Talk:Godwin's law

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Godwin's law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Godwin's law. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Godwin's law at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2006	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
March 16, 2007	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
May 31, 2015	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept

Internet culture High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Brendan Nyhan (1 September 2006). "Why the Nazi Analogy is on the Rise". Time Magazine.
Mark Leibovich (22 June 2005). "The Comparison That Ends the Conversation: Senator Is Latest to Regret Nazi Analogy". Washington Post.

Godwin's law was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

MGodwin (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Sorry, but this page is very self-indulgent and needs editing by someone who is not Mike Godwin

Firstly, he named 'Godwin's law' after himself, which isn't really the done thing. Usually an acknowledgement like this is coined by somebody else.

Secondly, there is just too much Mike on the page - unnecessarily.

Perhaps someone could edit this page at arm's length so that it is informative and not what looks to be an ego trip?

The picture of Mike himself gives the impression that it is indicative of a PR, self-promotion rationale for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxikins (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the picture really matters. It shows Godwin clearly, the inventor of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterCashier (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photo since I agree. The focus isn't on Goodwin here, it's about the context of Godwin's Law. If needed, I'll be glad to partcipate in a consensus if there's disagreement. – The Grid (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is appropriate and lends context. It should go back. --evrik ^(talk) 04:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context is what way? They can find out more information about him at Mike Godwin. His picture on here doesn't really add much to what the law is about except it's named after him. – The Grid (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with The Grid. A picture of Mike Godwin would do nothing to help illustrate this article in a meaningful way, since it is about an aphorism and its meaning and application, not about the person who wrote it. Note that there is no photo of Robert Metcalfe at Metcalfe's law or of Christopher Hitchens at Hitchens's razor, nor (more broadly) of J. R. R. Tolkien at The Lord of the Rings or of Aerosmith at Toys in the Attic (album). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses content that is cited. If you feel something needs be rephrased or redone, please add content you can cite. Until then, I think the article is going to stay pretty much the way it is. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The fact that Godwin named it after himself is entirely typical of humorous adages like Brandolini's law, Stigler's law of eponymy, etc.; I think Luxxikins is confusing them with scientific laws and principles (theorems, algorithms, paradoxes, equations, medical conditions, species and other taxonyms, etc.) which are usually honorifically named after someone later. WP is not in a position to name GL something else, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and all sourcing. The article is not "self-indulgent" since Godwin did not write it (he was WMF staff counsel and knows better than to edit this article or his bio here). As for whether it's simply indulgent, the article necessarily includes Godwin's own statements relating to meaning, intent, and applicability of GL. That's pertinent contextual and history information. Problems can arise from non-encyclopedic editing here, as at any article. I recently fixed the WP:OR of someone trying to rewrite GL's wording in the lead of the article. I also removed another bit of OR, the inclusion of a Putin-related tweet by Godwin that seems like it could be a GL reference, but for which there is neither a primary source from Godwin confirming this nor any secondary coverage of any kind indicating this is of any encyclopedic interest in the first place. See also thread below, where someone wanted to inappropriately coatrack an unrelated "Godwin witticism" (with no secondary coverage) to this article on the basis of name similarity, and I've deflated that idea. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Second Law

The article needs the addition of Godwin's Second Law:

https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1504687870006620163%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2022%2F3%2F19%2F2086873%2F-Godwin-s-Law-corollary-because-wokeism

"Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science."

S C Cheese (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, but unless it's covered by reliable independent sources, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Godwin's tweet is a reliable primary source that he actually wrote it, but it is not an independent or secondary source indicating that the world has taken any notice of this,. This new bit, or a snippet from it like "it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses woke as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead", has no usage currency in the public that has been demonstrated. So, it would be indiscriminate trivia to include here. Especially as it does not closely relate to Godwin's law of Nazi analogies and the point that he was making about the usual inappropriateness of such comparisons (both because they are almost always exaggerations and because doing it trivializes the Holocaust). This new coinage, which is more of a joke than an adage, is about something else entirely, the usurpation of a self-identifying term of one group by the groups' opponents and the latter's mis-use of it as a dismissive label, coupled with Godwin's own socio-political position against the latter group. They're just nothing alike other than being wit from the same author. To come at this from another angle, Godwin himself collected various corollaries to Godwin's law and published them (via EFF's newsletter and other means) back in the '90s, but our article does not enumerate them because reliable sources do not cover them, so they are not encyclopedic material. (We mention one briefly only because one or more sources have confused it with GL itself, so our readers need the clarification.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think the fact that its confusing at all means it warrants clarification and specification. am i going to have to PAY a NYT author to write about it or can we all agree that citing a tweet in this context should be acceptable THEtransArsonist (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an error about invoking Godwin's Law ending the argument?

The article correctly notes the most famous part of Godwin's Law, the 'corollary' that whoever makes an unjustified comparison of their opponent to Hitler ends the discussion and loses the argument.

But later, it says something very different, "He rejected the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's law has lost the argument". I'd never heard the claim that *invoking Godwin's Law* - i.e., the person who accuses their opponent of violating the law - is punished. It is mis-written, where they meant to say 'whoever invokes Hitler without justification'? Does Godwin not agree with that more famous 'corollary'? Craig234 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first para highlighted?

It’s highlighted on Chrome and Firefox on an iPhone 11. VickiMeagher (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You lose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You lose to this article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14 § You lose until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]