This template 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 template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles
I'm afraid Chomsky is far too controversial to serve as 'the default linguist'. If you really really need an icon for this stub (why?), why not [1], a representation of Panini on an Indian stamp. At least everybody will grant Panini's historical precedence. 81.63.114.12717:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. I don't think Chomsky's political beliefs are relevant. He is the most prominent (even if you ignore his politics) linguist alive today, and is therefore good for the template. As to the question why we need an icon: I think it looks nice and many other stub sorters do too, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen to use icons as well.--Carabinieri20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
um, I didn't mean 'controversial' in the political sense at all (I have a great deal more sympathy for Chomsky's political views than for his linguistic views). It gets my goat as a linguist to see stubs of entirely unrelated linguists 'branded' with Chomsky's face. His fame is an effect of postmodernism, which we can only hope is finally dying now. 83.79.181.17116:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but since it's silly to have content disputes over stub icons, could we not choose something less inflammatory? He is not very recognizable anyway (I had to mouseover to be sure it was him). Care for somebody more, hm, time honoured? I think Ferdinand de Saussure would be a reasonable choice. Or Karl Brugmann. Or August Schleicher. 83.79.181.17118:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
