Talk:Dissident

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

please someone who knows how to do it add the link to the french version Bohan (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this section belongs here. This is a fringe term. google gives less than 500 hits. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section discusses some scientists who disagreed with prevailing theories, and whose alternative views were subsequently shown to have validity. Isn't this just part of the process by which scientific progress is made? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is related to the article subject. Disagreements with mainstream are everywhere, in politics, culture, science. The terms "dissident" today has a specific political meaning, and it is the subject of the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just remove it outright. A section about scientific dissent based upon high-quality sources from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science might be an encyclopedic replacement, as long as it includes well-sourced material on how the phrase is used as propaganda to undermine science- and evidence-based decision making. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the entire section, because it's frankly a bunch of bull. Questioning the established status quo is a part of the scientific process, ergo none of these people were "dissidents", they were just scientists. The only purpose this section serves is to add credence to the term.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ronz, Not all scientists try to make large changes in science, the ones that do have been historically treated as dissidents. (as the references I added confirm). One of Michael Faraday's biographers notes that Michael Faraday was both a religious dissenter and a scientific dissenter (against action at a distance) and that the two might not be unrelated. I hope that you put the section on scientific dissenters back.

BinaryPhoton (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

Dear Ronz,

On my website is a personal letter from Erwin Chargaff to me (September 20, 1995) that says "I do not have to tell you that the so-called "scientific community" is one of the most narrowminded lobbies one can imagine." see http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/ at the bottom of the page. Dissidents are truly needed and needed to be recognized in science. BinaryPhoton (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton Hello. Dissidents are part of the political enterprise, the religious enterprise and the scientific enterprise. And they play an important part in all of these processes...sometimes they even change the status quo for the better, sometimes they just present a new and diverse view that others are free to take or leave. I think that the section on scientific dissidents should stay. By the way, I make no profit from my books (the royalties from which go directly to Habitat for Humanity and The Profiles in Courage Award given by the Kennedy Library). I cited them because they are good sources of primary references and analyses of the role dissident scientists play in the scientific enterprise as well as the difficulties they faced in making their contributions. Thanks. BinaryPhoton (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

Dissidents are part of the political enterprise, the religious enterprise and the scientific enterprise. And they play an important part in all of these processes...sometimes they even change the status quo for the better, sometimes they just present a new and diverse view that others are free to take or leave. Says who?

Could you please respond to the comments so it doesn't appear you are ignoring them? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response. I think the removal is warranted, though problematic while under discussion. I'll copy it for reference. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I responded above. IS there something else I can provide for you?

Thanks BinaryPhoton (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

Many hypotheses (e.g. phlogiston, caloric) that were once accepted as proven truth by the scientific authorities and the scientific consensus were later, in the light of new or previously overlooked knowledge, shown to be limited in scope—if not wrong. Thomas Young, who questioned the dogma of those who narrowly followed Isaac Newton,^[1][2][3] is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of optics. James Croll, who questioned the dogma that the ice ages were exclusively the result of geological process, is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of geology.^[4] Hermann Staudinger, who questioned the dogma that high molecular mass polymers were just artifacts due to the aggregation of small molecules into colloids, is an example of a scientific dissident in chemistry.^[5] James B. Sumner, who questioned the dogma that proteins only performed a structural function and could not be enzymes, is an example of a scientific dissident in biochemistry. Barbara McClintock, who questioned the dogma that the genome was stable, is an example of a dissident scientist in biology and genetics.^[6] She described the response to her work, for which she later earned the Nobel Prize, as "puzzlement, and, in some instances, hostility."^[7] Peter D. Mitchell, who questioned the dogma that ATP was formed by substrate-level phosphorylation, proposed the chemiosmotic mechanism of ATP synthesis and is an example of a scientific dissident in the field of bioenergetics.^[8] After winning the Nobel Prize for his work, Mitchell repeated the observation first made my Max Planck, "a new scientific idea does not triumph by convincing its opponents, but rather because its opponents eventually die."^[9] Boris Ephrussi and Ruth Sager,^[10] who questioned the dogma that heredity could be accounted for exclusively by nuclear genes, are further examples of scientific dissidents in the fields of biology and genetics.^[11] Ephrussi famously said, "we cannot determine the truth of a hypothesis by counting the number of people who believe it".
From an historical perspective, the scientific dissidents have been an important part of the scientific enterprise.^[12][13]

Hello,

As a part of my school requirement, I am going to make some edits to this article. I am planning to add a paragraph about modern dissidents and their usage of technologies such as Darknet. Please let me know if you have any concerns/suggestions. Thanks Anastasia192 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Anastasia192Anastasia192 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use proper citation formatting, rather than cite to your sandbox. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208080853/http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531135656/http://www.osce.org/documents/html/pdftohtml/4044_en.pdf.html to http://www.osce.org/documents/html/pdftohtml/4044_en.pdf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whats abbout Dissidents in the West? For example victims of the anti-communist campaigns in the US. --188.152.144.96 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would whistleblowers in the United States who were arrested under the Espionage Act qualify for the article. Many were arrested or had to flee the country. Not exactly on par with some of the fates of the people in this article, but maybe worth mentioning? DukeOfGrammar (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Malcontent provider and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#Malcontent provider until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]