Talk:Hitchens's razor/Archive 1

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.' " 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

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.

1. This appears to be the personal blog of an activist.
2. This is an opinion piece, though as long as it's used to merely support what Hitchens says, there may be no problem
3. 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)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

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)