Talk:Hanlon's razor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origins

Napoleon is not the first person to have said something like this. Goethe in his book, the sorrows of young werther, writes: ""Und ich habe, mein Lieber, wieder bei diesem kleinen Geschäft gefunden, dass Missverständnisse und Trägheit vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt machen als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewiss seltener." which translates to: "And I have again observed, my dear friend, in this trifling affair, that misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence."

This was in 1774, and the sorrows of young werther was Napoleon's favourite book, so it's obvious where he got the idea from.

General idea

So the general idea is: "If you're human, you're stupid." or "Humans are more stupid then evil" --slayemin

Hanlon/Heinlein

Has anyone ever noticed the similarity between Robert J Hanlon and Robert Heinlein? Not that I'd attribute to stupidy something that may have arisen through irony. Wyss 17:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I can correctly reconstruct the events. The Jargon File for many years (at least since version 2, early 1990s) had

The derivation of the common title Hanlon's Razor is unknown; a similar epigram has been attributed to William James.

In 1996, I tried unsuccessfully to find the William James reference, but recalled the 1941 Heinlein reference, looked it up, and had the brainstorm that the name must be a corruption of "Heinlein." My edit --

The derivation of the Hanlon eponym is not definitely known, but a very similar remark ("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.") appears in "Logic of Empire", a 1941 story by Robert A. Heinlein, who calls it the `devil theory' of sociology. Heinlein's popularity in the hacker culture makes plausible the supposition that `Hanlon' is derived from `Heinlein' by phonetic corruption. A similar epigram has been attributed to William James, but Heinlein more probably got the idea from Alfred Korzybski and other practitioners of General Semantics.

was accepted into Jargon File 4, and was widely quoted for several years. But in 2001, the Murphy book was identified by Bigler, who added biographical details about Hanlon from personal acquaintance. I haven't seen the book with my own eyes, but assuming that some editor here has fact-checked it, the 1980 Hanlon attribution now seems convincing to me, and my Heinlein speculation seems irrelevant.

If there is no independent citation for "Heinlein's razor" as the version with the ironic sting, I think that final remark should be deleted. The whole "Heinlein" idea is a mare's nest; I don't believe it existed before my 1996 edit, and this curious morph of the idea is unsupported in Heinlein's published stories so far as I know.

At Talk:Huascarán, I contributed an independently verifiable fact that got tagged as original research and caused a couple of good editors to waste a lot of time wrapping themselves around that axle. This one isn't even independently verifiable; I know what happened, but only because I was there. (The Jargon File changelogs are online, so that part can be verified, I suppose.) Anyway, I'm not a Wikipedia maintainer and don't want to be. I'll leave my testimony here, and maybe it will help someone who understands and supports Wikipedia policy to do the pure thing, whatever that is. 64.81.149.135 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortune Cookie Files?

...often showing up in [[sig blocks]], [[fortune cookie]] files...

I'm not sure, but shouldn't this be [[http cookie]] instead of [[fortune cookie]]. I'm going to change it anyways, and if I'm wrong change it back please.--FDIS 08:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading the fortune cookie article, it looks like that's the term that was in indeed intended. --Eric's penguin 04:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Before an edit war gets started here, would the supporter of HTTP cookie please provide an example? (I've seen examples in .sig-block fortune cookies, although I have none at hand.)--Curtis Clark 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that HTTP cookie is a misunderstanding (and simply inaccurate), and fortune cookie is a misrepresentation. That is, there's a program called "fortune" which generates fortunes which are often seen in sig blocks. So between the two terms, [[fortune cookie]] is more accurate, but still falls mostly under sig block anyway. Perhaps the solution is to remove the cookie reference altogether and just leave it at sig blocks. --Eric's penguin 01:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are your friend. Directed to fortune (program). --Darksasami 16:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

I've deleted the following sentence from this article: This epigram does not eliminate the attributor herself as being the origin of the stupidity. I've done so for two reasons:

1. An epigram is a poem, which Hanlon's Razor is not.

2. I don't understand what the sentence was supposed to mean (perhaps that a person who cites Hanlon's Razor could herself do so out of stupidity when it appears she does so out of malice?). If anyone does and cares to put back a clarified version, without the word epigram, then be my guest. Chick Bowen 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. --Darksasami 17:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

More stupidity quotes

I was suspicious about the additions by 80.200.248.201, because that IP doesn't have a good track record, but I looked them up and they are correct (I did some minor stylistic changes). But the added paragraph and the one that precedes it seem to be leading away from Hanlon's razor towards a more general discussion of stupidity. I don't see a problem with it yet, but we should keep a watch on it.--Curtis Clark 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

- "Albert Einstein also believed in the power of stupidity: 'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'" - I believe that this quote is spurious. I have a personal animus against this quote, and this is my chance to do something about it.

• (1) I don't remember ever seeing this quote before maybe sometime in the 1990s
• (2) This really doesn't sound like Einstein to me. He was very good-natured in his public pronouncements and didn't go around calling people "stupid". (Heck, he'd been considered "stupid" himself as a child, so I don't think he'd find this very amusing.)

Therefore, I challenge everyone reading this: can anyone find a good cite for this? (Preferably one dating from Einstein's own lifetime?) -- Writtenonsand 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It reads like some of his private correspondence, for example, describing Princeton as "a village of demigods on stilts". Some of this was published after the (fairly recent) death of his secretary, so the quote may well come from the 1990's and still be authentic. Septentrionalis 16:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

William James

The reference to William James has been in the piece since it was first written. Like the Napoleon reference, this may be an effort to label an anonymous quote with a plausible author. But it may also refer to this:

We are practical beings, each of us with limited functions and duties to perform. Each is bound to feel intensely the importance of his own duties and the significance of the situations that call these forth. But this feeling is in each of us a vital secret, for sympathy with which we vainly look to others. The others are too much absorbed in their own vital secrets to take an interest in ours. Hence the stupidity and injustice of our opinions, so far as they deal with the significance of alien lives. Hence the falsity of our judgments, so far as they presume to decide in an absolute way on the value of other persons' conditions or ideals.

and the whole essay of which it is part. If there is no objection or better suggestion, I will so source the next time I pass by. Septentrionalis 16:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore

Dumbledore, when discussing kreacher and sirius at the end of the (5th ?) book, says something like this. Just a thought. -Epl18 11:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrific entry.

Happening across something like this entry is part of what makes Wikipedia great. Sweet job. - Reaverdrop 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"We all occasionally ask silly questions (but sometimes only realise they are silly when we've asked them) but there is no cure for stupidity."

Jackiespeel 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoopsadaisyists

I must say I am fond of the term Whoopsadaisyists as a pejorative for proponents of the Cock Up Theory :)

Carol's Answer

I am certain that I read this long before Katrina. Unfortunately I cannot cite a source at the moment.

On close examination, it's likely. *Adds to list of things to do at some point* --Kizor 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The first Usenet use of that formulation that Google finds is by Vernon Schryver in news.admin.net-abuse.email on May 1 2002. --Psmith 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yager's Passive-Aggressive Rebuttal of Carol's Answer

Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity or incompetence.

Terry Yager 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need all those stupidity quotes?

The quotes that specifically discuss the attribution of stupidity versus evil are relevant, but I don't see how some of the general statements about human stupidity apply.

Benfea 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed my rebuttal here instead of on the main page to avoid unnecessary clutter. My point is that sometimes it's impossible to apply Hanlon's Razor because when either malice or incompetance advances to a certain level, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. As examples, I'll cite the Rosemary Wood's excuse, in which she claimed incompetance in having 'accidentally' erasing the White House tapes, although the majority of people believe her intent was malicious. Then there was the Nixon defense, where he claimed ignorance of any of the covert activities of CREEP, etc, and (almost) managed to pull it off, despite the fact that 'all the president's men' were convicted of various felonies. More recent is the Janet Reno Waco defense, where she claimed incompetance, even though her motive is widely considered to have been malice. In fact, going back a couple of years, the Reagan/Bush claims of having no knowledge of any Iran-Contra arms-for-dope-for weapons deals by the CIA, etc. Of course, I will give Reagan the benefit of the doubt, since he was probably suffering from the early stages of Alzhiemer's disease, but H-dubya can't hide behind that same excuse. Terry Yager 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the above post. Hanlon's Razor ignores the reality of powerful vested interests (e.g. the tobacco lobby, to name just one non-political or religious entity) which are known to have made a project of sowing artificial doubt in order to protect their power base or billions of dollars of sales income.

Indeed a corporation which is not prepared to do everything in its power to deceive the public in the interests of its profits is arguably violating its only substantive obligation - to maximise those profits. This is sorta kinda Hanlon's Razor at a deeper level - the stupidity of the way corporations are constituted is expressed in malicious behaviour - but it is stupid to ignore the known presence online of paid advocates for pro-corporate points of view who are likewise known to intentionally ignore, cast doubt on or otherwise obfuscate the facts - especially where no opposing corporate interests exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.130.226 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Methinks thee takes this matter much too seriously. These are, after all, only meant to amuse and parody the human condition. The fact they now appear falatious lies in the unforeseen depth of despicability to which our species has fallen. Hopefully mother nature will out and our children witness the return of sanity to the human race.  ;-) JimScott 22:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how one should decide when it is reasonable to presume that stupidity is involved. For instance, if a man is the President of the United States of America, would it be unreasonable to presume a great deal of stupidity on his part? Much of my judgement tells me that a person whose actions are mostly guided by stupidity is extremely unlikely to ever be elected president, suggesting the conclusion that when the President takes actions that could be interpreted as stupid, he is really acting on malice. However, given the fact that most high schoolers have a better grasp of the English language than does our President, I cannot accept the conclusion that his decisions are guided by malice rather than stupidity. So I guess what I'm looking for here is an example of a scenario where it would be unreasonable to presume that stupidity is at work rather than malice, because clearly it doesn't apply to U.S. Presidents or NASA astronauts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.14.66 (talk • contribs)

The whole point of Hanlon's razor is to assume stupidity until malice can be demonstrated. That doesn't mean that malice is never a factor, but rather that stupidity meets that other razor, of Ockham, because it requires fewer outside assumptions than malice.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available

Code	Result
|{{User:UBX/Hanlons Razor}}	Hanlon's RazorThis user never attributes to malice that which is best explained by stupidity. †	Usage

--One Salient Oversight 01:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Corollary?

I have trouble calling this a corollary of Finagle's law. I could see it as a corollary if the saying were, 'Never attribute to intent that which can be adequately explained by chance.' And, I would accept malice as a form of intent. However, where Finagle's law is basically saying that misfortune is fated, Hanlon's razor is saying that it is (more likely) caused by stupidity. I can't deduce stupidity from fate/chance.

Yes, I'm over-analyzing this. I'd like to know if anyone feels it is a corollary, or should the term be removed from the description.

Dr. Zed 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do remove it. It's confusing and unnecessary. And a time-waster for people who proceed from here to Finagle's law (which itself is just a corollary to Murphy's Law). Starting the article off by (mis)identifying Hanlon's razor as a corollary to a corollary just lends an air of pedantry to the article that leads one to assume (humorous) intent rathar than error. Why not just state Hanlon's razor, give its history, as far as it's known, and leave out the hackerish construct of meta-corollaries?

Napoleon?

According to Wikiquote, Napoleon said it long before any of the people mention in this article.[1] Which is wrong? --Gronky 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Older versions of this page also mentioned Napoleon, sometimes with some form of citation. Wikiquote has no citation. I have no idea if he actually said anything like this. — Aluvus t/c 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Napoleon Bonaparte and here My guess is the quote predates Napoleon, and Big B was just repeating it.Geo8rge (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there an opposite term?

Many people prefer to assume stupidity when it comes to some of the deeds of the Bush admin.(e.g.Iraq's WMD debacle), rather than malice (even though the players are quite educated; Bush himself having a MBA from Harvard and Bsc in History from Yale). If malice had been assumed instead, I imagine they would not have been re-elected(hopefully). So, is there a term that reflects a tendency to assume stupidity rather than malice when it comes to certain governments? 64.229.29.60 11:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The wikipedia guideline "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" is based on Hanlon's razor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who missed the irony (see Wyss above), shouldn't the article explicitly note that the naming of "Hanlon's razor" itself illustrates the principle stated by Heilein et alia? HG | Talk 00:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

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

First reference

I first encountered Hanlon's Razor (and I believe that was the spelling) when I saw it posted in the offices of the Fern Creek Neighbor newspaper, in Fern Creek (near Louisville), KY. This would have been ca 1974. So I believe the origin must predate 1980.drh (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cock-up theory

As a non-native speaker, apologies for my limited comprehension of English, but could someone hint at what "Cock-up" means, that phrase is not immediately accessible to an international audience. If it is obscene, then I think it should go. (?) regards, - Power.corrupts (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are endless Google references. Here's one: [2] It appears to be G-rated, at least in it's current usage. I would say it equates to "mess-up". I'm speculating here, but consider the phrase "screw-up", which could be thought to have vulgar origins, standing for the "F-word", but is in common public use, because "screwy", for example, also means "out of joint", as with "cocked" at an angle or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the ref is good, at least I was not the only one to wonder :-) - Power.corrupts (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"British English version" as opposed to British Welsh, British Scottish? British Gaelic perhaps? "British version" should be sufficient; that it is in English would be self-evident from the quotation that follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.179.93 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarke

Is it just me, or does the Clarke reference come dangerously close to "It's okay to use people's blogs for info about themselves, but not for self-serving claims"? I'm bothered by the fact that it can't be verified independently. arimareiji (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's stated that he "claims" he authored it. His own blog confirms he claims it. It doesn't confirm it's true, unless he provides some evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the line. As my edit comment said, anyone can *claim* they invented something, a claim alone doesn't seem noteworthy. More over, even if what he claims is true, that he wrote a line in some obscure story, there isn't any evidence that this lead to the wider use of the phrase. It is possible that someone in 1627 wrote the exact same phrase in a letter than was lost before it was read. Until someone can find something noteworthy about this claim, I can't see a reason to include it here. Wrs1864 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Without corroborating evidence, it's a rather shaky claim, yes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim itself is barely less notable than the subject matter itself, shaky or not. :) -- Resuna (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the Clarke reference purely for informational purposes. I have no relationship with him other than running across his blog posting, so its presence in Wikipedia is not a "self-serving claim":

Bill Clarke claims he wrote it in 1974; he says "Robert Hanlon" is a misspelling of "Robert Heinlein".

-- Resuna (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF

This is essentially a more cynical wording of WP:AGF. I find that rather poetic. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:AGF was written as a less snarky version of Hanlon's razor. This article has been around since 2001, it was a very well known saying, at least in among geeks. The WP:AGF article didn't get started until 2004, and a link to this article was soon added. Wrs1864 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Truppenführung quote

I remember this same quote from reading von Clausewitz, who probably wrote it when the German General was a young lieutenant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.156.99.13 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

I have seen the same statement (with minor differences in detail) in quotes much older, e.g. by Talleyrand. (Sorry, I do not have any references at hand.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.185.180 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

German General

The paragraph about German general is a clever anecdote which, among other things, speaks of stupidity, but it demonstrates no relation to the subject, i.e., Hanlon's razor. Therefore it must be deleted.

This was clearly stated in edit summary. Please don't revert other people contributions without stating the objections to the presented argument. "a bit high handed" -- I suspect it is not a valid argument, although I have no idea what you mean. Also, its idiomatic phrasing is unclear for non-native English speakers. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that the anecdote had stood for some time and that it added to the average reader's understanding of the adage (perhaps only by way of comparison) and that to remove it without some discussion would diminish the value of the article. However, I won't die in a ditch if you remove the paragraph because its inclusion is inappropriate. Silent Billy (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Malice is equally common as stupidity, and all too often appears in the same person at exactly the same time, therefore I propose a change to Hanlon's Razor:

"Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

This would take the form of two utterances held dynamically in equiposition, Hanlon' Razor and its converse, "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice."

These two statements, intelligently applied to situations calling for them, when held in the mind together like Schrodinger's Cat in a box, are capable of effectively explaining, all by themselves, nearly every important human interaction.

Here they are again, together:

Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.

See? See how so much becomes clear?

(This greatly applies to the Wiki talk world, incidentally, more than words can say. I think we all here can see that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.123.63 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability/ref tags added

This article seems to be nothing more than "cool Internet trivia" and not a topic that meets Wikipedia rules for articles. I see no coverage of this topic by sources that meet our rules on reliable sources, and inclusion in some jargon files is a far cry from demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. For a sentiment that is demonstrated (albeit through what appears to be original research) to be very old, it also seem wrong to give it the modern name. This article needs to be renamed and reliable sources on the topic found so it can be rewritten largely from scratch, or it needs to be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference link broken

Reference 5: "Napoleon I on Incompetence - Quotation - MSN Encarta", is no longer valid. Encarta has been shutdown WebCite apparently does not have a mirror. Sakshale (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Name

Article is wrong. It is Heinlein's Razor. Needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.26.19 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The book referenced as a source ISBN 0-417-06450-0 is by Arthur Bloch (http://www.amazon.com/MURPHYS-LAW-OTHER-REASONS-THINGS/dp/0417064500/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370069892&sr=1-1&keywords=0417064500) not Hanlon. There is no adequate sourcing for Mr. Hanlon beyond a supposed email on a site. Contrast that with Heinlein's well-known, long published book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.26.19 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no good evidence that Hanlon existed. How did this page past muster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.26.19 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof Hanlon existed besides one anecdotal email from some guy for whom there is also no proof of real identity. This article name needs to be changed to Heinlein's Razor or deleted. 172.5.26.19 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I clarified things somewhat; the actual claim is that Hanlon made a submission that was published under his name in Bloch's book. Are you disputing that, and if so, based on what? Granted, neither Stafford-Fraser nor Raymond say they actually researched this to verify it, but they still reported it. Indeed, you should present a source that clearly attributes the razor to Heinlein rather than Hanlon. Deletion is unwarranted in any case, the topic is generally notable, whatever the origin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book, it indeed lists it as Hanlon's Razor. A published book is a perfectly adequate source for a wikipedia page- not everything is online. The email adds details such as Hanlon's first name that I don't see in the book, but this doesn't change the fact that the name 'Hanlon's Razor' itself is well sourced. --Noren (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a book quoting a blog is a good source. Heinlein's short story appeared in 1941, well before the likely typo this article is based on. It's a poor article and not noteworthy. The quotation should appear in Wikiquote with appropriate attribution(s). Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There's now hundreds of books mentioning "Hanlon's razor" - Google Books search - for better or for worse, so I'd say it's well past the point of not being noteworthy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Attribution to Napoleon

I see from this page that a very similar saying ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.") is attributed to Napoleon. I see above that a Napoleonic connection was deleted when the source went offline? Is this a real earlier instance? If so, it should be possible to find a cite. Noel (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternate law also called Hanlon's Razor

I have seen the following as an alternate Hanlon's razor, "Do not invoke conspiracy as an explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence."

Maybe it should be added to the page as an alternate? 12.229.13.226 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where have you seen it? Google just turns up some anonymous forum usage and a journalist using that exact quote but calling it Finagle's law. --McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Never" and "but do not rule out" as described in "Heinlein's Razor" is self-contradictory/inconsistent: Better something like "Do not immediately attribute to malice, that which....." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.178.117 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

links

In the main text, there is the phrase "Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania", in which "Scranton, Pennsylvania" is a link to another wiki site. But the focal point here, if any, is Robert J. Hanlon (no wiki page), not Scranton, Pennsylvania... I think that the link to Scranton, Pennsylvania should be removed since there is no obvious relevance for the link. Sure Scranton, Pennsylvania has a wiki page, but so do so many other things (the word "name" as an absurd example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name ), so it is not worthy to argue that it *can* be linked and therefore it *should* be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.45.195 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done "Anyone can edit", be WP:BOLD. Paradoctor (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gray's Law?

So why is it called Gray's law if it paraphrases Arthur C. Clarke and/or Porter Clark? (The Clark's Law page was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark's Law and apparently not merged in here). Now there's no way to tell if this was done maliciously! --Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted citation

FTR, if someone wants to research this then there's a discussion with many links here that goes quite far back in time about the origins of this, and it doesn't even mention "Gray's law".

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Vernon$20Shryver$20incompetence$20malice/rec.arts.sf.fandom/1JaqxckrAOc/xO5jzyejK1UJ

--Attila.lendvai (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

If I were a malicious person, I would have come up with this razor independently of Hanlon to convince people I was just stupid. Just sayin'. Honestly, I think most people agree that this razor is miguided at best and dishonest at worst.68.42.32.128 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find this law to be a very apt summary of much of human behavior.--Khajidha (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Lol well it is circular. If I say Hanlon was malicious when he came up with this "law" will I be countered by Hanlons "law"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.4 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Clarke's claim

On 2006-01-20, blogger Bill Clarke claims to have coined the phrase (Archived)in the short story 'Axioms of a Mad Poet' that supposedly was published in 1974 "in a small 'summer project' newspaper in Toronto's East End' under the pen name "W.B. Clarke" . (On that same blog page, a certain Eric M. Van claims to have coined the phrase independently.) Clarke's claim cannot be used in the article without independent evidence, but it seems worth recording here since a copy of said newspaper could in principle exist. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Similar quotations

This section is original research, a collection of primary sources which some wikipedians think they are similar. There are no secondary sources which discuss their similarity. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no discussion, I deleted them. Please do not restore without providing secondary sources which describe these (and other) quotations as similar to Hanlon's razor. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I missed this discussion originally. I had recently found (and linked) to a secondary source discussing the similarity for one or two of them, which you deleted along with everything else. But I don't care enough to go back and resurrect them. Foolishgrunt (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you found reliable sources for some cases, we can restore these. If you do not care to do it yourself, just list the sources, and I will do it, because this will improve the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't check my messages very often. :) The source is here, and the proprietor runs through (and sources) quite a few quotes he deems to be thematically similar. He also claims to have had his broader work cited by quite a few notable news outlets. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like quoteinvestigator is a solid source. In this particular case, he further redirects: "More details about Hanlon are presented further below based on the research conducted by quotation expert Mardy Grothe appearing in the 2011 book “Neverisms”." And the info is very good for our article overall. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

On the same grounds, I've removed some material cited to sources simply using similar quotations. We can't draw the parallels; if we can't cite someone claiming a similarity, that's original research. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)