Talk:Godwin's law/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Wealthy trial lawyer" in "In popular culture"

The final two lines of "In popular culture", about a wealthy trial lawyer, seems pretty irrelevant. The link doesn't mention Godwin's law; it's just an instance of a comparison being drawn to the Nazis. Ctourneur (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate for the axe if it is still in there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Variants

Resolved

 – Out-of-scope for this article.

One version I came across added "or Stalin" with similar intent. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. There are many, many re-castings of GL, some broader than others, but they are not within the scope of this article, any more than rephrasals of Shakespeare are on-topic in his article. None of these reworkings appear to be notable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merely a point that "such variants exist." Jackiespeel (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. I see someone added a Scottish variant. While amusing, this is not notable (in the sense that it is widely used in Scotland). Also the article on which it is sourced is a primary source (by the inventer of the variant, not documenting its use). I propose this should be deleted.Flashleg8 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In "Windows for Dummies"

In this book, there is a chapter on using Compuserve and other Internet things, and the author gives a list of rules for engaging in a discussion, and one of them is that any discussion ends once someone calls someone else Hitler or a Nazi or a Fascist. Since Godwin's Law was formulated in 1990, that book was circa 1993, and I don't think Windows 3.1 users bothered much with Usenet, it would quite notably indicate just how quickly the meme spread. 24.85.244.108 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

slate

Unresolved

 – Off-topic.

The article Leave Hitler Out of It - The craze for injecting the Nazis into political debate must end on slate.com by Anne Applebaum points out that the Nazi comparisons are ubiquitous (and usually not to the point), not only on usenet. I wonder if this is a good link for the article... Probably not, as Godwin is not explicitly mentioned. --Aleph4 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's someone else making the same basic point as Godwin; but it doesn't tie directly into the subject of the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- this should definitely be written in the article then, it shows that Godwin has been taking credit for pointing out a phenomenon which people had already noticed and was already blatantly obvious anyway. These Godwin sympathisers should not keep moving the truth out of the way for a novelty story.Owen214 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain

Resolved

 – Out of WP scope.

Does comparisons to Neville Chamberlain count towards Godwin's law? Bulbous (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Godwin's law mention Chamberlain? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be flippant. No, it does not. Lately, however, Chamberlain is most frequently brought up in reference to his Munich treaty with Hitler. Does this not satisfy the "comparison involving Nazis or Hitler"? In such cases, although the Nazis may not be directly mentioned, they certainly are indirectly so. Say we're having a discussion, and you are suggesting negotiations, and I am suggesting force. If I call you Neville Chamberlain, am I not implying that I am Hitler? Bulbous (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to impress that it's a pointless discussion to have here; this is not a webboard; article talk pages are for discussions of article improvement, and there isn't anything one way or the other that is WP-relevant that can be said in this article with regard to GL and Chamberlain, because GL doesn't mention Chamberlain, or an extended class of Hitler/Nazi-connectees, and we don't have multiple, reliable sources making that leap in Godwin's stead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make Culture

Resolved

 – Article kept twice at WP:AFD. Complaining here does not make the article get deleted. Sorry.

There are a lot of entries on Wikipedia that are listed as culture but the only reference I've seen use is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to record culture not make it. It's not culture unless the majority of the people use said entry on a regular basis. As it stands right now Godwins Law is entry is being used to spread the use via Wikipedia thats not culture thats propaganda. Everuntested (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What you just said is a good simple summary of our notability guidelines. It should not be possible to say "nobody knew me/us/it/them from Adam until the Wikipedia article". However, in the case of "Godwin's Law", this doesn't apply as it was well known on Usenet before there was a "web" for it to be sourced on and it's mentioned in several "dead tree" books written before this article was created in 2001.

PS It's been nominated for deletion twice (1, 2) and speedy kept twice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a FAD with culture. I've been using the USENET, Forums, Bulletin Boards, etc.. each as they come into use and this is the first I've seen of this. So, I guess everything ever posted on the internet is CULTURE. Culture to me is mainstream use by the masses. Not a few idiots here and there always quoting Wikipedia. This is an example of why I belittle every person that quotes from Wikipedia, it's popularity contest by the admins of the site not a desire to record facts. You can't have good information then ignore the poor stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously. ::76.212.78.82 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:IDONTKNOWIT. The fact that you were unaware of the topic of this article before reading it says something about you, but not about this article or its topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Culture is based on what you never heard. You people are such idiots here it's laughable. The IDONTKNOWIT post is used just like this Godwin's Law. It's on Wiki so it must be true... /rollseyes. ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.64.208 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well only a Nazi thinks that. Godwin's Law is like the Holocaust; it doesn't exist.

The Nazi sympathizer has been sacked. Hail Wikipedia!198.137.26.43 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Local variations of Godwin's law

The article says:

In some countries such as Poland due to Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles which caused the death of over 2 million Polish citizens actual comparison of someone to Hitler or Nazi is very rare during an online discussion.

It then goes on to say that in such cases, the comparison is often made instead to Stalin and the Soviet Union. There's a note there that a citation is needed--and I'd really like to see one. It seems to me that in Poland, people would well understand that Stalin's Soviet Union was just as guilty as Hitler's Nazi regime. There are plenty of memorials there to Soviet atrocities against the Poles. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

not true - citation needed 149.156.124.3 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Such "local variations" have already been discussed above; it was agreed that they are beyond the scope of this article. Ceausescu, Milosevic, Vlad the Impaler, Andrew Jackson; examples could be continued ad nauseam. I support the consensus for leaving them out. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the article applies to many places besides the US itself (I may be wrong). Every region most likely has its own variation that has nothing to do with Hittler (by that I mean its own overused inappropiate comparison historic figure/event); nevertheless, it would not be as generalized as the Hittler argument. The "Local Variations" piece should, then, include more varied examples, since the concept applies, or not be there at all. If the purpose of the law would be to reduce the number of inappropiate comparisons, Hittler or Nazism would not define the law but would be examples used to implement it since they are clearly overused when drawing inapropiate comparisons in this specific region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.241.209 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New paragraph addition

There a lot of people that agree that Godwin's 'law' is used often used improperly as a means of avoiding logic and reasoning in an online discussion. Additional information is needed in this article to protect the integrity of wikipedia.

I will add the following next week to the article unless someone else can come up with something better under the following paragraph:

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

Godwin's Law is also frequently use by people that favor dictatorships, fascist regimes and totalatarian forms of government, when they can't defend a position in an online discussion with reason or logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.44.226 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that there's no real correlation between fact A and fact B. In other words, it's like saying "the sky is blue, so you must favor a dictatorship." The connection isn't being made. Maybe it's just how I'm reading it, but please gain consensus and provide sources back up the statement before it is posted. tedder (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a giant section titled "Godwin's law as a means of inflicting censorship" on this page that has numerous people reporting that this poorly written article.

If this article is to be used to describe how Godwin's law is used and it currently does. Then all the ways people often use Godwin's law should be cited. Peoples use of Godwin's Law has grown and changed since the early days of usenet and this article should reflect those changes. I think the adding the paragraph adds to how Godwin's law is used by people on the internet and should be included in the article.

This above paragraphs use is mentioned as "4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?" at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

A lot of people don't use Godwin's law to describe "that there's no real correlation between fact A and fact B." for example (I am over simplifying this)

Person A

"This government program or bill X has a lot of supporters; Therefore it is good."

Person B

"Just because a government program or bill has a lot of supporters does not make it good, Nazi's had a lot of supporters for their program of putting Jews in concentration camps"

Person A

"Godwin's Law you lose!"

A lot of people are using Godwin's law as an ad hominem attack and not just as reference to Reductio ad Hitlerum as this one sided wikipedia article states in it's current form.

--71.181.44.226 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The popular web comic xkcd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd) has covered the use of Godwin's law as an ad hominem attack: http://xkcd.com/261/ --71.181.44.226 (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal or Socialist Maddow quote

I have changed it back to Liberal. She talks about Liberals and Democrats, nor Socialists. The quote was accurate as before. She is American, and the editor was right in pointing out the difference, but it was a quote from an American on an American show. Sirrontail (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Backwards logic

Saying that Godwin's law doesn't apply to discussions of Hitler-related subjects is absurd, because it is true that the probability of Hitler being invoked does approach 1. The law holds. Either that, or it's a POV assertion that it shouldn't be applied for some reason. The point that the text I fixed seemed to be trying to make was that the corollaries (e.g. about an invocation of Hitler meaning you "lose" the arguments) don't apply because the subject is appropriate, and that makes sense. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is about invocation of the rule in the first place. This isn't a "law" in a strict scientific sense, and was never meant to be so. JJL (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with JJL. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mass revert

I propose reverting this article to one of its more stable states ca. 2007. It was a much better article then. All kinds of absolute tripe has crept in, much of it in direct violation of WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, and in several cases it has interrupted the flow of source citations such that certain clauses appear to be sourced by a named source, but really are not, and in other cases clauses that were sourced now appear to be unsourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article attracts tripe (and its Talk page attracts poor attempts at humour, such as the one you redacted) more than most. If it isn't closely watched, the variations/probabilistic arguments/analyses will return. Certainly the Nazometer can go. Can you be more specific about what you considered a better version? JJL (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The pictures

Why on earth does this article need pictures of Mike Godwin and Adolf Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.140.122 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly "need" them, but they are clearly relevant; the overwhelming majority of pictures in Wikipedia are not strictly "needed". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice photo of Adolf, ain't it? What a charming guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do like the way Mike Godwin is facing the camera, but with his right shoulder forward, and lit from his left, just like Hitler! AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they had the same photographer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Semantic issue....

I know it's a bit picky, but it doesn't make sense to say Goodwin "created" the law as it does in the caption of his image. Likewise, it makes no sense to say Newton "created" the law of gravity; a "law" is an elucidation or model of the way something really is. Saying someone "created" a law is akin to saying they "invented" it. However, in terms of prose, I'm not sure which would be the most pleasing term to replace it with. Maybe "elucidated" or "codified," but both sound quite stilted (and slightly ridiculous). Any other ideas?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off I'd be rather reluctant to group a pseudo-law like Godwin's with an actual scientific Law like the laws of motion. Second, gravity is not a scientific law, it's a natural force. Lastly, oddly enough in science Laws are the lesser of two positions. The other being a theory. Theories state that a situation occurs as well as hypotheses about why a situation occurs. Laws simply ascribe that a situation does occur under the same conditions. The one criteria this pseudo-law does not adhere to is that the law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. Since this is impossible given the nature of this pseudo-law, it can never truely be considered a "law". It is, as the article accurately states, an adage. Padillah (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's using "Law" in kind of a broad or humorous way. To be technical, "Godwin's Law" is what his profession is. In the case of this article, "Godwin's Law" indicates he observed this phenomenon and wrote about it. So it is "his" Law in that sense, just as Newton observed and wrote about gravity, thus he gets the credit for discovering it or quantifying it. Diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's weren't invented by those guys either. So maybe the article should say Godwin "discovered" Godwin's Law. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, fair enough. I was stuck on it being or not being a law as opposed to how to phrase it's inception. I agree with your observations, a law, generally any Law, is discovered not created. Good catch P & P. Padillah (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I also finally thought of the right word, which is that calling it a "Law" is kind of "facetious". It's an observation on human behavior, not exactly a scientific "Law", as you said. Maybe "Principle" would have been a better term, but it is what it is. A true scientific "Law" is something that never changes, at least not within the parameters of its usage. Newton's Laws are technically not quite right, but they are sufficient for normal use. It's only when you get into the realm of speeds approaching light and quantum mechanics and stuff like that where Newton's Laws don't quite work. Another example is the Laws of Euclidean Geometry. Those are "givens" for that geometry. Or as an old math teacher put it, they are rules, about which "there is no discussion". Not that there isn't discussion, really - but that they form the basis for that particular geometry. If you change them, you have a different geometry. OK, I'll stop before I sink any further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong to say that gravity is a force rather than a law. There is a force of gravity, and there is also a scientific "law" describing it. You're also wrong to claim that it is unchangeable. The whole point of science is that it changes it's "laws" based on observation. Really though, it is the "theory" of gravity. Laws are things made by governments. If you want to be semantically correct, then you can change "created" to "hypothesised" or "proposed" or in this case probably "coined". ~Fishy~

Haha, wow. Deep conversation. Notice that when I framed my above comment I tried to strongly note that it was a "semantic issue" restricted to the use of "created" in the "caption" ;) ... I knew a whole ridiculous can of worms beyond the scope of this talk page would be opened up if I mentioned the "Law" part, so I intentionally tried to frame the conversation away from it! I know all about the issues surrounding laws and theories (I've taken a couple whole courses in philosophy of scientific reasoning), but I was trying to shy away from those depths! Well, no harm done. The third comment (the one by Baseballbugs) gets kind of at what I'm saying.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh's Corollary?

What the heck? This sounds like something someone randomly made up. The "sources" do not make any reference to Godwin's law. It is completely irrelevant to the article, and has absolutely -nothing- to do with Godwin's law. 70.126.70.134 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Malkara

I'm a little late to this conversation, but hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh LOVE to compare Democratic politicians to Hitler. --99.101.160.159 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Use in other media

There is a clear synonymy with the hyperbole described by Godwin's Law in the Simpsons epsiode Homer_vs._Patty_and_Selma, where Homer grabs and pretends to smoke cigarettes from his sisters-in-law. Their supervisor accuses him of being 'worse than Hitler' for smoking inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.31.45 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nescio's Corollary

This seems to be a violation of WP:NFT. The cited source is a blog post by "Nescio" where the idea is proposed. Furthermore, the idea is not actually a corollary of Godwin's Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus39 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope invokes Nazi comparison

The BBC News website reported this evening (16 Sept 2010): "A speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations." 80.229.253.140 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A new article on Godwin's Law

Talks about some other Wikipedia stuff, but is mostly about Godwin's Law.[1] Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Orwellian Improvement to Godwin Law

Even though Godwin created his "law" as a part of an experiment and it was expressed as an humoristic remark it doesn't mean that it does not hold some true, among many informal or "uninformed" political or historical discussions it's usual that in some point someone will try to counter another parts argument by comparing it to the Nazi regime, this makes a lot of sense from a moral point of view because no Nazi-end could be justified by their means, therefore any action that could be comparable to any of those performed by any Nazi can not be justified by no mean either.

From many points of view this discussion may seem innocuous, but I think that a similar instrument may come in handy from a philosophical perspective. It may not seem obvious but, historically speaking, the Third Reich is recent history, and even though there are MANY books, papers and research on the subject it was not until recently that a more accurate vision of the Third Reich Germany was possible and it'll take a little more to completely understand its political and historical transcendence, even Shirer (a visual witness) works are in many ways see as naive or inaccurate, it's my personal opinion that only Evans books are giving the closest thing to the whole picture so far. So, if we are not sure if we can describe the political origins and consequences of the Third Reich how we can use it as a reference? There's little doubt that it was an evil regime, but how evil is it? Can we benchmark evil against it? My answer is not, yet. There are so many passions involved, (almost) no one is trying to defend the Nazis, but there is an struggle between people who's trying to discredit with Godwin-Law-Alike-Arguments and those who expect better arguments or want to avoid them because they know the law may apply to them, therefore it's impossible to create a framework to apply moral values on the political performance of any person or government based on Hitler without falling in deep subjectivity, BUT it may be an answer to this problem in George Orwell.

It have come to my attention that when the level of the participants in an argument is higher* the Godwin Law won't come to reduction ad hitlerum but to reductio ad orwellium, this is because Animal Farm and 1984 seems to describe the most common misdeeds of any government, or at least those who are more conspicuous, usually related with freedom of speech, private property, approval from a part of the population and war policies among many others. Since Orwell works are seminal and they have a high degree of validity over time they leave the realm of subjectivity and goes into the science field: Orwell could describe the basic features of any dictatorial regime not because he was a clairvoyant but because he made the right observations and sustained his work on objective political and historic knowledge. Based on this it seems that any time a government or political leader fits into any of the profiles described in any Orwell literary work that government or individual can be leveled at the same moral degree.

• with "higher" I mean that they actually know what are they talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpolania (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR This isn't a Forum for discussing the article's topic--Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Post 9/11 version of Godwins law

Godwins law in the post 9/11 enviorment; All Western media and internet conversations will eventually discuss Muslims and their practices predominately in the derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosse (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Source about this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably he's just being a smartass and made it up. However I think if he changed it from "muslims" to "terrorism" it'd actually be true and not inflammatory. Propensity of authors or commenters to invoke terrorism and freedom, whether relevant or not.Lenrodman (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Memetics reference

Oh god, did this guy actually invent the meme as we know it? Urghsgjklgjd14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhnuh muhnuh. (Translation: No.) 99.62.36.101 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Use by American conservatives"

it should be mentioned how wanting to provide all Americans with healthcare and taxing the rich has caused the Tea Party movement to call President Obama worse than Hitler. To further their point, they can't even get their ideologies straight when accusing him.--99.101.160.159 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No.

Merge_discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Oppose the merger proposal. "Godwin's law" was a tongue and cheek observation that has been taken as gospel. It is a phenomenon of it's own, that references the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum, however it is a subject of it's own.--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 207.30.26.32 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Godwin's Law is different enough to Reductio ad Hitlerum that a merged article would be awkward. 121.72.172.4 (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. 24.145.157.81 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Unwarranted. Belchfire (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose, is not needed - has enough "meat" to stand on it's own.--MrBoire (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. They are two different concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.37.176 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. While related, they are irreconcilably separate. Merging would muddle the concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.89.65 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Anyone who would want to merge is obviously a Fascist. EEng (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Note for the humor-impaired [2]: the oppose is genuine, though the comment facetious and, yes, perhaps lame. Please, no links explaining how some people are unable to recognize irony -- that's already abundantly obvious. Would you like me to use a little wink-eye icon next time?

Oppose, obviously. Each of the two articles has stand-alone notability, and they're only tangentially related. The relationship is perfectly well expressed by the respective see also sections. Is it not time to close this merge proposal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I requested that an administrator come around and close this. See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Godwin.27s_law.23Merge_discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On The Internet You're Not Called A Nazi But A Troll

In modern online debates in forums one is not called a Nazi anymore but a "troll". Kids these days don't have much of a connection to the 1945 war and the hypocrisy and sensitivity to accusations of racism have made Nazi comments ineffectual to a large extent. So now people call each other "trolls" when they have run out of substantive argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.156 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe there's seriously a page like this one

So, now a guy says a meme in a post and it's enciclopedic enough to have his own page? Presented as an actual mathematical law, no less. Put this thing in Godwin's biography page, like the joke it is. Don't make of web 2.0 the new 4chan, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.15.165 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

JustLikeHitler.com

The www.justlikehitler.com site collects examples of Godwin's law. Would it be acceptable to put a link in the External Links section? (I don't want to do it myself because of a potential conflict of interest.) Cancilla (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages linking to personal blogs. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary is (partially) wrong

"In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis."

Now, that is nonsense. "inevitably end up making Hitler and Nazi comparisons/analogies/remarks" would be thing, but "end being _about_" them is just bogus misinterpretation of the very law.

Godwin's law is a false law - therefore this article must be deleted.

User warned on talk page for tendentious editing — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The only true law is the word of God and the law of a nation. This false law belongs in the garbage bin. The photograph of the creator of this false law gives away the true fact that this egomaniac has inflicted an untruth on the world. Godwin's law is the product of Narcissism and Left Wing Geekinness, divided by immoral gayness. Please delete - remove this article from Wikipedia. And please do not censor my truth. Deletion is the only truth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianRainbow123 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's law as a means of inflicting censorship

Godwin's law started as a joke that is nowadays used extensively to inflict censorship on the internet by intimidation. I ignore Godwin's law and I propose to do the same because if you are anti-censorship, then you'd be also in allowing people to bring up the nazi party. The phenomenon while it may sound trivial at first, took saddening proportions the last few years since it's almost impossible to discuss the middle east wars and the nazis at the same time. Censorship by popular culture intimidation should not be tolerated. Arguments, do you have them? Godwin's law is not one. I support the use of more sources that support the notion. --Leladax (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above statement. I have experienced two discussions where the person failed to respond to my nuanced argument. Once that person saw the word "nazi" he simply quoted "Godwin's "law" really "Godwin's Probability Statement" and acted as if he had "won" the argument--simply by writing that magic phrase. Remember--the general public sees "Godwin's Law" as a discussion stopper--despite your disclaimers. This is because many people are not taught how to think rationally. Thus, Godwin's so called Law...is misused to stop serious discussions.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Godwin's law is in no way a form of censorship; it is simply a way to point out a logical fallacy. If, for example, you state that the number of elephants in Africa has doubled in the last six months, and I cite a factual source that contradicts your assertion, I am not censoring you. I am proving you wrong. You are, of course, welcome to keep arguing your opinion all you want, just like Stephen Colbert, who believes facts are elitist. Lovelac7 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking by definition of the times there's no logical fallacy. How can you answer like that when I didn't even use an example. There's no need of an example, I talked specifically of the times someone brings up the Nazi Party (e.g. now, as I did) and then someone else instead of answering with arguments, throws a "HAHAHA! Godwin's LAW!!111", and dismisses the whole discussion. --Leladax (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

the idea, I beleive, is that if someone has compared anyone or anything to hitler, the discussion has gotten well out of the realms of real argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ... the entire problem. Hitler may be a vile man, but this does not mean that (a) he was the vilest man that ever lived, (b) that people who are less vile can no longer be compared with him in aspects or degree, provided this is clarified.

Godwin's law is relevant because comparisons with Hitler are often badly thought out and thrown in a discussion merely to cast a bad light on someone. Godwin's law is not relevant when the comparison to Hitler is actually appropriate. The appropriateness of the situation, ofcourse, remains to be judged by the participants of the discussion. DDSaeger (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Godwins Law cannot be used to inflict censorship as it makes no statement on how to handle a Nazi analogy. It just says that the probability is increasing when the discussions grows longer. --JogyB (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was talking practically: People will simply laugh at those that "dared" to mention Nazi Germany in a discussion. In other discussions, all kinds of horrible stuff from history may come up - but nothing from Nazi Germany - and nothing happens. "Censorship by intimidation", I was specific.--Leladax (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Godwins law is not used as a form of censorship. It is designed to highlight simply that the longer a discussion goes on, the higher the chances are of it "jumping the shark" and becoming completely unrelated towhat the discussion is about. I think somebody claiming it is a form of censorship is a pretty good example within itself. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's clearly not how it's perceived by the majority of those that "invoke" it. You have a good point but I'm talking practically here: It is not taken as a general concept as you describe. Topics are being hijacked on the internet all the time on the mere idea that someone did the "crime" to mention Nazi Germany. This doesn't happen with other subjects. A discussion may be heated to the point of explosion, mentioning all kinds of horrible stuff from history, but nothing happening. In another discussion, someone mentions something from German Nazis; then "HAHA! Godwin's Law! HAHA! BUSTED!" commences. I called it "Censorship by intimidation" on purpose.--Leladax (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's still not censorship; it's one Internet yahoo with poor debate skills being confused enough (by another Internet yahoo with poor debate skills) to shut up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is censorship and I've used the internet for forums, blogs, bulletin boards since 1989 and never heard of this till today. And the only reference was used is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not make culture so by them using it as sole source invalidates the whole entry. So this is just one man trying to impose himself on popular culture. If they use it in yahoo fine but I can show you a thousands of forums where its not used. 63.168.30.81 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this law seems to only exist on wikipedia and isn't insightful enough to be credited as a law anyway, let's just remove the page within a few days unless anyone has any decent explanation as to how this isn't just a rewording of common sense and that this law has actually been widely spread before being mentioned on wikipedia. I'm guessing this Godwin bloke just tried to popularize it, maybe he even wrote it in some computer book of his, but it didn't take off because this 'law' is so basic and irrelevant. He's probably also the one to make this pageOwen214 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

maybe the problem is that giving it a page makes it a 'thing', but what sort of 'thing'? The article itself calls it an 'adage', and then a 'law'. I suggest it is not really a 'law' (as Owen214) and so at best can be shorthanded as 'the Law' which clearly indicates we are referring to the thing entitled 'Godwins Law' and not a real LAW which really exists. As an adage it is somewhat clever, I suppose, but when it gets taken too seriously it is being attributed with a seriousness that it does not deserve. It can't be invoked, because it is not really the sort of thing that is properly invoked. I suggest that whereever the word 'law' occurs it be replaced with 'adage' or '"Godwin's Law"'--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Leladax is absolutely right and so is Richardson mcphillips: It is ridiculous to call it a "law", since it is nothing else than a social phenomenon and you can break down a discussion with Gowdin´s law and use it as a censorship. The fact that Nazi comparisons are used, does that anyhow mean that the discussion is finished and a "winner" (who did not use Hitler) is automatically found? Of course not. You can break down as a discussion by censorship with Godwin´s law as much as you can do it with an excrescent Nazi comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.91.12 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

why don't we all make our own laws that particular topics will be mentioned as the number of comments increases? :S Owen214 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this page is for discussing the article and how to improve it, not to vent about how one feels about Godwin's Law or its application. If the article seems to take the subject too seriously, that can be corrected by editing the article and discussing your reason for doing so on this page. Whinging about how "people" interpret Godwin's Law is just that, whinging. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was discussing the article and how to improve it. I tried to edit the article first and some wikipedia control freak said I had to discuss my change here first. So I am doing that.

A lot off people have a problem with the current article. People are reading the wikipedia article and citing it as a source improperly because it is a poorly written article.

To Quote Leladax:

But that's clearly not how it's perceived by the majority of those that "invoke" it. You have a good point but I'm talking practically here: It is not taken as a general concept as you describe. Topics are being hijacked on the internet all the time on the mere idea that someone did the "crime" to mention Nazi Germany.

Additional information is needed in this article to protect the integrity of wikipedia.

I will add the following next week to the article unless someone else can come up with something better under the following paragraph:

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

Godwin's Law is also frequently use by people that favor dictatorships, fascist regimes and totalatarian forms of government, when they can't defend a position in an online discussion with reason or logic.

If you have a better idea on how to describe this that is more "fair," then please let me hear your idea(s) (and don't delete my post... this is an open discusion any reply that deletes everything I have to say will be met with the undo buttion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.44.226 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I didn't delete your discussion at all- I just moved it to the end of the page since it's really a new discussion and I didn't want it to get lost up here. tedder (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler would also have removed it and put it somewhere where people won't spot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.148.82 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will continue the discussion below, even though I think it belongs in this section. per section 2 part 4 of the godwin law FAQ (see below for link) aka: "4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.44.226 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd call it censorship, but Godwin's Law certainly does have a negative impact on some important discussions in which comparisons to Nazi Germany are accurate by making it seem like ANY discussion in which Nazi Germany is mentioned is suddenly unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeekLTK (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Valid Topic

To be honest with you, this isn't so much about the Internet as it extends across society in general. What Godwin said is actually a very relevant matter to us all because even a random topic down the pub can degrade into the mention of dubious entities, such as.

Consider sitting for a polite dinner, at which the party would normally avoid the discussion of politics and religion whilst eating; do so and by this theory it is inevitable that topics of the great wars will come to the table one way or the other.

This could be regarded an important theory for sociological and psychological discussions, particularly with regards to personal experience of wartime, or indeed a lack thereof, and also when considering the impact of mass media in relation to historical and current coverage of war. Further, it also isn't so much about the Nazis in general as more broadly, any nemesis could be used to describe this scenario, as we might generally make comparisons of ourself against that which we deem unholy, if you like, in order to remain polar to it. In addition, the subject of the discussion might also be widely-regarded as taboo and so it could be regarded as breaking the ice, so to speak.

Also bear in mind that in some places of the world usage of the term "Nazi" might be restricted. Israel is an example here, as there is talk of the term becoming illegal when used in a derogatory manner, which is actually quite concerning when considering the rights to free speech when you are sat at home eating your dinner. Not that you'd call your Mother a Nazi, but nonetheless if she took you to court over it then you were probably right! In any case, this theory does, at least in my mind, raise the matter of one's freedom to speak their mind.

Mere Mortal (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Infinite Monkey Theorem?

The link to Infinite Monkey Theorem was added anonymously with the explanation "Adding Infinite Monkey Theorem (similar lines of reasoning, however contrasts regarding point - Goodwin's law doesn't have anything to do with infinity, but rather human nature)". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godwin%27s_law&oldid=268204589

Following the link doesn't really add anything. Did an Everything2 bot get lost in here?

Godwin's Law is when a discussion nears an infinite length, its probability of mentioning Hitler approaches one.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem is when anything randomly produced nears an infinite length, its probability of mentioning everything approaches one.

Pretty analogous logically, I'd say.

Infinite Monkey theorem actually sheds a lot of light on the concept in a mathematical / logical way, whereas this article does so with respect to "human nature." Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As the previous poster says, Godwin's law does not mention "infinity", and is about human behaviour rather than mathematical probability. If you're having to explain the relevance of a "see also" link, it shouldn't be there. --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds pretty much like infinity to me (think of it as calculus):

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

...Move towards infinity, limit approaches 1. I don't understand how this almost perfect analogue is so contentious. You say that this is about human behaviour. Note that that is exactly what I said right above, though I used "nature" for "behaviour." You say "rather than mathematical probability." Note that that's what I said right above. This is the total point of a see also link: the Infinite Monkey article covers an extremely similar concept in a mathematical / logical sense, while this article does so in a human nature sense. I will reiterate, maybe someone will read:

Godwin's Law is when a discussion nears an infinite length, its probability of mentioning Hitler approaches one.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem is when anything randomly produced nears an infinite length, its probability of mentioning everything approaches one.

Pretty analogous logically, I'd say.

Infinite Monkey theorem actually sheds a lot of light on the concept in a mathematical / logical way, whereas this article does so with respect to "human nature."

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this can't have an inclusion in the "See Also" list. While not directly related, there are reasonable comparisons to make between the theories. They are kind of opposite, after all, which actually makes it valid in my opinion.

Mere Mortal (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples in pop culture

Should we have a pop culture example section? First one that comes to mind for me is Office Space when they are arguing in the car "Nazis had peices of flair, they made the Jews wear" Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

approaches 1

" It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis." [emphases mine]

Strictly speaking, as the probability only approaches 1, but of course never reaches it, the last line should read "almost inevitably". (But let's leave it for the sake of style....) Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Auto Industry Metaphor

I seem to remember hearing that auto industry metaphors also close threads and that this is a lesser-known clause of Godwin's Law. Looking for sources now... Timothy Duff (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Catch-22 / Self-fulfilling nature Godwin's conjecture / Hasn't this been posted as a corollary?

Godwin's Law is now fairly well known. Thus, the longer an internet discussion goes on without a demonstration of the law, the higher the likelihood that someone will marvel at how it seems to have been broken. Of course, in doing so, they just succumb to the law. This is the problem when you deal with infinities. It becomes easy to put forth conjectures - even conjectures that are opposed to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.97 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Though this is a rather dated comment, it is rather a common misunderstanding. I've personally been in a number of forums where someone eventually noted the heated debate on a political topic and that the conversation failed to succumb to Godwin's law. The conversation continued, with some remarks of surprise from other participants. It's not often considered a violation of Godwin's law to note similarities to fascism in general with certain political platforms that involve excessive nationalism, marginalization of minorities, etc and not utilized as an epithet, but as a mild admonishment. It comes down to how a comparison is raised. But, the majority of such comparisons fail Godwin's law in a most spectacular manner.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Crimea

A lot of comparisons have been made between the actions of you-know-who's Germany and Russia vis-a-vis Crimea/Sudetenland/Anschlus.......is this a case for an exemption??--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. There is no fascist tendencies, no minority groups scapegoated and sent to concentration camps, no massive invasion of other European nations, etc.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a perfect comparison, but the comparison is not to WW2 - it is to the manner in which Germany absorbed Austria and Sudetenland. There seem plenty of fascist tendencies in Putin's Russia, and the Ukrainian nationalists have certainly been scapegoated.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an even better example because the Russians have been claiming the Ukrainians are like Hitler. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't actually preclude the Russians from behaving in a similar manner to you-know-who themselves, so my point would not exclude them from the substantive law - so is irrelevant to my actual point.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Imperialism is not fascism. Expansionism is not fascism. While there are some nationalistic tendencies in this matter, it's more like acquisition of satellite states as a buffer or even interruption of the spread of a particular political environment, a sort of a version of US "domino theory", to judge from the output from Russia. Or perhaps, a re-assembly of the old USSR, a piece at a time. Only time will tell. Comparisons tend to fail due to that difference.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a forum... Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Statistics and Eventuality

I don't understand why this is even a law. You could replace 'Nazis and Hitler' with almost anything (for example: 'flying elephants', 'hot chocolate', anything really apart from probabilities of such probabilities being much less than 1). In statistics, almost everything has a probability of happening, eventually or given enough time. This is an obvious assertion in statistics, and hardly worthy of a 'law' label. I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the page. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the Usenet equivalent to Mornington Crescent (qv) Danensis (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent notable occurrences

I have been informed by a member of the wikimedia foundation that Mike Godwin recently admonished someone for breaking his law in reference to a recent decision to enable lightboxes on the German wikimedia mailing list. I can't find the link, but perhaps some kind editor could do so and post it as a notable example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.141.173 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Limitations

1. If Godwin's law states people will talk about Hitler
2. and Hitler claimed people would talk about him,
3. it makes Godwin share Hitler's idea
4. thus Godwin's law is ultimately Nazi
5. and we should question its applicability.

sicarius 89.133.142.140 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your logic fell apart between steps 3 and 4. I share Hitler's views on a couple of things, smoking for example, but I can assure you I abhor most of his philosophy. Godwin's observation, obviously a pretty true one, makes neither Godwin nor his law Nazi. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters for America source

Source:

While Godwin's Law is generally used successfully to discourage liberals and leftists from using terms like "Nazi" or "Hitler" to refer to political opponents, it has recently been ignored by many extreme conservative and right-wing political commentators and has increasingly been used as a part of their political discourse.

This reference comes from Media Matters for America, which is known for being ideologically progressive and opposed to conservatives. I'm not sure they count as a neutral source. Faray (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1. A sourcce doesn't have to be neutral, but this blog does not meet WP:RS, so this source can not be added to the article.
2. WP:NPOV asks that if you add a non-neutral source, you also add one that shows the other side of the issue to present a balanced neutral poin-of-view. Both have to meet WP:RS.
3. This quote is not in the blog. It might be in the comments to the blog (too many for me to check), but the comments to a blog post almost never meet WP:RS.

— Lentower (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

References

References

McCulloch's Law

It has been suggested that an equivalent version should exist for discussions where the opinions of Winston Churchill are positively cited in favour of what would otherwise be a repugnant line of argument. In particular the citing of his views on Islam from 1899 in The River War.

This is only a suggested Social Media Law, it may never catch on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgb62uk (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Is it not worth mentioning Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (See here) and where Godwin´s theory may relate to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:449D:3506:A997:9056 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Gillard's Law?

Does Gillard's Law deserve a mention or it's own page? First person to shout sexist automatically loses whatever debate was in progress. 118.208.120.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From WP:ALIVE: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

The proposed "Gillard's Law" is inaccurate (both in its attribution to Julia Gillard and the nature it presumes of ad hominem in practice), disrespectful of a living person and entirely against the jovial nature of Godwin's Law. 122.148.182.166 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Godwin's Law

There is no criticism section in this article, and yet the law has been criticized on the right for applying a double standard to liberals and conservatives. One critic laments — without speculating whether it is in accordance with or in spite of Mike Godwin's intent — that "leftists are given free rein in evoking the Third Reich and the Führer" (Zombie Time has a (very) long retrospective of Bush=Hitler photos in the San Francisco Bay area alone) and that "for the left (American or international), Reductio ad Hitlerum is par for the course — describing conservatives (or Americans generally) as fascists and (neo-)Nazis." (No Pasarán, Mitt Hitler and Double Standards, and Instapundit, Godwin's Law Applies to Thee, But Not to Me). Asteriks (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nazis

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 Nazis. 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 mentioning gorgomon, what is obvious about not calling for example an aggressive 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. 89.99.102.133 (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)

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)

Generalisation

To some extent any 'historical, unpleasant person's name used as a snarl word' can be substituted. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What fallacy?

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,[citation needed] 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.

I don't get it. 174.119.123.152 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm with you. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know but I think by "the fallacist's fallacy," they were talking about an argument like this: "Argument A with conclusion C is fallacious, therefore C is false." For example: "It's fallacious to say that if Earth is a planet and Earth is made of matter, all planets must be made of matter. Therefore, not all planets are made of matter." It's showing that there is a distinction between illogical and false, just as there is a distinction between logical and true.

However I think it's still misguided and irrelevant, since the point being made in the rest of that paragraph seems to be that comparisons to Hitler are not always fallacious. They are only fallacious when the thing being compared to Hitler is incidental. It's valid to compare to Hitler someone's desire to purge members of a minority religion from their country. It's not valid to compare someone's vegetarianism to Hitler. Of course Godwin's law is not the same thing as Reductio ad Hitlerum; it's a cultural thing, for better or worse. Ligata (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Self-godwinization

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)

Duterte just did something similar.[3] 50.0.205.96 (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A large proportion of English nouns can be turned into a nonce-word-verb - usually meaning 'the action of achieving, creating, or doing/creating something of the nature of...'. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Feldman's Law?

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

It seems like self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmvajda (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-promotion it MAY be (we have no idea who wrote it), but its represents a real phenomena; It should be placed in a category with "derivatives" ("As any discussion of libertarian continues... of "slavery" approaches 0."). Perhaps that would become a little page by itself? Or just cut it off as "Terhe are many derivates, such as progressive-priveldege," blah blah I'm too busy to copy and paste it at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Convergence in probability instead of almost sure convergence

The term "approaches 1" as quoted in Gowin's law in the article was indirectly linked to the article almost sure convergence (which is part of the article almost surely). However this is not correct since almost sure convergence considers events, without loss of generality, that converge in such a way that limit of the events is assigned to be of probability one.

Yet this is not the case here, since Godwin states that the probability approaches one, referring to convergence in probability instead - meaning that the probability of events from a sequence converges to one - and Godwin does not state that the probability of a limit of a sequence of events is one, as claimed by almost sure convergence.

Hence the term "approaches 1" is to be linked to the article about convergence in probability instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cserbal (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Virgina protests and Internet usage

Alt-right does not automatically mean Nazis, The AntiFA decided to use Nazi/Fascist like tactics, etc. In Internet use usually, when one compares the other group to Hitler or Nazis, they have lost the debate and basically done a personal attack. Internet debaters should stick with facts and issues and not resort to name calling and assume good faith, like on Wikipedia here. These racists or Nazis were only 500 people and not the whole Alt-Right or Republicans or whatever. Republicans want capitalism, Nazis hate capitalism and want socialism instead. Republicans want smaller government and cut social programs, Nazis want a bigger government and more social programs. So calling a Republican a Nazi doesn't make any logical sense since they have different beliefs in how to run a government. Orion Blastar (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk from your political soapbox. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 13:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question . . .

In a recent discussion, I've seen two people refer to statements or actions as anti-Semitic and claim that they have to stand up to those statements or actions "as a witness of the Holocaust". I know one was born in 1969, and I'm pretty sure the other is also not old enough to have been alive in 1945. Do folks here think that would invoke Godwin's law? . . . jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:384A:247:A8B9:3010 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Godwin point

What is a Godwin point? --evrik ^(talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Tfpsly, you created the redirect... What is it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why the removal of "Nazi" or "Nazis" from the statement of Godwin's Law

Not only was it there when I first wrote it, but, more importantly, all the sources reciting "Godwin's Law" (as a quotation from my original publications) include the word "Nazis"--I don't see why some editor here thought Nazis should get a break and that GL is really just about Hitler. The Post article (that I wrote) says this: “As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.” MikeGodwin (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the quotation. Thanks for pointing out. Retimuko (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Expansions in Godwin's new book?

In 2019 Mike published his second book which includes an appendix focusing on Godwin's law. Shouldn't it be cited here? However, it seems to be basically in concurrence with the current state of the Article. Shanen (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a citation of his appendix to the "Further reading" section would be a start. Biogeographist (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight on Godwin's later pronouncements and opinions on use of Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law has had a life of its own, and been out of Godwin's hands, for decades.

Maybe one paragraph summarizing the more notable of Godwin's later comments on this meme is in order, but cataloging every instance where Godwin discusses it is undue and giving a platform to self-promotion. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "Godwin's Law" never stated that the reference to Hitler or Nazis "ends" or "effectively ends" discussion. MikeGodwin (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation #13 is a dead link

The link to the Washington Post opinion piece (Citation #13, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/) is dead, and links to a 404 error page.

This link works for me. Not sure what the problem is. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/ MikeGodwin (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

~ NCFriend

2606:A000:6959:9C00:35CD:A28B:82F8:28A1 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that is a great idea. Then someone will remove the info as it is unsourced.Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Next time you guys should type after it. A dead link is still a citation, and just because it's irretrievable doesn't mean its invalid. If anything you should be posting the dead link tag so a bot can come by and search webarchive for it, if you don't want to. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would only do that if I had seen the link personally, it may never have existed and thus cannot be considered reliable let alone verifiable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, all material needs citing with verifiable sources, Doctorhawkes. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, my mistake. Ignore previous suggestion.MikeGodwin (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)