Talk:Hanlon's razor/Archive 2

Suggestion of Early Origin
For what it's worth, my mother frequently used the exact wording of the razor as stated as early as the 1980s, and probably the '70s. (I used to believe it was original to her, though it is clear that that is [probably?] not the case.) The Heinlein quote given in the article is decidedly different. I'm not pretending to know the razor's true origin, but I know it's old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Hanlon submitted it to a book published in 1980, i.e., he did it in late 1970s. It is quite possible he did not invent the quip himself, just submitted what he heard; we will never know. Unless we find this exact saying printed in 1970s. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Earlier attributions
Some people said something similar earlier. But we have to cite reliable sources which claim that something said in the past is similar to Hanlon's razor. Otherwise it would be an opinion of a wikipedian (about similarity) hence original research. Hence my revert of "correct" references. Per our policy WP:PRIMARY, refs to primary sources are to be used only as clarifying supplements to refs to secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. See the same issue discussed in earlier sections; archived. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dating
I first ran across Hanlon's razor when I saw it posted on the wall of the office of the Fern Creek Neighbor newspaper in Louisville, KY. The newspaper ceased operation in 1982, so this would have been a year or two prior to that.

The version I remember is "Never ascribe to malice that which is more readily attributed to stupidity", and it was tagged "Hanlon's Razor" (though I'm not 100% sure of the spelling of "Hanlon".) drh (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, what new about the dating you imply? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Hanlon's razor"
The Wikipedia article states that the adage became known as Hanlon's razor in 1990. But Wiktionary has a quotation from a 1980 Playboy interview which can be easily verified to use the term! It's on column 1 of this page:. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good find - I think it would be worth including in the previous paragraph on the Murphy's Law book, which also appeared in 1980? I guess the Murphy's Law book appeared in Jan 1980, while the Playboy appeared in October 1980, so the book may well be the source of the usage in Playboy? David Malone (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I reorganized the relevant paragraphs to clarify the chronology once more. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent find ! And thanks to  for originally adding that example w/ its source. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Links for updates
I don't have time to do related mods this year, though someday I might get to it. In the mean time, Quote Investigator has far more detailed information at https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/30/not-malice/.

An important point is that the Jargon File's attribution to William James is incorrect. (Note that the WP article only links to WJ, not to a specific work.) The correct cite is to William James Lindlay. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Royal_Academy_Its_Uses_and_Abuses/IKYaAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22most+men,+do+it+with+no+malice+at+all%3B+in+fact,+far+from+it,+it+is+more+like+stupidity%22&pg=PA115&printsec=frontcover Paleolith (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the current text gives the impression that the Jargon File attribution was more than speculative, but I have added some text to cover the point that you've highlighted. The quoteinvestigator article is now cited, so possibly someone will import some of the more important information. David Malone (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Evidence against
The entire article (and mostly the French one, too) assumes that this law is valid, and busies itself with questions of prior publication. I think it would be less biased if it acknowledged that there are evil people in the world. Those of us who've had the misfortune to spend the early 21st Century in the United States certainly have plenty of evidence that Hanlon's Razor correctly describes the rank-and-file Republicans who really do take horse deworming medicine while rejecting the vaccines. To my surprise, even those right-wing talk radio hosts who are dying of COVID-19 turn out to be stupid rather than evil. But we also have plenty of evidence that almost all Republican Members of Congress will admit in private that Trump lost the election and that his movement is leading the country toward fascism, but insist on the opposite in public because they (probably correctly) believe they would be removed from office in the next Republican primaries if they spoke the truth. It doesn't seem to me that this behavior can be attributed to stupidity or to ignorance.

If I'm wrong about that, the article should still address the question. Is Trump stupid, or evil? It matters a lot. If Wikipedia is going to come down on the side of Trump-is-stupid, it needs to address the evidence to the contrary and explain why the principle still applies.

Although I like to think that naked evil in politics is a new phenomenon in this century, the whole question of slavery suggests the contrary. The article should discuss that too. Briankharvey (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Late reply but it's a philosophical razor, a rule of thumb, not an absolute. I understand your frustration but philosophical razors tend to be pithy aphorisms that are mostly true but not scientifically or rigorously tested (and weren't meant to be). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * sorry, but a speculative statement like "I think it would be less biased if it acknowledged that there are evil people in the world" falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM. Does "evil" exist? Arguably not. Does ignorance exist? Certainly. Acousmana 16:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hanlon's Razor (should it be Heinlein's Maxim?) doesn't say there is no such thing as evil nor that all foul things are explained by stupidity. It's saying don't assume something is done because of malice IF stupidity is as valid, or even a more valid explanation. Just like Occam's Razor, which says the simplest explanation is often the best choice. That means that when there are several possible explanations it's best to go with the simplest explanation. It doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always right. It's like "never draw to an inside straight"; it doesn't mean it would never work, just that the odds are against you if you do that. Furthermore, Hanlon's razor only applies when stupidity can be an adequate explanation. Is stupidity alone an adequate explanation for Trump? Is it possible both stupidity and evil are involved? That would not be the simplest explanation, but is either evil or stupidity an adequate explanation or do both have to be involved? 2601:14A:501:A080:1DFF:5DEA:EACC:E7B8 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) (user formerly known as ileanadu).

Confusion about Napoleon v's Churchill
I found this paragraph confusing:


 * A similar quote is also misattributed to Napoleon.[12] Andrew Roberts, in his biography of Winston Churchill, quotes from Churchill's correspondence with King George VI in February 1943 regarding disagreements with Charles De Gaulle: "'His 'insolence ... may be founded on stupidity rather than malice.'"[15]: 771

Did Andrew Roberts misattribute this quote to Napoleon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:9A3C:0:DD9E:21CD:B3B2:3D07 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)