Talk:Gullibility

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 8, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

Gullibility has been linked from multiple high-traffic websites.

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Table
30 November 2008	Digg	link	Traffic
1 March 2010	Unshelved	link	Traffic

A fact from Gullibility appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the early 19th century, the word gullible wasn't in the dictionary?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

Wikipedia

Early comments[edit]

This page is no longer relevant and should be deleted. --Badgerific 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, move to have it removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.208.200 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2007

kol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.81.100 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2007

I disagree this page should stay. Big Boss 0 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page should be kept! although it needs editing Fwed66 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete it, then the joke "did you know that gullible isnt in the (insert information source here)?" wont work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.144.197 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 April 2007

Deleted. mwahahah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.3.51 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUP DIGG :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.51.114 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 November 2008

I say keep it. just redirect it to wiktionary. It is obviously of some interest (got tons of diggs). While it doesn't have any information, it does serve the purpose to redirect. It is a novelty. BKalesti (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep it as a page about the joke? VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 08:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha.[edit]

Very amusing, WoWWiki Steamrunner 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DONT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS STILL FELL ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.10.141 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 June 2007

Deletion and re-creation[edit]

This page has been created and deleted 11 times. So a redirect to Wiktionary seems the best alternative. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template used on the page implies that you can edit it... you might want to replace it with a slightly different template or use a soft redirect instead. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the template is being used for well, "soft salts" across a number of pages, I added a protected parameter to the {{wi}} template allowing it to have the "edit this page" phrase removed, and have thus fixed this page and zomg. I'll check if there are any more with the same problem. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add a unique visitor counter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.188.162 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of interest, who says that gullibility can't be an encyclopedic article nyway? I think to make the mindfuck complete the link to gullibility should actually link to an actual wikipedia article that is actually on gullibility.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know[edit]

I actually sat there for a good while trying to figure out how to get to the real "Gullibility" article, figuring the notice linking to Wiktionary was a joke... 98.208.65.56 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get the real article, you have to hold down your Alt-Gr key while refreshing the page. CiaranG (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is an alt-gr key? i live in the 21st centuryChocolog (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt-gr is the right alt key on non-US keyboards. Lpetrazickis (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overused Meme[edit]

Okay, very funny. Now why isn't there a proper article here? I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia for presenting the facts, not for subduing to an overused internet meme. this is worse than what happened to the chicken article.Chocolog (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people have been making this joke for longer than the Internet has been around. —Soap— 09:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's right here: gullible
--Farry (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "Irritability" has its own wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.91.8 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related term, suggested see-also link[edit]

Since this article does exist on Wikipedia and not just Wiktionary, I suggest a see-also link to the related topic Swampland in Florida. Not kidding - but it's OK to laugh anyway. That article was originally inspired by wanting to have it to point a gullible person at, but wasn't actually created until references were found for notability. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, done. Melchoir (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed content[edit]

(moved to article) Melchoir (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Riding Hood[edit]

Under Examples, there's mention of two wolves in the fairy tale - I don't quite know what to make of that. Then, I'm no native English speaker, so maybe something's lost on me here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.104.126 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two separate wolves. Maybe "a second wolf" isn't clear enough; any ideas on how to improve the phrasing? Melchoir (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gullible vs Naive[edit]

It might be a good idea to distinguish between gullible and naive. Gullible tends to refer to someone who is easily fooled due to a characteristic trait and says little about his or her experience level. Naive refers to someone who is easily fooled due to a lack of experience and says little about their characteristic nature. A gullible person may or may not be naive and a naive person may or may not be gullible.

Gullibility test[edit]

A strange example is given as a gullibility test. Tell 'it's not in the dictionary'. THe alledged gullibile respons here is to ´´look it up´´. I would say that that is actually a very intelligent and scientific approach.

there is a hypothesis     not in the dictionary
there exists a test for this hypothesis       looking it up
the test is nor difficult nor expensive to perform
The test will proof or disproof the hypothesis. So the test is certainly relevant.
The test is performed and the conclusion will be  it actually is in the dictionary
Hypothesis is refuted.
end of story.

Link to Dutch article is pointing to irrelevant article[edit]

The link to the Dutch version of this article points to an article about the customers of prostitutes. There is currently no Dutch version about this subject. Trust me on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.140.232 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing there's a language where the word for gullible and the word for people who meet prostitutes is the same. because it wasnt just Dutch, it was all of them. I've removed them all now, thanks. ☮Soap☮ 02:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And added {{nobots}} because the bot came back and added the links again. There seems to be a crossover word in Hebrew פראייר that has both meanings, thus the links are legitimate at least from the Hebrew page. And German seems to have the double meaning as well ... in fact it probably originated there rather than Hebrew. ☮Soap☮ 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]