New Statesman says he died June 18 [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/06/the-noam-chomsky-i-knew] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.134.26.141|142.134.26.141]] ([[User talk:142.134.26.141#top|talk]]) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
New Statesman says he died June 18 [https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/06/the-noam-chomsky-i-knew] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.134.26.141|142.134.26.141]] ([[User talk:142.134.26.141#top|talk]]) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
:That's also gone. The rate at which these "sources" are disappearing strongly suggests he is not dead. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Q: Why doesn't the article cover more of Chomsky's view on X political event?
A: This article doesn't cover all of Chomsky's many political views, only the ones that have had significant secondary source discourse to factor into what a general reader would need to know about his general biography. The Political positions of Noam Chomsky article goes into more depth for those with specific interests.
Noam Chomsky is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
Define "rationalism" as parallel to definition of "empiricism"
Get a better source for Saudi Arabia political views; try McGilvray
Get a better source for views on partition of Palestine
Reduce hagiography in § 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
Address history of controversial statements on genocide in the political beliefs section doi:10.5038/1911-9933.14.1.1738
Turn the achievements laundry list into readable prose
Confirm with sourced prose or remove the flatlist items from the infobox
Add commas after "in year X" clauses
Consider whether to expand on his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Incorporate noteworthy anti-Chomsky critique into the Political views section so the final section can focus on Influence/Legacy
WP:DUE: "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Seems there is a misunderstanding on what WP:DUE says; it does not say that we have to weigh the prominency of a viewpoint to determine on its inclusion, but rather that differing viewpoints have to be reported on in proportion to their prominency. This is crystal clear from the quote cited above.
Chomsky has called Israel an apartheid state worse than the one that existed in South Africa, that is his viewpoint; did he give other viewpoints that made you determine citing this was "undue"? No he didn't, and the same goes for his other comments which you removed indiscriminately. I very carefully wrote the prose, ensuring that each of his comments were added in quotes, so there is no valid POV claim. WP:NOTNEWS in not valid since Middle East Monitor and DemocracyNow are not primary sources. COATRACK is an essay.
I'm sorry you think I do not understand NPOV, but I have tens of thousands of edits in the most contentious articles on this site and I am confident in my understanding of NPOV and the finer points of how it can be misrepresented and mistreated. Since you don't accept my view, you are welcome to start an RfC and see whether you can convince the community. You would need to convince everyone that - in Chomsky's nearly century-long life story - his views on Israel and Zionism suddenly became much much more important and central to his biography, justifying your additions. I think it's a long shot, but have a try, if you wish. SPECIFICOtalk19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Then as an experienced editor, with good faith, supposedly, you are certainly aware of WP:RFCBEFORE: “RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC.” I have already brunt the WP:BURDEN and demonstrated verifiability by providing reliable secondary citations. Your refusal to even discuss the issue and elaborate on your opposition to the addition of this reliably sourced material without guideline-backed reasons is quite telling. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off: if you wish to disparage or threaten me, that should be done on my user talk page, not here. Second, please slow down and consider the reason I gave to explain why this content should not be added. Third, please review WP:ONUS. SPECIFICOtalk▪︎
@SPECIFICO: WP:ONUS links to WP:CONSENSUS which says: “Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.” You have not made any legitimate concerns other than throwing random non-fitting Wikipedia guidelines and making false accusations of alleged disparaging and threats. It’s your responsibility to articulate your concerns, and if there’s an inability/unwillingness to do so, then that’s frankly speaking not my problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for the content you believe should be added. That may take more time than you would prefer, but that is the standard we follow. I have given my resoning against this addition several times already, above and in my edit summary. SPECIFICOtalk17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: There is no such thing as "demonstrating consensus"; consensus will be reached when you provide counterarguments based on WP guideline. The burden is on you to engage and express your positions. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ONUS, CONSENSUS, and seeveral behavioral guidelines. I have repeatedly stated my position and the reasons for it. Perhaps ask an Admin for help if you doubt my statement that you are misunderstanding policy. The reason I suggested an RfC is because that would be one way to demonstrate consensus. I recall you've initiated at least one RfC in the past (ignoring RFCBEFORE, as you know) so I thought you would find that suggestion constructive here. SPECIFICOtalk21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Please stop throwing false accusations that I have started RfCs having ignored RFCBEFORE. Consensus is a group effort, it is not a individual "demonstration". A group effort that starts by you explaining clearly what you object to, because you indiscriminately reverted all of my edits. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the one that I removed and got you blocked. I don't know and didn't say about any other time, but that's off topic. I don't look at who made an edit when I read it. I do not indiscriminately revert anything due to which editor contributed it. If you wish to make further personal remarks please use my user talk page. SPECIFICOtalk22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: What an absurd statement, no one gets blocked for putting an RFC. Please abide by your own statements, and make further personal remarks on my talk page. Now you are welcome begin to elaborate your opposition in a clear manner to each and every edit, since you reverted everything. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: Agreed although undersells is an understatement given that the current content just claims he was "raising awareness", with no mention of his actual views: anti-Zionism; his apartheid analogy; and other comments. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all the material that was reverted that had been added about Chomsky's views on Israel, which I would broadly characterize as quite nuanced and varied, but include, strong opposition to the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, he's a non-Zionist or anti-Zionist left-socialist, almost communist, anarchist Jewish intellectual. He grew up a Left or Labor Zionist. He later turned to antiwar activism. He definitely did say all the stuff about Israeli apartheid, the reference to the famous Leibowitz Judeo-Nazi quote, which he didn't full-throatedly agree with, he acknowledged it was quite a loaded and controversial statement, so much as say he thought there were tendencies that were starting to develop in Israeli society. I do agree that that particular interview isn't necessary, it is cherrypicking somewhat. Also, I thought we were gathering evidence to get i24 deprecated. You can make the point in a better way. The book sources are probably better, but I couldn't check them for some reason. I'm sure, though, there's a wealth of material describing Chomsky's view in fullness on Israel. For example, he definitely said that he believed that the right to exist is a fiction and we already mention his 1983 book which is entirely about this topic. He's also talked in depth about people such as Nahum Goldmann who didn't want to exploit the Holocaust to oppress others. He's talked about how the two-state solution is the only solution because a one-state solution would be a pie in the sky solution. He's called Gaza a prison. Etc. So, there's plenty that can be said about Chomsky's criticism of Israel and anti-Zionistic views as a socialist Labor Jewish anti-Zionist, his father was a Hebrew scholar, he's a dying breed but such people were once common in the world. I'm sure you can cite the higher quality material such as the books, and the JSTOR and other journal articles, and leave out some of the lighter weight TV interviews where he's just rambling on about things and you're kind of cherrypicking specific quotes that aren't too important in the scheme of understanding his views. Andre🚐10:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: Well for a start, refreshing specific commentary on what is actually potentially problematic, and not just the throwing of random WP guidelines and ad hominem. While I agree with most of your points, I disagree on the cherry picking part: cherry picking refers to when you are taking something out of context, while avoiding contradictory evidence. Cherry picking therefore doesn't apply to these statements, this is merely picking, as there are no contradictory statements in which he says for example that Gaza is a utopia, or in which he says Israel is genuinely a liberal democracy. Chomsky said that the Judeo-Nazi claim was a loaded statement in Israel, he did agree with it, and even said that these Judeo-Nazi tendencies in Israel are growing stronger. I24news is definitely unreliable, however, we could simply offset that problem by attribution; furthermore, there are plenty of other instances where he mentioned this, including in his 1999 Fateful Triangle book, and is widely referenced in the media. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot negate our sourcing and NPOV policies by attribution. That is not how we use attribution. As nableezy concefes, Chomsky's view has been widely know for 50 years. This content did not suddenly become DUE for this mature and widely followed article. SPECIFICOtalk17:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was always due, the idea that things were not covered so they should not be covered has zero grounding in policy or logic. Wikipedia is after all famously not finished. This material is due and I’ll be adding material with the sources I have found and will keep looking at. Chomskys views on Israel are not presented here, and they form a significant amount of his public advocacy. And of coverage of him. You can try to stand in the way if you want but nobody has to seek your permission for anything here, and if you want to edit war things out then that can be dealt with in the usual manner. nableezy - 17:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that what you mean to say is that you will be presenting your sources and policy-based rationales for whatever edit you propose and pursuing consensus for your suggestion on talk. SPECIFICOtalk19:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
let's get back on track here. You're right, he didn't say Gaza was a utopia. He's anti all states, and if you read a fuller context you understand he's operating on a higher level of criticism, so it's a little out of context to just grab all the slightly anti-Israel comments he's made that have the effect to imply he wants to dismantle settler colonialism in Israel. He doesn't want to dismantle anything, he's an advocate for a policy of peace. He's on the Israeli left. He's from an older mode of left wing thinkers along the same lines of the kibbutzniks and so on, and he's fiercely critical of the West Bank settlers who are encroaching into Palestinian territory in violation of international law. He considers that Hamas favors a 2-state solution (is that still true, I wonder). As does the late Edward Said in his article about Chomsky which acknowledges their limits and gaps, they're actually quite critical of the US. Chomsky's been quite critical of the BDS movement as well. Chomsky is very unkind to the PLO, he says they're self-destructive and suicidal, he says the Arab regimes are not decent and not popular either.[1][2][3][4][5][6]Andre🚐00:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as someone who has read chomsky closely for 55 years, the absurdly abrupt section on his views regarding the ip conflict looks rigorously like hushing.THe man happens to be the most authoritative historical voice on that conflict, deeply influential, and therefore the expansion, even if it needs some rewriting, is almost obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nish, it's not considered cool to revert war content under discussion on the talk page. And "farcical" is hardly the level of scrutiny and justification we will need to make whatever decisions ultimatly find consensus. It would be best if you'd self-revert while the discussion continues. Also, as you are surely aware, as an "historian" Chomsky is rich in opinions (some valid and thought-provoking) but lacking in rigor and academic standing. SPECIFICOtalk16:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historians are of several kinds, archival, descriptivists, generalists, comparativists etc. I have seen desultory challenges to Chomsky as an historian for a decade and a half, and invariably the contention is generic, that he is not professionally qualified as such. Neither was Walter Laqueur. Lacking in rigour and academic standing? That argument has been applied to any number of professional historians of this area, beginning with Efraim Karsh and Ilan Pappé, but are not taken as invalidating their use, even if the bias on wiki is to aim these critiques at historians seen to be pro-Palestinian, in a field which is overwhelmingly dominated by scholars of an Israeli or Zionist or diasporic background. I don't get the impression Chomsky is 'rich in opinions'. What he does is annotate day by day what was said by whom and when, in what context, all the material that disappears down the memory hole or gets lost in telescoping retroactive studies. It parallels what Morris does in the archives. The latter dredges up the hidden field reportage (in those Israeli sources that are accessible) on history as it unfolded, the former tells you what was publicly reported as history unfolded (the kind of historical narrative Martin Gilbert excelled in), and then was forgotten. But this is not material to the point here.
This is Chomsky's wiki bio, which must cover all relevant parts of his life and oeuvre. Since writing on the I/P conflict has engaged his critical scrutiny extensively for several decades, finding expression in major, influential studies like The Fateful Triangle, the decidedly elliptical coverage of his positions before the edit now contested on the conflict struck me as odd. It now strikes me as fairly due. I've done a ce, because some of the language was pointy. I'm not happy with the description 'anti-Zionist' which is a question-begging reductionist simplification of his position as a pre-Biltmore Zionist who has stayed faithful to that ever since.Nishidani (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that although Chomsky's views on Israel are discussed at length, they are not his primary subject area. He is primarily a linguist and secondarily a political philosopher. He is not an expert on the Middle East. He's written extensively on his views on the topic, and he's also received quite a bit of criticism on it. Even though nowadays he gets more attention for his politics, he's most notably a linguist. Andre🚐16:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That they are discussed at length in sources is reason to discuss them at length in our article. WEIGHT is determined on the coverage in reliable sources, not what somebody's profession is. nableezy - 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have the chapter, and having read it no it is about his views on Israel. It is a bit dated though, so will use it for some things while using new sources along with it. nableezy - 20:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Given Chomsky's lengthy record of public comments downplaying or outright denying the severity of the 1990s Bosnian Genocide, it is concerning that it's not covered more in-depth in this article. More content regarding these comments would be much appreciated. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree per WP:DUE. I read a number of Chomsky's works and listened to his interviews, and I have never heard it mentioned even once. This is a gross exaggeration. However, the issue is mentioned in the WP:BODY. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky has denied the Bosnian Genocide (i.e. claiming it never took place; a claim about reality)
Chomsky has denied that what happened constituted genocide (i.e. claiming it doesn't meet the definition of genocide; a claim at least partly about the meaning of words)
Chomsky has questioned whether what happened constituted genocide
The two references provided in that edit clearly show 3; they do not show 2, let alone 1.
So if anything regarding this is added to the article, it would have to be a statement to the effect that Chomsky is known for considering the term genocide overused, and for having used the murders in Bosnia as a possible example. Rp (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rp Denial of the Bosnian Genocide's status as a genocide still constitutes the definition of Genocide Denial. A lot of genocide denial, both anonymously online and by public figures, comes in the form of questioning a genocide's status as a genocide. The Bosnian Genocide was an organized extermination campaign against Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats by the Army of Republika Srpska for the purpose of ethnically cleansing territory for Serbian control. This was a genocide, plain and simple.
Chomsky's claims go against the findings of both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Chomsky has gone on record saying that some media displaying the Bosnian Genocide is fabricated, and that Bosniak citizens could have avoided their deadly fate by just "going along" with Serbian nationalist plans of mass deportation. These comments and others are utterly atrocious, and should be pointed out more prominently in Chomsky's Wikipedia article.
I think calling Chomsky a genocide denial wouldn't violate WP:NPOV; after all, Pol Pot is called a dictator on his Wikipedia article. Although I have a feeling Chomsky would disagree with that position as well, given his comments on the Cambodian Genocide. It's almost as if Chomsky can't accept the fact that regimes he's sympathetic towards can commit genocide.Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to provide some more substantial sourcing for these characterizations if you want to establish a consensus that the topic needs more coverage in the article. As it stands, your attempted edit improperly synthesizes claims in your source. Remsense诉05:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this garbage has been gone through umpteen times before. Chomsky has never downplayed or denied anything in Bosnia; he simply believes the word "genocide" should be restricted to its original meaning, i.e. to describe something like the Holocaust or Rwanda. That's not genocide denial, because nothing in the Yugoslav wars meets that standard. Cambodia: I just cannot be bothered going through it yet again. You're not the slightest bit interested in the facts; you just want to add some tired smears to the article. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BowlAndSpoon As @Remsense had mentioned, please refrain from directing personal attacks against me. We are both perfectly capable of discussing this topic without delving into purposefully aggressive language and tone.
As defined by Raphael Lemkin and other critical scholars who worked on the United Nations Genocide Convention, a genocide is a series of "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." In the Bosnian War, the Army of Republika Srpska sought to eliminate ethnic Bosniaks from territories they considered to be "rightfully Serbian;" such a goal is clearly in line with the definition set out by the United Nations and other accredited organizations. Furthermore, the Cambodian Genocide targeted ethnic minorities within the country, such as Chams, Chinese Cambodians, and Vietnamese Cambodians; once again, such a goal is clearly in line with the definition stated above.
Although the term genocide was created to specifically refer to the Holocaust, the definition laid out by the United Nations (and the literal creator of the term genocide himself) clearly includes other crimes against humanity throughout recent history, such as the Bosnian and Cambodian Genocides. To limit the classification of genocide to just the Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide risks feeding into the final stage of genocide: denial. Denial is what Chomsky is doing here, and it is a shame that the wider Wikipedia community does not recognize that, according to the users on this page at least.Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is OR and synthesis. Your opinions and claims about what genocide is and how they relate to what Chomsky has said about Bosnia are not relevant. To have the article claim that he is a genocide denier or has denied genocide in Bosnia you need reliable sources quoted to that effect, and if possible balanced with RS stating the contrary. 2600:8802:5913:1700:D95E:4856:9AD2:F43D (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that, destroying people is not the same thing as eliminating them from a territory: the latter can be done by chasing them away. The takeaway from this sort of discussion, for me, is that the application of the term "genocide" is inherently contentious, so we should be extremely careful with its use in Wikipedia articles. Rp (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is he dead?
The page currently has him at "is", but with a death date; yet the article linked does not state that he has died. I don't think there's reliable sources yet stating he's died. Dingers5Days (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a tweet (no source given) and the jacobin dropped their obituary (which did not mention or provide a source for his death). it's my opinion that we needn't update the article with his death until more information comes in Pallasproserpina (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article may need some protection as several users added it back after my initial edit. I took another look again & you are right. There is not enough confirmation. Ittybittykittycommittee (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries are written in advance. Asking Varoufakis for an obituary for someone makes sense, moreover when it is a nonagenary with a recent stroke. Theklan (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions "when I heard of his passing", but I agree with you, it's not credible enough. A proper credible news source would disclose the source, i.e. "as confirmed to us by Chomsky's family". If he died, it should be in Reuters et al shortly anyway. Philwiki (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the news a few days ago about Chomsky's health struggles, it seems easy hoax material. I don't think a single source considered reliable by Wikipedia has commented on his supposed death. Maurnxiao (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diário do Centro do Mundo is an extremely unreliable source and was in fact banned on Portuguese Wikipedia along with linked sites. We should wait before editing the article, and hopefully this great man can still recover from his stroke. FelipeFritschF (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Continental, but Vozpopuli is not a very reliable source, as it may just copy from other outlets or tweets. Theklan (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the la Tercera article says is that international news media have reported his death which doesn't seem to be actually true. Stellaathena (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian economist Eduardo Moreira claims he has talked with Chomsky's Brazilian wife and she says he is alive (though presumably recovering from his stroke). I reiterate that he Brazilian sources used are extremely unreliable and low quality. In fact, I have just checked the DCM article, and they deleted it. FelipeFritschF (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to anyone who reads down this far. According to WP:BLP and WP:NOT we are not here to report the news, we are here to summarize what is presented in verifiable sources. It doesn’t matter if he is or is not actually dead. Unless it’s hitting multiple high quality sources we don’t put it on the page. Wikipedia doesn’t win by being first, we win by being verifiable. PyropePe (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NS article has been taken down and the Jacobin web page is not even responsive. I have no clue what's happening. Shallov (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "random tweet" was actually the Jacobin obituary. Though I agree that this situation is absurd and I'd expect better from Jacobin. A bizzare mistake, unless they have a secret reliable source very close to Chomsky lol. Shallov (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there were a couple articles that got posted, and then when you clicked on them they disappeared. It seems to be some momentary dumbness that happened for a couple minutes. jp×g🗯️20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While having an image of the person during their peak (or, at least, not necessarily the most recent one) is often what is done after their death, I don't think the black-and-white part is an actual criterion (see Elizabeth II, with her official portrait instead). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually one or the other, it could be an old image and colored like Elizabeth II or it could be black and white. I'm leaning towards this one as it's one of a younger Chomsky and it's not bad in terms of quality. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, normally when someone dies it's replaced with a recent photo with an iconic/posterity photo of them at their peak. There's no requirement for it to be black and white, just iconic - or at least, that's my understanding of it.
Per the linked news article the stroke happened last year. Please.
"Valeria Chomsky said via email that her 95-year-old husband is in a Sao Paulo hospital, where she took him on an ambulance jet with two nurses once he could more easily travel from the United States following the June 2023 stroke." Lacanthrope (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why has been the Hebrew IPA taken down? He has stated himself that both English and Hebrew pronunciation of his name is correct, so in my view, it's an important thing to include. ~~~~Shallov (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that he used the Hebrew pronunciation of his name? Though given his interest in Hebrew, I could believe it. Cadairidris (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did not see there was a discussion here, sorry. As I quickly explained in my edit summary, my problem is with having an Israeli Hebrew pronunciation for someone who is not Israeli (and even a strong critic of Israel). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering he's Jewish and speaks Hebrew from his birth, I think that including the Hebrew pronunciation is valid; him criticising Israel or Zionism does not take his Jewishness away. However, as per @Cadairidris, I must admit that I cannot find any source explicitly mentioning him using the Hebrew pronunciation. I have a memory of a source cited here on Wikipedia, citing him saying something along the lines that he used both English and Hebrew pronunciation and that both were correct, though it might be a false memory (or Google failing me) because I cannot find anything like that as of now. As I thought the source has been cited in the article - and now I've just most likely proven myself wrong - I think I shall not continue advocating for the inclusion of the Hebrew pronunciation, until any source is proven. ~~~~Shallov (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my point was more that it’s a bit weird to have a pronunciation in the Israeli variety of Hebrew rather than about the Hebrew pronunciation per se. I am aware that Israeli Hebrew is the only variety of the language in current usage, but at the same time Chomsky did not grow up or spend most of his life in Israel, i.e. among speakers of this variety, so that’s it. However, I’m also not sure if Chomsky having studied the language is enough of a qualifier to have any Hebrew pronunciation, even if he is a Jew—for example, you wouldn’t place an Italian pronunciation for the name of a German linguist just because they happen to have also studied Italian. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Review all citations for text–source integrity
Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: per above. NotAGenious (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
