|This 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, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Godwin's law was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2015. The result of the discussion was snow keep.|
|This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
The fanatical devotion to savagely immoral atrocity here is shocking
The article and the posts on this talk-page all use the same logic that the Nazis used to "justify" World War Two and Auschwitz. Hitler's heart beats in all of you!2604:2000:C6AA:B400:9050:1F2D:2D6D:51C6 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
it is not clear to me from the article if and how far nor exactly why this also applies to the use of the word nazi's. the effect of that is fringe and or repressive motives become understated. there is not a real moment to say "this is nazi" it is a political gradient (from left to riot if i am not mistaken), at any point you would say "this is nazi", so far in her(his)tory fascist and repressive measures and undertakings have been made before in time. authoritarian trends or even individual hyperbole will always exist, and i may have got the exact point around not mentiong gorgomon, what is obvious about not calling for example an agressive person in uniform a nazi, am i not facing the same consequence? so please clear that up a little if there is some concept for it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Clear up your message first so we know exactly what to respond to. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy, or inferring that an argument containing a fallacy must necessarily come to incorrect conclusions.
Who is Feldman, how is it a corollary, what is the origin or reference, and why should it be included?
Here's how it is currently on the page:
- The corollary Feldman's Law states that: "As a modern Hard Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_left (extreme Progressive) discussion grows longer, the probability of someone attempting to shut it down by citing Privilege ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) approaches 1."
I suggest we remove it, but I didn't know if there's any push-back.
The only relevant source I found while googling the exact query in quotes: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/feldmans_law.html
The Telegraph today cites Eliot Higgins claiming that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan might be the first politician to Godwin himself: "Eliot Higgins, who has achieved celebrity status for his analysis of weapons usage in the Syrian war, said Mr Erdogan had achieved a first by managing to "Godwin" himself." (Higgins's tweet: "Erdogan has to be the first politician to Godwin himself") Might be worth including, as usually the comparison has been made by others. Also, perhaps it is worth noting that there seems to be a verb "to Godwin" in English at least for a decade now (Urban dictionary, I see to be a verb by Godwin Himself). The last source also might include some useful comments about the law by its author. --Oop (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Empirical "testing" of Godwin's Law?
Has anyone tried to "test" Godwin's law? I'm thinking something along the lines lines of scanning YT comment threads and tabulating how many comments it takes for Nazi or Hitler to be mentioned "in a substantive way". (By that hand-waving I mean filtering out mentions that only "last" one or two replies, which would include attempts to "Godwin-ize" for the sake of doing it.) IMDB comment threads would be another interesting venue to test it. Most threads would never (I hope) mention Hitler at all. You might also come up with some way to assess "what categories Godwinize faster" But that would probably require very good NLP, especially given how.. er, strange.. Internet-English can get.
And of course, that's just English. Does Godwin's Law have parallels for other languages/"cultural groups" I.E. "on Russian threads do threads devolve into discussions of Koreans?". This is a totally made-up example. The only "possibly real" example of this I can think of would be in the Middle East, and I don't want to inflammatory here - and probably wrong) Jimw338 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)