Talk:Noam Chomsky

Road to FA, pt. II

Some remaining tasks to take this article to featured status, with some imported from the recent peer review:

• Review all citations for text–source integrity
• Replace primary sources with best-in-class sources
• Replace chomsky.info sources
• Bundle citations with {{sfnm}} where feasible
• Rewrite the parts that rely on "Brain from Top to Bottom"
• Rewrite the beginning of § Universal grammar and add a paragraph break
• 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
• Cross-reference Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley (eds.). "Noam Chomsky". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. OCLC 37741658. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Text "chomsky-philosophy" ignored (help)

• Invite reviewers to the FA nom

czar 04:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we include or hide friendship? , business relationship ? with convicted abuser Jeffrey Epstein

And I think the choice is that sparse. Once the info is in the Wall Street Journal, it would be active hiding on our part not to include it.

This is different than whether or not to include it in the Lead. which I do not favor.

——————

I suggest something like the following:

Convicted abuser Jeffrey Epstein helped Chomsky move $270,000 following the death of Chomsky’s first wife. According the Wall Street Journal as summarized by Forbes, Chomsky also met with Epstein dozens of times. When first contacted by the Wall Street Journal, Chomsky said, “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally.”"Jeffrey Epstein Moved Money For Noam Chomsky, Paid Bard President Botstein $150,000, Report Says". Forbes. May 17, 2023.

@Muboshgu:, hi, you might want to be part of this conversation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. See Talk:Noam Chomsky/Archive 16#Association with Jeffrey Epstein. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding the bold here so that others can read the 2023 discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I like this ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I’ll give it a read.

If we include it, we should probably also include “ . . placing them among scores of prominent figures who met with the financier after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution.“ (from Forbes) And whether this makes it better or worse, we do not need to draw that conclusion. We simply present the info and let our readers draw their own conclusions. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

(from Forbes) “The meetings were to discuss academic topics like geopolitics and neuroscience, often including world leaders like former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak”

This is more reason to include, since it involves Chomsky’s political work.

Now, the worse thing is a “compromise” in which we include one sentence because it would make it look like Chomsky is guilty (and that we’re too embarrassed to include more).

I read the discussion from 2023, and find myself agreeing more with the persons in favor of “include.” It seems several of the “include” side bowed out and/or got busy with other things. Meaning, consensus is a human process afterall, of course it is.

@Muboshgu:, what might you recommend? May I contact each person in that previous discussion, and let them know that it’s with your permission? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I still recommend that we don't include it because it isn't a noteworthy part of Chomsky's biography and presents a "guilt by association" connection where it doesn't exist. Same as I recommended two years ago.

You are right that one single sentence would likely lead many to assume guilt, but a whole paragraph is WP:UNDUE given that Chomsky used a financier for his proper job skills and has never been alleged to have visited the island.

I don't agree with the assessment that several of the “include” side bowed out and/or got busy with other things. It's just as likely that they saw that "exclude" was "winning" and they gave up. Consensus from two years ago was clearly to not have any mention of Epstein in this article.

You don't need my permission to ping editors. Of course if you want to revisit that discussion they should be notified. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether to include or not. Is this something that is relevant to Chomsky, or will improve the article in some way? Presumably Epstein (and any rich or famous celebrity) will have met many hundreds of people during their life; once they become notorious for wrongdoing, do we go back and trace the ones that knew him well during his life by happenstance or for reasons not connected with their crimes, and then stick a few sentences in all the articles? 'A' knew Epstein and met him a dozen times; 'B' knew Epstein and was on his yacht half a dozen times; 'C' knew Epstein, and attended fund-raisers for his fave politician ten times; ...; 'Z' knew Epstein, and walked his dogs once a week for seven years. Legitimate question. I tend to think not, unless it was picked up by the press at a level which passes WP:DUEWEIGHT, compared to all the other things Chomsky had done in his life. Do these meetings pass that threshold? Or are they one of thousands of things the press has noted about Chomsky, not all of which meet the level necessary for encyclopedic coverage? Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any other RS coverage connecting Epstein to Chomsky. (Edit: there's also a Guardian piece in the talk archives.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on my WP:DUEWEIGHT comment with an illustration: the term Afghanistan does not occur in this article (and occurs once at Political positions of Noam Chomsky). Here are several hundred sources about Chomsky on Afghanistan. Is the factoid about Epstein more deserving of space in this article, than something about Afghanistan? Maybe if someone writes Personal life of Noam Chomsky it would merit a mention there. Or maybe not. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The Forbes article says “dozens” of meetings and also says “often including world leaders like former Israeli Prime Minister Ebud Ehud Barak.”

@Mathglot:, Hi, the fact that we go skimpy on Afghanistan I’m not sure is a slam-dunk for going skimpy on other topics. If a fan of Chomsky or a semi-fan finds out someplace else, they might feel cheated. So, might a critic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear about the WP:DUEWEIGHT example. Whether we "go skimpy" on a topic here is not the point. The point is, how much has a topic actually been covered in reliable sources, so that it hits a threshold of coverage and importance such that we may summarize it here in a general article about Chomsky, in rough proportion to the amount of reliable, independent, secondary coverage it gets? Are there hundreds of books and scholarly articles that cover the Epstein connection? Then by all means, include it. Are there just a dozen or two? Then, it becomes more doubtful, because Chomsky has been written about in such detail on so many topics, that you cannot cover all of them. Are there just a few sources, or even just one? Then maybe it just doesn't have the weight (yet) to appear in a general article like this one. This is an encyclopedic article, and if there isn't room for it per WP:DUEWEIGHT, then there isn't. If you want to argue for inclusion, please do so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; one hypothetical reader feeling cheated about something they didn't find here is not sufficent justification. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Chomsky plus Afghanistan equals content boring to most. Chomsky plus Epstein has a WP:SENSATIONAL component to it that we must be wary of. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that Chomsky met with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in Epstein’s presence not important? Only prime minister for two years from 1999 to 2001, but defense minister for a longer period. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

So? Famous person meets famous person. Pretty WP:ROTM without anything of substance happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

But politics is one of Noam’s main fields, right? Linguistics and politics are probably 1A and 1B. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

And while we’re talking article quality . . . I’d encourage people that when you read something on Wiki which really raises your eyebrow, time and interest permitting, please dive in and look up the ref. See if the ref still supports our passage in Wiki. It may have started out doing a fine job of summarizing, but as things are rewritten and moved around a little, the meaning can subtly change. Especially if there were a couple of edits on top of each other.

This type of spot-checking is relatively rare behavior. All the same, I think we should try to make it a little less rare! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

.

.

@Softlemonades:, @DFlhb:, @GuardianH:, @Rauisuchian:,@Nishidani:, Hi, each and every one of you are invited to a new discussion, if you so wish! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is Jeffrey Epstein not mentioned a single time in the current version of this article??? Chomsky continued a friendship with Epstein for years after Epstein's conviction, and exchanged numerous long emails with Epstein (which were released by the House Oversight Committee in November 2025), and Epstein helped Chomsky move $270,000 between bank accounts in 2018. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/17/jeffrey-epstein-noam-chomsky-bard-college-president ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, in an email dated August 6, 2015, Epstein wrote to Chomsky: "you are of course welcome to use apt in new york with your new leisure time, or visit new Mexico again." They must have been close friends, and this was years after Epstein's conviction for sex trafficking. ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If you read above, you'll see why the 2018 financial transaction is not included. As for the House Oversight Committee emails, they were just released a few days ago and haven't been discussed here yet. Where's a source? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

WBUR, New Yorker, Miami Herald, NPR (citing Chomsky's letter of recommendation for Epstein). Plenty more where that came from. The relationship was, by Chomsky's own account, significant, which makes it notable, and one Epstein used to launder his own reputation. We know considerably more than we did in 2023—and even in September 2025. 100W bulb (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no urgent need to add it now, while information is coming out day by day on the Epstein topic, and may just be the latest flash in the pan that fades away with tomorrow's news. If this turns out to be significant, and of long-lasting media attention and of WP:DUE WEIGHT for the Chomsky article, there will be ample time to add it to the article later. This is not Wikinews (but you could probably add it there, though). Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Include Chomsky and Epstein's interactions, insist on facts and a neutral point of view which is not possible now due to recent political controversy and the release of more information still pending. Not that thats going to change the fact that he is completely innocent of whatever crime he is alleged to have committed by word associations and frequency of news articles with the same three factoids. ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just think it's really convenient and weird that people are so resistant to acknowledging the association and calling it "recentism" even though the talk page discussion about it has been happening for months. carrying water for your idea of noam chomsky is interfering with your capacity for viewpoint neutrality--for several of you. 100W bulb (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's the title and tagline of the last article about chomsky via Google news, "What Noam Chomsky’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein says about progressive politics

The Left icon overlooked sexual violence, much like India’s literary and cultural progressives have embraced a man whose rape conviction was overturned."

Clearly hoping to imply that Chomsky is the "Left icon" overlooking sexual violence and because of its proximity to the next sentence get people to click on it to see if chomsky is the "cultural progressive" whose rape conviction was overturned.

Within the article it states the following almost immediately, "I must emphasise here that knowing or meeting Epstein does not in any way imply that Chomsky was party to his crimes against girls and women. I’m not suggesting “guilt by association” nor am I interested in a “gotcha” moment at his expense." The new "facts" contained in this article that are supposed to shine a light on the progressive icon are, "In 2023, Chomsky explained why he and his wife befriended Epstein in spite of his conviction for sex crimes against minor girls. “What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence,” he said. “According to prevailing US laws and norms, that yields a clean slate.”" this links to a rolling stone article from two years ago wherein he calls Woody allen a great artist.

Are these men rich and or powerful, yes. Is it a bad look to associate with these people? Yes. Did a whole lot of people do it, yes. Is it fair to now try to equivocate "had a relationship with Epstein" with "does it say he's ok with raping little girls since I think so for clicks"? Case in point another quotation from this article, "If working-class children had complained of being trafficked by a filthy rich CEO to do toxic and dangerous work, and the CEO got away with a rap on his knuckles, would Chomsky argue that he now had a clean slate?" And they answer their own questions, who needs a neutral perspective just put this in too, "But the rules seem different when the working-class children in question are girls, trafficked and enslaved not for factory labour but for sex work. In Chomsky’s political world, these individual survivors of sexual predation are invisible." Working class children! That's really happening. Yes, working class children, a moniker that in itself is an artifact of this person's thinking that those exist everywhere because they exist in india, and seeks to imply that Chomsky, by affiliating with Epstein not only draws the artificial distinction between 11 year olds who were trafficked for sexual purposes, who are invisible, but that 11 year olds who were trafficked for working in factories enjoy great privilege according to Chomsky, sure let's go ahead and put that in too, and that Chomsky said so as a matter of "implying a norm", a crime in itself!

An "association" isn't an admission of guilt but it sure does help sensationalist journalism. Chomsky has contributed an incredible corpus to linguistic and social theory which defines the current discourse around consent, which he is not able to give to you having stroked out in his 90s, to write fictional novels about his adventures on pedo island employing "working class children" and ensuring they know they're better than the "sex slaves".

Does adding a bunch of recent context bent on smearing his name feel like recentism, to me, yes. Most people here want to add it, I'm just obviously very unconvincingly saying add the facts here which is not possible since there is a deluge of trash about Epstein coming out en masse that people want us to publish like it's passed the standard of news. No one cares about your opinion. Just wait until the false Epstein outrage dies down ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

also, what's there now is neutral point of view. "the relationship was established in X year, Y years after public conviction, extended to at least Z year, and included a letter of endorsement" is all true and all neutral. 100W bulb (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

no one here has any objections to this so you're making stuff up to suggest otherwise. ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

ok. 100W bulb (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Rhetoric, academic conferences in Personal Life

Why is there a long and rambling paragraph in the middle of his "Personal Life" section talking about his rhetoric, word choices, and preferences surrounding academic conferences? I'm not sure how relevant any of this information is, but surely it has nothing to do with his personal life? Thomaspashko (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Zionism

Chomsky is referred to as influenced by left zionism as well as an anti-zionist wondering if its not better to harmonize the references to call him a "labor zionist" throughout citing the closeness of his views on labor "wage slavery," "work is a dictatorship" etc to the description of the political affiliation + his advocacy for the two-party state ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If the reliable sources don't consistently use that term, then neither can we. The term "labor zionist" is extremely rare on the web (less than 100 occurrences), and in proximity with Chomsky's name, is virtually non-existent. So that pretty much excludes the possibility of using it, as it would be pure original research if you did. See also WP:Reliable sources, and WP:DUE WEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

i get it thanks ~2025-35188-76 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)