Talk:Hitchens's razor/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hitchens's razor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Older comments

This statement is obviously self-refuting as it is a statement asserted with no evidence in support. As such, it can be dismissed without the need to resort to evidence. The problem, however, is that while I can find dozens of links asserting this, most of them are blogs. I can find no expert on the subject who says so and, as such, I hesitate to insert this criticism into the article.190.235.39.102 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a statement about the burden of proof, a person who makes a positive claim has the burden of proving it. Another party has no obligation to accept pure assertion and is justified in rejecting it. 98.109.242.147 (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"This statement is obviously self-refuting" -- No, it obviously isn't; "can be dismissed" does not mean "is false", which is what would be needed to be self-refuting. And HR is, like OR, a methodological principle, not an assertion of empirical fact. While one can dismiss it, it would be foolish to do so, since it is so obviously valid -- there is no burden on anyone to disprove claims offered without justification. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Basic Grammar

By the basic application of elemental English grammar rules, common use, and given that "Hitchens" is a proper noun that ends with an "s". Why is this not "Hitchens' Razor"? (as opposed to, phonetically, "Hitchenzes Razor"?) 216.240.6.210 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I think it should be Hitchens' Razor instead, as since the last letter is an 's' the apostrophe should not be followed by an s. I would appreciate if someone could change this. Eacar94 (talk)

Why is this still not changed? It can easily be seen to be wrong, either by looking into a grammar, or by looking at the printed sources this article cites. The bad thing is that a lot of sites now use Wikipedia’s wrong name, so people do not have a good grasp of English grammar will not recognize and perpetuate the error. -sebi- (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

According to MOS:POSS, Hitchens's is correct usage on Wikipedia. This is consistent with sources including the BBC, NY Times, Atlantic, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not true (anymore?): in section Official names is stated: Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered. (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital or St. Thomas Hospital, even for consistency.) 188.195.221.190 (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Still true: it states "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle)". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a highjacked phrase

Apart from the obvious flaw (which is incidentally irrelevant) that someone has stated already (they have not created a section so it may go unnoticed) this is not really a statement that belongs to Hitchens. This philosophical opinion is basically one that has already been stated millennia ago. The only thing that has happened here is re-branding. I appreciate that Hitchens is still being worshipped since his demise, but is this really suitable for Wikipedia? Is this not more suited to one of the silly "new atheism" (AKA "old materialism") sites.

Admittedly things like Christianity could be accused of the similar things. It could be like saying that such principles as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" have their origin in Christianity. You can trace things like that far further back. "Hitchens' razor" is simply re-branding something that is an age old philosophical perspective.--Hypernator (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it? Prove it! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Before 2003 G. Gordon Liddy many times used a more literal translation What is gratuitously asserted may be just as gratuitously denied." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The article notes prior forms of the statement. Even if it were a "highjacked" (sic) phrase (which is an incorrect characterization) that would be irrelevant. Hitchens said it and it is commonly referred to as "Hitchens' Razor" -- such facts are what's relevant, not what someone thinks of "new atheism" or whether they think that Hitchens is "worshipped" (or even if he is). And the "self-refuting" objection is clearly mistaken -- HR doesn't say that statements offered without evidence are false, which is what would be required to be self-refuting. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Freely Deserted

"what is freely asserted is freely deserted" is a better wording I believe. It has a good rythm and rhyme and also the meaning is better; a statement without evidence actually should not be denied, it might be true, but it should be deserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.152.138 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice as of 2018-01-10

I came here looking to confirm the quote and I got exactly what I would like to see from this article, no more, no less. It deserves a place and just about the treatment it has been given. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's relation to the existence of God

The article lies under the category of the "Arguments against the existence of God". What does it have to do with the existence of God? It presents an epistemological position. How may it say something about the "existence" of God? --Bruno (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any objection to removing the page from the above category?--Bruno (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This razor is usually used against the arguments about the existence of a god. I would say that it is not directly tied, however it is a widely used razor as Christopher Hitchens used this in religious arguments and it is most applicable to religious claims as is dismissed all the claims about religion or god that are asserted without evidence can disregarded without evidence. Eacar94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

criticism section?

There seems to be a great deal of criticism of Hitchens's razor. Ideally, I think there should be a new section added to this article to mention the criticism of Hitchens's razor; The only reason why I might think that a criticism section might not be a good idea is that on an article this short, adding a criticism section of it might be undue weight. If anyone has any thoughts, please share them. JMM12345 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

@JMM12345: added a controversial aspects section (that's the title Occam's Razor uses for their criticism section) and written based on existing source material. MarshallKe (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Evolution News a credible source?

I reverted this edit today for not having a credible source, only to have the anonymous editor revert my undo later. I've asked them to reset the article until they provide rationale as to why Evolution News should be considered a reliable source and reminded them of WP:BRD: Hitchens's razor has been criticized as self-refuting. If what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, then since the claim "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is asserted without evidence, it can also be dismissed without evidence.

The academic and popular author David Berlinski, with whom Hitchens debated, wrote the following about it:

"Hitchens was uninterested in subtle analysis. On the masthead of the Daily Hitchens, there is the legend: What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The difficulty with this assertion is straightforward. If it has been asserted without proof, why should it be believed, and if not, where is the proof? I asked Hitchens about this during a break in our debate. We had retreated to a forlorn hotel loading ramp in order to have a cigarette. 'Well, yes,' he said, 'it’s just a sentence.' "^[1] Orville1974 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that the article is written by Berlinski, the account of the conversation isn't independent of one of its participants, so I think that at the very least, we need secondary coverage of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_flower_of_chi/

citation failed on "Hitchens's razor is popularly used to assert the nonexistence of deities"

@Cordless Larry: I can see how the word "popularly" is not supported by the article. Would you still have objections if it was changed to New Atheists use Hitchens's razor to assert the nonexistence of deities? Or if we omit the word "popularly"? Or replace "New Atheists" with "Christopher Hitchens"? MarshallKe (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see how the source would support that either. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, it's not making a claim about anyone using Hitchens's razor, is it? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you'd be on safer ground stating that Hitchens himself used it for those purposes. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The text from the article that I think most supports my statement is: The upshot is that religious belief must be judged irrational, epistemically unjustified, or intellectually illegitimate, and it should be rejected. As Christopher Hitchens is fond of saying, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” and Far more central is their repeated insistence that because religious belief lacks evidence, it is irrational and so should be abandoned.

Though, you could probably argue that "reject" and "abandon" is not equivalent to "claim to be false" MarshallKe (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also thinking You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, as anyone who reads anything to do with Hitchens' razor will see that it's used by antitheists to assert that God doesn't exist MarshallKe (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" is an essay. "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." --Renat 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I know the difference between an essay and a policy. We use essays as a persuasive tool when we make frequently made points, in place of writing the same thing over and over each time. If you believe every sentence in every Wikipedia article requires an individual citation, that's a fine point to make, as well, although I and most other editors think it's an unreasonable point. MarshallKe (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: ... most other editors ... sure. --Renat 16:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the article for salt water. You'll notice there is no citation for the claim that it "is water that contains a high concentration of dissolved salts". Would you care to add a citation needed inline template to it? MarshallKe (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: "Hitchens's razor is popularly used to assert the nonexistence of deities." --Renat 16:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're getting at. And please, there is no need to ping me each time. I am watching the page. MarshallKe (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not feel "popularly" requires extra citation. It is a bit WP:EDITORIAL. People who care to argue any preposition are incline to demand evidence. I do feel the whole line is not needed. It seems to assume the reader is too stupid to realize the consequence of the razor. Can we just delete the whole line? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it would not immediately be obvious to me that Hitchens' Razor is used for such a purpose, because that use is a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to Argument from ignorance. Hitchens' Razor says you can dismiss, but not make an opposite claim and declare it true, and that is the specific usage this line describes. MarshallKe (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Trying this again.

I've taken the advice of the editor advising the removal of the word "popularly" and instead simply state that Hitchens uses it for said purpose, and also took into account the concerns of the editors who reverted my original text who were confused about what it meant. MarshallKe (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The reverters, who have not commented yet in this talk page, seemed to be confused about the difference between dismissing a claim and supporting evidence for an opposite claim, and I hope that my new edit makes this difference clearer. MarshallKe (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is about "Hitchens Razor". Your edit did not address that subject, but restricted itself to Hitchens personal beliefs (or lack thereof). I would agree if you had simply deleted that section, being poorly sourced, but your replacement isn't any better. Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. I had thought of using New Atheists instead of the vague "is popularly used", but another editor, @Cordless Larry:, had advised me to change it to Hitchens himself. As for poorly sourced, I would say that this entire article is poorly sourced. It seems to entirely use opinion pieces and primary sources. MarshallKe (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Questioning the quality of sources

I am not sure of the reliability of the non-primary sources used in this article.

This appears to be the personal blog of an activist.
This is an opinion piece, though as long as it's used to merely support what Hitchens says, there may be no problem
This comes from a professor of philosophy. I have used this to source criticisms of Hitchens' Razor.

MarshallKe (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So fix it. Provide better sources or, alternatively, propose the article for deletion if none are to be found. Kleuske (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's always appropriate to be that WP:BOLD. I prefer to put a finger on the pulse of the Wikipedia community first. MarshallKe (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's how Wikipedia works. The Wikipedia community, on a tangent, is much like a herd of cats. Kleuske (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of sources 1 and 2 above? I notice you've removed the bit about gods and such entirely. Is this because you believe the 3 source is a bad source? If you believe any of these are bad sources, do you believe their citations should be removed? MarshallKe (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The first is a publication, which, AFAICT, employs suitable fact checking. The second is an opinion piece in a well respected publication. Both meet the standards of WP:RS, though should preferaly be attributed. Kleuske (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Really? The first is obviously not a publication. It is entirely self-published. To clarify, I am talking about Skeptic Ink. MarshallKe (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources to use

I don't have my copy of God Is Not Great yet, but I'm sure this article can be improved by someone who has the book already. Also these sources, which came from the deletion discussion, should be sufficient to make significant improvements: MarshallKe (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability and Neologism Issues

I can't find any academic citations in philosophy or science for "Hitchens's razor." The only reference to this term is Hitchens himself and Dawkins. This article is clearly violates WP:NEO and WP:RS. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C41D:6AE0:B585:3DFF:5E91:4161 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The wp:proposed deletion has been removed. See WP:DEPROD Please take it to wp:afd. Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am similarly concerned about this. Is there a reliable source that refers to the quote concerned as "Hitchens's razor"? Articles such as this refer to it, but source it to thisvery Wikipedia article, so there is a risk of circular referencing. Nederlandse Leeuw, as the article creator, can you shed any light on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done some research on this a while ago. It looks like this blog post by Rixaeton from 1 December 2010 is the origin of the name. Jerry Coyne would later popularise it after Hitchens's death on 15 December 2011. The name "Hitchens' razor" or correctly "Hitchens's razor" has become more mainstream ever since, even though many have pointed out the principle is probably much older than Hitchens himself, referring to Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, which is attested as far back as at least the 19th century. It appeared in mainstream magazines and newspapers, such as the one by Coyne in New Republic as Cordless Larry has pointed out. Coyne may have referred to Wikipedia in his 2014 NR article, but it's not where he got the phrase from, as he himself showed in his 2011 blog post. I created this article in November 2012, so he couldn't have originally gotten the phrase from me anyway (because I'm not Rixaeton; I don't know who that is, looks like just a random blogger who reads and comments on Coyne's blog and caught his attention). It has become so mainstream that it now appears in several books [9] [10] and academic papers [11]. In any case, the person who coined the name for the principle may not have done so in a reliable source, but sometimes things that start from a blog or forum or Facebook post become mainstream over time. And, even if its name would be questionable, we can still maintain that this principle has been discussed quite a lot ever since Hitchens introduced his English phrasing of it in 2003, and is worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Things can indeed become mainstream over time, but I'm just worried that Wikipedia is playing a part in this process rather than documenting it, and that all of the reliable sources seem to come after the creation of this article. This has to be a worry from a circular referencing perspective. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

True, but I'm afraid there is little we can do about that. I needed a title for this page, and even though the phrase was widely attested and attributed to Hitchens in November 2012, it looks like the name "Hitchens' razor" wasn't mainstream yet (I'm not sure where I first saw it; it's not in any of my references of the oldest version of this article). It may well be that I contributed in making it more mainstream, because Wikipedia is used often for checking and shows up high in search engine results. All I can say is I didn't invent the term myself, so it's not original research on my part. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, but then what of the notability argument. Is there enough coverage of the quote, whether it is termed Hitchens's razor or not, to satisfy the significant coverage criteria? As far as I can tell, none of the sources currently cited in the article (excluding those by Hitchens himself) actually mention it. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. The Quotable Hitchens; Michael Dowd, Thank God for Evolution; Neil Peart, Far and Near; Lee C. McIntyre, Respecting Truth: Willful Ignorance in the Internet Age; Cillian McGrattan The Politics of Trauma and Peace-Building: Lessons from Northern Ireland (calls it Hitchens's razor); Stuart K. Hayashi, The Freedom of Peaceful Action; C. Stephen Evans, Why Christian Faith Still Makes Sense; Tom Bennett, Teacher Proof; John W. Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist; Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc (calls it Hitchens's Dictum), Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens, etc. I could go on, it's all easily findable on Google Books. Both allies and enemies of Hitchens cite and discuss it. I also found one in the International Business Times (called 'Hitchens's razor'), and if we'd look a little further, I'm sure we'll find more in mainstream newspapers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Term "Hitchens's razor" goes very much against Peirce's ethics of terminology (1st. and 2nd rule). Article should be renamed to "gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", and should absolutely not be part of Atheism series. Hitchens's razor could be mentioned in the article as synonym in new-atheistic discourse. 2001:999:20:4EDE:D0E2:AE66:BD53:767E (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hitchens's razor is popularly used to assert the nonexistence of deities, but according to evidentialism, that assertion also requires evidence in order to be rational."

@Valeince: @TheRealNightRider: This sentence was summarized directly from an existing source for this article. It's okay if you have disagreements with the statement, but it's something that's pulled from the source. What are your reasons for reverting? MarshallKe (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added back the first part "Hitchens's razor is popularly used to assert the nonexistence of deities", as I'm sure you don't disagree with that part. MarshallKe (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say quite firmly that the second half of this sentence is WP:OR, and perhaps even WP:SYNTH. it's certainly a controversial claim, and would require extremely robust sourcing as a result.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting far too silly.

@TheRealNightRider: reverted "Hitchens's razor is often invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God." because it was "unsourced". Shall we also remove the similar line from Russell's teapot, which also has no citation? Shall we also remove the line that starts with "It has been compared to the Latin proverb...", as its only source is a Latin dictionary describing the Latin phrase and not proving it's been described? MarshallKe (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the sources cited by @Nederlandse Leeuw: above will be sufficient to thoroughly cite this statement, so without objection, I will begin formatting these citations in attempt to satisfy this silly exercise in pedantry MarshallKe (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As previously with "popularly", the assertion that it's "often invoked" needs a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

That had crossed my mind. Would any phrasing be acceptable without a source? If not, then perhaps this article needs to be removed from the atheism template as there is no proof it has anything to do with atheism. MarshallKe (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

My preference would be that whatever is written, has a source. It would probably be best avoiding any commentary about frequency of use (unless a good secondary source can be found for that). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, this really is an example of something that should be obvious. Especially in context. Probably any source on this page could help support that statement. "often" is an amorphous term, that is much less strong than "usually." It implies something less than a plurality, but more than "sometimes." If Hitchens primarily used it in that context, that would suffice, would it not? if he is one of the primary users? Or would you consider that WP:OR? What source would suffice? Would you prefer a pew poll? I'm sorry I'm being mildly facetious. I don't think a source which says such a thing based on "hard data" will ever exist. and I consider it bordering on vexatious to require a source that specifically gives us a % or an estimate more than "these two ideas are connected (atheism and the razor)." ...--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're reading the sentence in different ways, Shibbolethink. It seems you're taking it to mean, "when the razor is used, it's usually in relation to the existence of God", whereas I was reading it as "discussions about the existence of God often invoke the razor". Working out which of those two is the intended meaning might help. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh yes. And these two versions would require different sourcing. Good catch. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

When I get my copy of God Is Not Great, I will hopefully be able to add the text "Hitchens specifically used it in the context of belief in gods" and be able to back it up with a citation. This should be sufficient. MarshallKe (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Small sections

@Apaugasma: I had started a "Controversial aspects" section, but it was merged into the main section by another user citing "(MOS:OVERSECTION Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose.)" I have no strong feelings either way, so just FYI MarshallKe (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Two things: 1. I believe that having a good structure is more important in this particular case. 2. Both short sections could and should be expanded to the point where MOS:OVERSECTION is not a concern anymore. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha! You see what I mean, Nederlandse Leeuw has already taken care of it!

I also think that the {{unreliable sources}} tag you put there was unneeded, even before Leeuw's recent edits, and that it was rightfully removed. What this article desperately needs though is higher quality (i.e., scholarly), more independent, secondary sources. Ideally we'd be citing books that are written by scholars who are neither atheist activists nor religious apologists and which deal with the New Atheists' evidentialism and their foundationalist and other critics in a descriptive and systematic way. If these sources do not already exist they will very probably be written, and I'm hopeful that an expert on contemporary epistemology will pass by one day and update the article accordingly. But for now, I think we've already done a pretty good job!

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the article has improved a great deal. I'm surprised the attention it's received versus when I first started messing with it. I would guess the extra attention was the result of the deletion discussion, so it may actually be receiving more attention than it naturally would have deserved, but I'm not complaining! MarshallKe (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Origins and AfD keep (citogenesis?)

There is discussion of the role Wikipedia played in spreading the term "Hitchens' razor" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitchens's razor. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise, there was a discussion there, which was somewhat abruptly broken off by the closure of the AfD. The concern was that in November 2012, when this article was first written, the term "Hitchens's razor" had only yet appeared in a few blogs [12] [13] [14] (as documented in the article now), and that it appears to be Wikipedia itself which has been responsible for the term's wider adoption among the public (compare a pre-November 2012 Google books search with one until August 2021: while the former yields no quotation of the term, the latter does produce quite a few, at least one of which actually cites Wikipedia). This is a form of citogenesis, but perhaps one that is innocent enough, given that it only concerns the coinage of a term. The situation is also complicated by the fact that the term is now used by a wide range of popular sources, though apparently not yet in the relevant scholarly literature.

Should we try to remedy the situation or not? That's a difficult question. We could decide to not use the term on Wikipedia for a while, but that's not an evident decision to make given the fact that it is currently at least somewhat notable. We could do so by merging the contents of the article into Christopher Hitchens and not call it a philosophical razor (nor of course "Hitchens's razor") at that page. But we would then probably need to create a FAQ on the Christopher Hitchens page, because it is to be expected that editors will regularly be trying to add the fact that is popularly called "Hitchens's razor" to the article, and we will need a ready explanation for why we can't do that. Also, how long are we going to carry on doing this? Perhaps until the term receives significant discussion in relevant scholarly sources? Or failing that, perhaps in another 10 years (if it sticks 10 years without us using the term, it is definitely notable)? Maybe it's better to just delete the article and salt it until said conditions are met? Or should we just accept that we inadvertently popularized the term, and leave it at that? I think that whatever action is being contemplated, it would probably need to go through an RfC to be implemented. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma. To quote the AfD: "The result was keep with no consensus to merge. Daniel (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)". You must have already read that by the time you left your message here, because you mention 'the closure of the AfD', so I'm not sure why you're suggesting both deletion and merger again; this seems to imply you're still somewhat unwilling to accept the result (understandable, but not very helpful moving forward). Although one could argue that, based on English Wikipedia's current standards, the original version of the article would have been rejected (and that should be Wikipedia's course of action for similar cases in the future), the AfD made clear that the community has decided article is here to stay, separate from the Christopher Hitchens page. So all we can do now is improve it and bring it up to English Wikipedia's current standards; you and I have already done some edits yesterday to make that happen, and I'll happily continue to work with you on that. We should use all the RS that are currently available to us in order to do so; some editors on this talk page and the AfD have already collected some of them for us to use. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, we are bound by the result of the AfD. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Apart from a very short allusion by Cordless Larry on 13 August, the citogenesis concerns only came up explicitly very late in the AfD when Levivich started to ask more pertinent questions on 18 August, followed by me on 19th August (it closed on 20 August). The great majority of !votes happened before that. Moreover, there were already a few merge !votes before this, so the consensus to keep is not overly strong (I see 7 keeps vs 5 merges). Finally, and most importantly, citogenesis is an issue that goes much broader than a regular proposal for deletion. This should not be decided by a local consensus, but rather by something like an RfC held at WP:VPR. I see the result of the AfD as a pronouncement on the claim made by its nominator, i.e., that the concept may not be notable on its own. It definitely is notable on its own, and the AfD has judged correctly on this. The question whether there is a case of citogenesis here, and whether we should do something about that (avoiding the term despite its current notability), is a very different one, upon which the recent AfD has no bearing. With all that said, I am currently neutral on the question (in truth, I find it impossible to decide, and would need the input of other editors to reach a decision), and I'm not planning to craft an RfC myself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename?

I propose moving this article from Hitchens's razor to Hitchen's razor. 1) Hitchens's razor strikes me as bad grammar. Pronounced out loud, it would be pronounced as Hi-chinz-iz, which sounds weird. 2) 19k google search results for "hitchen's razor", 10k for "hitchens's razor". Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been a topic of discussion in the edit history. One edit claims the correct possessive of a word that ends in "s" is indeed to use an apostrophe and an additional "s", and that "Hitchens'" would indicate a plural possessive of "Hitchen". There is also a cited source for the article here and a comment in the article's source saying that this should use the British form. I am not a grammar expert or a British English expert, but I'm just detailing the existing discussion and why the article has stabilized to "Hitchens's". MarshallKe (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the man was called "Hitchens" (with the "s"), so "Hitchen's razor" would be quite wrong. The 19k Google hits for the latter show once again why plain Google searches (as opposed to Google Scholar searches, and to a lesser extent Google Books searches) are not reliable. Control-F'ing the edit history page on "moved page" reveals that it was moved a number of times from "Hitchens' razor" (its original title) to "Hitchens's razor" and back again. I think it finally settled on "Hitchens's razor" because this is what MOS:POSS proscribes for the possessive of proper names. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens' razor also seems reasonable to me and could be a good compromise. Difficult to argue with MOS:POSS though, which seems to advocate this (to my eye) weird s's thing. I don't see any problems with the Google search results, I think Wikipedia just happens to prefer a different style. I suspect all three mentioned ways of handling s's have some validity outside Wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: All three ways?

"Hitchen's razor" would always be wrong because the man was called Hitchens. Google scholar does not make this mistake ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Hitchen's" is definitely wrong, as Apaugasma says. The other two options are basically personal preference but as I explained at Talk:Hitchens's razor/Archive 1#Basic Grammar, "Hitchens's" is the version that's consistent with MOS:POSS. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Avowed atheist"

The adjective "avowed" was added to "atheist" in [the lead] in this edit. This falls afoul of a cliché, and WP:WTW, and has numerous other issues. We don't call any other biographical subject an "avowed" anything, unless this term is used to illustrate that they admitted to something taboo or criminal during their time. In secular countries in the modern era, one can be an atheist within the law. Claiming that Hitchens was an "avowed" atheist implies that he shouldn't have been open about it. We don't call people avowed engineers, avowed attorneys, avowed Christians, or avowed pantheists unless they express these open beliefs in a milieu where it is illegal or dangerous for them to do so. There is therefore no reason to refer to Hitchens as an "avowed atheist" except to denigrate the subject. More to the point, adjectives like this are rarely used in encyclopedic writing. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't use "militant" atheist, either.[15] This is getting ridiculous. There is nowhere in Wikipedia where the term "militant atheist" is used to describe a biographical subject. This is, again, a term of denigration, used by his critics. It inherently violates NPOV. Please remove it. There is nothing "militant" about anything Hitchens said or did in regards to atheism. This is a right-wing taking point used by his detractors. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is patently false. Your first diff is incorrectly labeled as being the addition of "avowed". It is clearly not. When the premise of your argument is a lie, the rest is irrelevant. See also wikt:avow. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be very confused. The diff is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Trust me. I'm not the one confused here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem very confused. You don't need to ping me, for example. I'm right here. The terms "avowed" and "militant" are entirely unnecessary and add nothing to the article. They are used to denigrate the subject. "Militant atheist" is a term that has a long, sordid history on Wikipedia, and has been used in the past by members of WikiProject Conservatism to attack atheists. There remains nothing "avowed" about Hitchens, nor anything "militant". We don't call people avowed plumbers or avowed actors, and there is simply no reason to refer to Hitchens as an avowed atheist. It is an attempt to insert bias. These are weasel words and have no place here. What reason do you support these terms? I see no rationale for their use in this discussion. We avoid unnecessary adjectives whenever possible. You seem to be doing things backwards. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I'm not debating you until you understand that your premise is false. Go back and read your first diff until it sinks in how wrong you are. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The diff shows that the term was added to the lead. Prior to that, it appeared in a separate section in the body. There's still no rationale to use the term. And, please don't keep pinging me. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So the wording is not, in fact, "new" or "added". It was moved from the Analysis section that it has existed in for some time. Now back to the dictionary, per wikt:avow the relevant portion is To declare openly and boldly, as something believed to be right; …. I think it's quite clear that Christopher Hitchens was very open and bold about his atheism. It's also very relevant to the type of thinking that would produce Hitchen's razor, and so is germane to the discussion of it's origin. This is not a "weasel word" as you state, it simply acknowledges what our sources say about the man and helps distinguish him from an atheist that doesn't discuss their atheism as forcefully (if at all) as he did. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

When the wording was added has nothing to do with the crux of the matter. It was recently added to the lead, so what? Stop distracting from this discussion. The problem is your stated argument up above. The word "avowed" is an unnecessary adjective that acts as a weasel word in this context, as it implies by usage that atheism should not be open nor should it be "right". You yourself have said it implies that the default is "quiet" atheism. This is tantamount to saying Hitchens should have stayed in the closet. This is not how we write encyclopedia articles. Your claim that Hitchens was somehow more "forceful" about his atheism than other "quiet" atheists is hogwash. Words like "avowed" and "militant" are used derogatorily by his critics. There is no reason to use these words and they should be removed. This is pure POV pushing. It is not your job nor your role as an editor to insert personal commentary about how you feel Hitchens was "avowed" or "militant". Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

When the wording was added has nothing to do with the crux of the matter. It actually has quite a lot to do with the issue, however inconvenient it is for you, the phrasing has existed in the article for nearly two years. It is the consensus language, which you must provide a good reason for changing and gain consensus for removing. The word "avowed" is an unnecessary adjective that acts as a weasel word in this context, as it implies by usage that atheism should not be open nor should it be "right". It implies no such thing. Quoting avow again since you seem to keep ignoring it: To declare openly and boldly, as something believed to be right; …. You yourself have said it implies that the default is "quiet" atheism. This is tantamount to saying Hitchens should have stayed in the closet. ^{[citation needed]} This is not how we write encyclopedia articles. Correct, we use consensus, not edit warring. Please refer yourself to WP:BRD. I've gone ahead and restored the consensus phrasing until and if such time arrives where a new consensus phrasing is agreed upon. The rest is basic ad hominen, and is ignored as such. Do better. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the term again. There is no reason to use the adjective "avowed", and such terms are not recommended since they mislead the reader. When in doubt, we omit needless words like adjectives, because editors who add them use them to push a POV. In this case, you are pushing the POV of his critics and detractors, who believe Hitchens was misled, mistaken, biased, or wrong because he was, according to them, "militant" or "avowed". It's also a cliché, which we avoid per WP:WTA. Please don't add it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the term again. Don't do that. Now you're edit warring. Please stop until you gain consensus to remove it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viriditas: it's got to do with strongly held views. Being an engineer or attorney isn't a view. I think "avowed Christian", "avowed Muslim", "avowed Republican" all sound quite natural. To my ear, it mainly implies that these 'avowed' persons like to go about expressing these particular views a lot. But perhaps different varieties of English are at play here. We don't necessarily need "avowed", but we do need "atheist" in my view (probably should wikilink it too). As I said in my edit summary, "militant atheist" and "atheist speaker" are some good options for me, though there may be something better yet. I've been fighting with my thesaurus, but I didn't find anything more neutral sounding than "militant atheist" to express the strongly-held thing. He did go around speaking and debating about it, didn't he? Perhaps "atheist speaker" then? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's really simple: adjectives are avoided unless there is a good, necessary reason to use them. There is no single good reason to use "avowed" or "militant" here, or anywhere else where we are discussing Hitchens. Your argument is that we need to note Hitchens had strongly held views. I don't see why this is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Doesn't virtually every biographical subject have strongly held views? You're trying to say that Hitchens's views on atheism were expressed more strongly than they should have been? No, I don't see that at all. He didn't interject his views where they weren't wanted. He wasn't an activist marching in a protest. He published books and participated in debates and lectures. I see no reason for any unnecessary adjectives here. Is Brad Pitt an avowed actor? Is Elon Musk a militant engineer? Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Being an actor or an engineer has got nothing to do with holding views, that's a reductio ad absurdum. And yes, Hitchens had more strongly held views than most (it's the man who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). Anyone familiar with the man's work knows this; it's a blue skye really. If you never saw him speak, please do go to Youtube now and watch some: he's a true delight.

One of the greatest speakers I've ever heard. There need not be anything controversial here. So, what about "atheist speaker"? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am fully aware and familiar with Hitchens's oeuvre. The words "avowed" or "militant" have no place in this article. You keep coming back to how strongly held his views are, and I once again reiterate, we can make that argument about almost every significant and notable biographical entry. I just watched Elon Musk's three-hour personal tour of Starbase, where he and his team are working 24/7 to make humanity a multi-planetary species. If this doesn't make him a militant engineer, then I don't know what would. And yet, we don't use that type of wording on Wikipedia to describe our subjects. There's really nothing "blue sky" about this. It's poor practice to insert POV in the form of adjectives and it is discouraged. Hitchens was not just a "speaker", so I don't know why you are proposing such a thing. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha that's funny, I was thinking to myself earlier that Musk indeed is a militant engineer if there ever was one. But of course that would be tongue in cheek, because the word "militant" is semantically incompatible with the word "engineer". That's precisely why it's funny. Now of course we're not going to do tongue in cheek in wikivoice. My proposal was to have the text say that the razor is named after journalist, author, and atheist speaker Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011). The 'speaker' part actually fits quite well, since he was primarily a journalist, then an author, and towards the end of his life perhaps primarily a public speaker. "Atheist speaker" is a bit weird though, and I'm starting to regret phrasing it that way.

But while "militant atheist" was indeed quite the blunder on my part (I just honestly didn't realize that it's a term his enemies like to use against him; see, e.g., most of the entries here), "avowed atheist" really remains the better option, because like Locke Cole pointed out above, it indeed captures something about Hitchens' spirit that helps explain how and why he came up with the razor. But perhaps the most imporant thing is that dispassionate, reliable sources quite often describe him with these words (of course there're also some bad sources in there, but it becomes clearer if you scroll down and see how many sympathetic sources are in fact using it). I think there's very little to be said against that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The term should not be used unless there is a good reason to use it, such as being an avowed X in a context where it matters. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And just to be clear, "avowed" was initially added 2019. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And it was exceptionally clear in my original post, that the wording of "avowed" was just recently added to the lead, per my diff. You keep trying to clarify something that needs no clarification. The wording is problematic, not when it was added. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Then why even have the diff of its addition if you did not believe the timing was relevant? You're the one who opened up with that, not me. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Because citing a diff is standard procedure, and helps point the reader to the material under discussion. You are reading things into it that don't exist. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Locke Cole, It appears we have 4 v 2 on this. With plenty of cogent arguments made on both sides. But eventually a decision must be made. I would say this is a slim consensus in favor of removal...— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment without comment -- there is "slim consensus in favour....". Moriori (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Yes, apparently the decision must be made in the span of a couple of hours. And what was initially 2 in support to 1 oppose has quickly switched to your preferred language. One might call it a miracle. Language which has persisted for nearly two years is spontaneously removed despite being sourced and verifiable and accurate (to anyone with a dictionary and an understanding that "avowed" is not a negative). I'm done here. I regret participating in this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Avowed atheist" is perhaps relevant to Hitchens, but not relevant to Hitchen's Razor

Something Locke Cole said deserves scrutinizing: It's also very relevant to the type of thinking that would produce Hitchen's razor, and so is germane to the discussion of it's origin. Is it? So an agnostic could not have come up with this? A member of a nontheistic religion could not have come up with this? A deist could not have come up with this? Avowed atheism does not necessarily lead to insights like Hitchen's Razor. You can be any of these and have, or not have, this epistemological insight. If anything, the important parts here are (1) that he was a good writer as in phrasing of the insight shows excellent parsimony of language (2) he was a good journalist, e.g. had a high levels of epistemic rigor, which was applied to all topics he engaged with (religion being one, but far from the only one he was interested in). Just being an atheist doesn't grant you parsimony of language or thought, and it similarly does not confer epistemic rigor. These are both things that have to be practiced and continuously kept in mind and that Htichen's was good at. So, for different reasons, I agree with Viriditas's conclusion. Atheism, avowed or otherwise, isn't relevant to Hitchen's Razor and I support going back to the lead primarily describing him as a writer. - Scarpy (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You're still ignoring both 1) the sources @Apaugasma: provided above and 2) the dictionary definition of "avow". Like Viriditas, you also ignore that the phrase has longstanding consensus, the only recent change being that it was moved into the lead. I do find it amusing you cherry picked one thing I said but ignored the rest though. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Locke Cole, this is about whether it's proper to mention atheism in the first couple of sentences of the lead, not about whether to use "avowed" or not, nor whether we mention atheism at all. It's a separate argument here, which deserves a separate consideration and reply. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the lack of independent secondary sources is really playing up now. These would certainly be decisive to determine context, and the fact that we don't have them means that editors can easily allege or deny certain aspects without the proper form of proof. But in such a case, we have to draw upon common sense. For one, we are citing the fact that The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. (p. 150/258 depending on edition) I think the title is already quite revealing here, but did you go and read the chapter in which it occurs? I'll post here a somewhat wider quote from p. 150 to show the context:

And remember, miracles are supposed to occur at the behest of a being who is omnipotent as well as omniscient and omnipresent. One might hope for more magnificent performances than ever seem to occur. The “evidence” for faith, then, seems to leave faith looking even weaker than it would if it stood, alone and unsupported, all by itself. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. This is even more true when the “evidence” eventually offered is so shoddy and self-interested.

The evidence he's speaking of here is the 'evidence' of divine presence in such things as the fact that some of the debris at Ground Zero took the form of a cross (p. 149). The implication is that this is as good (or as bad) as asserting divine presence without evidence, which means that it can be dismissed without evidence too. There's just no escaping the fact that the razor was coined in the context of supporting an argument for atheism (or against theism, as one might have it).

Let's then look at the secondary sources we do have about the razor: The term 'Hitchens's razor' itself was coined by atheist blogger Rixaeton in December 2010, and popularised inter alia by evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Jerry Coyne after Hitchens died in December 2011. We're citing Michael Kinsley, who wrote about it in a newspaper article called "In God, distrust". Critics of the razor too, such as the philosophers Michael V. Antony and C. Stephen Evans we're citing, write about in the context of the epistemology of religion.

In light of all that, your claim that atheism, avowed or otherwise, isn't relevant to Hitchen's Razor just falls completely flat. Of course non-atheists could have come up with it, in theory. Of course Hitchens's rhetorical skills are relevant too. But as our whole article shows, his avowed atheism also played an important part in it, and atheism is in any case the context of its reception by others. Signaling this in the first sentence of the lead is helping the reader along to put that context in place, nothing more, nothing less. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the language we use to write encyclopedia articles needs to be neutral and without POV. The fact is, the language of "avowed atheist" and "militant atheist" is the language of Hitchens's critics, and it's mostly found in Christian literature to attack atheists. So the easiest thing to do when faced with this problem, is look at how our policies and guidelines work to prevent this situation. You could first start by asking which relevant reliable sources call Hitchens an "avowed atheist", and becoming aware of avoiding bias in sources. Second, we should be aware of words to watch: "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." Given that "avowed atheist" is used as an example of how to use the word "avowed" in many places, it is obviously a cliché and should be avoided. But not just for that reason, but also for the reason you just explained above. You are inferring a great deal from the use of the term "avowed" here, and that's exactly how we don't use words on Wikipedia. I would say that you yourself have provided the best reason not to use "avowed" or "militant" or any other word. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, I agree with this take. It's an unencyclopedic phrasing.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Atheism is relevant to Hitchens's razor, but the religious identity of Hitchens is not. Russell's teapot does it right, where it says "Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion". It does not say "formulated by the avowed atheist Bertrand Russell". MarshallKe (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I should add that I do somewhat read the intent behind "avowed atheist" like one would read "self-admitted charlatan and scoundrel who shouldn't be trusted". We really don't need an adjective behind "atheist" in this article. MarshallKe (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I wrote in my edit summary that the sentence seems to call for an adjective, I meant that the sequence "journalist, author, and atheist Christopher Hitchens" would be a bit weird because it would misleadingly suggest that "atheist" (a doctrinal position) falls in the same category as "journalist" and "author" (which are professions), and that something like "avowed atheist" would clarify that his atheism was closely related to his professional activity. I was really thinking more in terms of copy-editing than in terms of NPOV

. To me, neither "avowed atheist" nor even "militant atheist" reads at all like "self-admitted charlatan and scoundrel who shouldn't be trusted", but I can see why others would potentially read it that way. I also tend to agree with Viriditas above that it would be preferable to first become aware of how exactly reliable sources use the term "avowed atheist" (I've already pointed to its usage by sympathetic sources in Google Scholar, but that's not the same as actually reading these sources and getting familiar with them) before using it. I also agree with MarshallKe's proposal to, rather than qualify Hitchens as an atheist, point out the context of religious belief in which the razor was used. Show, don't tell. I would just add that the context was refuting religious belief, which is a bit more specific but in a helpful way. I've changed the article accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Independence from Occam's razor

In the AfD some claimed that Hitchens' razor (HRaz) is a special case of Occam's razor (ORaz). In fact, ORaz does not appear to entail HRaz. For an example, Reformed epistemology is a doctrine that is generally supportive of ORaz but rejects HRaz, showing that either ORaz doesn't entail HRaz or the reformed epistemologists are illogical, but in fact they are a well-known school in philosophy known for their logical ingenuity. It would be OR to put this in the article, but perhaps the argument will ward off future merge arguments. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_flower_of_chi/

[1]