirm that you are ready to start the review. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The nominator (@Tejas Subramaniam) hasn't been active in a while (I had left a note on their talk page about drive-by noms). In case the the nom doesn't return, I'm happy to help this along czar 17:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The nominator Tejas does not appear to be active now. @Czar: If you are filling in for Tejas then that should be fine and you can start in on the list of edit requests in the above outline. User David may be joining in over the week-end as another reviewer. Are you ready to take over for the original nominator to make the edits to move forward? CodexJustin (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes czar 18:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up. David T may have more edit comments over the week-end, and I'll present more details after 1-2 days for initial preparation. CodexJustin (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Some new comments above and below for when you are ready to continue. CodexJustin (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hauser

• "The Hausner incident was also a significant embarrassment to Chomsky" I perused the sources in Marc Hauser's article related to scientific misconduct and didn't find anything for this claim. Have a source to suggest? czar 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This is Chomsky's response here: [7]. I do not think this is trivial since Hauser's efforts are no longer endorsed by Harvard, and Chomsky's large effort in co-authoring his 2002 paper with him seems now to be discredited as well. If you believe that the Hauser incident was of trivial importance to Chomsky then it might be useful to state this with your reliable sources. Discrediting an established scholars is usually not seen as a trivial event. CodexJustin (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The claim that a discredited scholar had an impact on Chomsky's reputation or was embarrassing, if significant, will be covered in a source such as the one you cited. But that Tom Bartlett article doesn't say that. Something like "Chomsky's large effort in co-authoring his 2002 paper with him seems now to be discredited as well" would also require a citation, i.e., another scholar or credentialing body that says so. czar 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the linguistics scholar whom Chomsky is now endorsing: Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity (The MIT Press) 1st Edition (2017)by Angela D. Friederici (Author), Noam Chomsky (Foreword). If you can add this cite in somewhere in the article and a quote from Chomsky's forward to it (on Google books, or Amazon previews) then it would address most of the Hauser issue. CodexJustin (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've read this foreword now but he doesn't mention or allude to Hauser so not sure how you'd like it to be used. czar 20:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Since Chomsky is no longer endorsing the research of Hauser on the evolution and physiology and the brain, it would be nice to add a cite on who he is presently endorsing for the evolution and physiology of the brain. The Friederici should be added where you think best for the article and the cite fully represented. A one line quote from Chomsky, possibly from his very last paragraph in the Forward there would be a useful addition. CodexJustin (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't read his foreword to Friederici as an endorsement. Praiseworthy, sure, but the closest it gets to endorsement is, "These are bold proposals, with rich implications insofar as they can be sustained and developed further." I wouldn't feel comfortable citing that as Chomsky's present endorsement.

fwiw, I found this, if it interests you:

According to Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (2002), unbounded recursion is unique to human language. There is in principle no limit on the number of words in a sentence. This view has been challenged in several works, including Jackendoff 2011. It has been claimed, for example, that recursion is also part of other human cognitive faculties, and that it is also found in communication systems in nonhuman primates.
— Sciullo, Anna Maria Di & Jenkins, Lyle. "Biolinguistics and the human language faculty." Language, vol. 92 no. 3, 2016, pp. e205-e236. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0056

Feels like cherry picking to make this point, though. If the idea is that Hauser's misconduct embarrassed Chomsky and made him no longer endorse that work, I haven't seen that borne out in sources just yet without becoming some form of original research. czar 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a quote anywhere in that forward that you believe is informative and useful. Chomsky I assume wrote the article because it was useful to the book. Can you find a useful quote anywhere in the forward to add to this article here? CodexJustin (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see anything in the foreword to have particular bearing on his biography. Let me know if you can't access the foreword in Google Books and I can send the two pages. czar 02:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you do not have access to Berwick's article with them here [8]. A quote from anyone of the co-authored articles with Berwick RC1, Friederici AD, Chomsky N, Bolhuis JJ, would be useful somewhere in the article. Also, the Philosophy section has again surface in the Wikipedia article after you deleted it with a new section below. CodexJustin (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the Berwick/Chomsky articles and I'm not sure what needs to be added. They don't appear to address the Hauser falsification incident (nevertheless its impact on Chomsky) or even mention Hauser unfavorably in any way. It would be original research to pull from such primary sources to imply that Chomsky has pivoted from a past position. czar 13:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is no longer a Hauser issue. No more comments here on Hauser. New section on Friederici below. CodexJustin (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)