Talk:Brandolini's law

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from the article, because the reason given was Existence of this "law" is entirely self-published, based on user's own Twitter account, despite the first references being independent reliable sources (Williamson in Nature, Ambasciano in An Unnatural History of Religions and Thatcher et al. in Thinking Big Data in Geography) that directly address the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Reply

Don’t we need secondary sources? It looks as though most of the examples are OR. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hello @Doug Weller. The page as written was not perfect, but contained some information. But now, it is almost empty and one of the two chapters is related to yoga ... I think it would be more appropriate to put it back as it was and possibly to amend it. Ourson5204 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

@Ourson5204 Have you looked at the link below. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

I just arrived in EN wiki, could explain me OR? Ourson5204 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources also Doug Weller talk 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

thanks for your links! Ourson5204 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

all quotes are sourced (primary sources), they are not OR, or I don't understand anything about No original research Ourson5204 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

@Ourson5204 But there was nothing there discussing the law. I can’t put back OR as that’s against policy, look for reliable sources discussing it. Doug Weller

[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brandolini%27s+law%22&sxsrf=AJOqlzWyDtRO8yXnhsSJRSASRWyj5TH_wg:1673190431128&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8y6eKoLj8AhV1TEEAHXMnCTsQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&cshid=1673190453003053&biw=1610&bih=945&dpr=1 ] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brandolini%27s+law%22&sxsrf=AJOqlzWyDtRO8yXnhsSJRSASRWyj5TH_wg:1673190431128&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8y6eKoLj8AhV1TEEAHXMnCTsQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1610&bih=945&dpr=1

Some of these might be useful. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

I've put Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World on hold at the library, it supposedly presents "a well-rounded review on topics such as Brandolini's law". Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

I removed the tags as the problem has been fixed. It should be noted that Bergstrom mistakenly attributes the inception of the law as occurring in 2014, not 2013. The Twitter post clears this mistake up. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Reply

Should we add something on religion? --116.240.236.234 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

Ought to mention other ways the principle has been expressed, such as "A lie can travel around the world while truth is pulling on its boots." (I don't know the source – Poor Richard? Mark Twain? – and am not sure of the exact wording.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): LilParmesan , Peeps121 , Kbond7 , Goober05 (article contribs ).

— Assignment last updated by Merlinderhindergrinder (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

@Goober05, LilParmesan, and Peeps121:, I'm guessing that the three of you are part of the same .edu project, working on this article? I removed the two sections added; the sources don't mention the topic of the article. Your sources need to specifically connect whatever they're saying to Brandolini's Law. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Schazjmd, thank you for making your suggestion. You are correct that our sources do not directly reference Brandolini's law, but we believe that the concepts mentioned in the sections are related and relevant to understanding the idea of Brandolini's law. Kbond7 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

Be careful: WP:SYNTH is not allowed. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

Please find sources that specifically discuss Brandolin's law. Otherwise, this is simply original research on your part, deciding that articles that make no mention of this concept relate to it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

is an old saying along similar lines. 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:8432:E84B:2C3B:2462 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Abby713 , DylnC , MUreedyt , ConstantQuestions , Kadams12 (article contribs ). Peer reviewers: Daniellebishop21 , FanOfAll2024 .

— Assignment last updated by Daniellebishop21 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Okigbov , Bryce2323 (article contribs ). Peer reviewers: Sydkay4and .

— Assignment last updated by Okigbov (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Reply

The challenge of refuting bullshit does not come just from its time-consuming nature, but also from the challenge of defying and confronting one's community.

Great point, but much more needs to be said about this, particularly how it involves dealing with information silos, echo chambers, and hostility to outsiders. Political and religious communities are two of the most popular examples, but it's also found just about everywhere else. I recently came to the conclusion that 90% of everything we know is wrong, but nobody is willing to confront this problem, most of all in the US. The reality is that there is no major society that values skepticism at every functioning level of an organization because that would directly go against the primate-driven hierarchies that dominate modern socities, with their dependence on tradition, cultural values, loyalty to nation and state, and respect and obedience to elders and authorities. I don't know what the solution is, but I would like to see this article go into the problem a bit deeper. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Reply