Talk:Hanlon's razor

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

NOT in Murphy's Law Book Two

[edit]

@Ronald516:, et al.:

In Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong! (1980), I could not find a reference to "Hanlon". Searching for "Ronald" produced nothing. Searching for "Robert" returned a mention of "Robert Matz" but nothing that looked like "Hanlon".

Can someone find a better reference -- or find the elusive reference (with a page number) in Murphy's Law Book Two? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page 52. See [1] David Malone (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
archive.org has glitches in search function. YOu may also see a later edititon: [2]. --Altenmann >talk 21:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That helps. However, I cannot see where it gives a first name for Hanlon. I posted this question, because User: Ronald516 changed "Robert" to "Ronald". If this article gives a first name for Hanlon, shouldn't there be a reference documenting that first name? Maybe it's "Rita", neither "Robert" nor "Ronald"? ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the given name we have a reference to a personal account to a mailing list, see "Stafford-Fraser, Quentin". and to Jargon File. --Altenmann >talk 22:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I removed the footnote from the lede as clearly confusing (it fooled you, right? :-) --Altenmann >talk 22:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this talk page because I just read somewhere else that it came from a joke book. It's interesting that others have come here recently to discuss this same issue. I have no idea what the truth is. But if it really did come from a joke book, I think that should be mentioned in the introduction. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you should have come to the article page, rather to talk. :-) The lede clearly says where it came from. --Altenmann >talk
Yes. Thank you. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. vs. J.?

[edit]

On 2025-02-21T00:04:48 user:174.20.58.83 changed Robert M. Hanlon of Bronx, New York to Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania citing:

Arthur Bloch (1980). Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!. Price Stern Sloan. p. 52. ISBN 9780417064505.

I do NOT find anything more than a last name, and certainly not a location, in the reference. Therefore, I am removing the first name, middle initial and the location. If you want to add this information, please provide a reference that actually contains that information (with a page number if a book). Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandal; reverted. And the name is in other refs cited. --Altenmann >talk 03:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite the other reference that gives the name next to that claim?
I'd like to see the source. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:JimScott dug up the info back in 2006. Now our article cites the sources he found and since then "The Jargon File now calls it a "Murphyism".[1]"
And since "since then" it is in plenty of books. Even Britannica reported a corrupted (or improved?; unreferenced, in any case) version of the story.. :-) from the keyboard of a Laura Payne, who surely knows Murphy and Hanlon firsthandedly. Britallica is falling lowere and lower. It used to be written by brilliant professors, now "a former Wayne State University linguistics instructor" will do. <grumble-grumble>
After seeing this piece of brilliance and intellectual splendor, I will start reviewing all refs to "britannica.com" and removing them if the author is yet another "English composition courses" community college tutor. --Altenmann >talk 04:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It turns out I am far not the first one to question Britannica. --Altenmann >talk 04:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since you know these sources, and I don't can you please add one after where his name and location are given?
That will make it easy for a casual user to check and correct vandalism like what triggered this exchange.
Wikipedia is a great place to learn a foreign language. I took classes in college in Spanish, French and German, but I learned most of what I know of those languages from literature that I've attempted to read since.
Dimi Dimitrov,[2] Policy Director for Wikimedia Europe, mentioned in a 2014-10-25 interview problems with content moderation in small Wikipedias like the Bulgarian language Wikipedia. He said that many edits are obvious vandalism, like replacing the photograph of a politician with that of a chicken: You don't need to be fluent in Bulgarian to identify that as likely vandalism and revert it, and someone from Poland, who seemed not to know Bulgarian (or not to understand it very well), was helping. If a reference is provided, it can easily be checked in a situation like this by someone with only a minimal understanding of the language. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ref to the lede. --Altenmann >talk 12:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. I added the same to Scranton, PA. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hanlon's Razor". Jargon File. Eric S. Raymond. 2002-03-03. Retrieved 2017-07-19.
  2. ^ Dimi Dimitrov, Wikidata Q130719781

Another variation

[edit]

The way I heard it (but I don't know the source), Hanlon's Razor as presented here is only the first part. The complete rule goes something like that:

- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity;

- Do not attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by plain ignorance;

- And when considering ignorance, do not forget to consider your own. 5.29.19.227 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is in the book and it has only one line. Yours is someone's later variation. If you find it published in a serious source (i.e., not blog or social chat, see WP:Reliable sources) then it can be added here, with reference. --Altenmann >talk 16:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People like expanding famous adage. On top of ours, i may suggest an extension of another famous one:
Clarke's Law 3: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
Just the same, any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from stupidity. :-) --Altenmann >talk 16:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]