Talk:Betteridge's law of headlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

While flattering that this page has appeared, I fully expect prior art to be cited to show that the maxim pre-dates my use of it. Thus, it should probably be renamed. Ianbetteridge (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as much as I like the "law", I don't think we can just name something and then create a wikipedia article about it. However, I think it *is* nice to have an article about this observation. Perhaps the page should just be renamed "Accuracy of questions in headlines", (or similar; I'm sure someone else can do better).86.136.95.34 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since "Betteridge´s law of headlines" is referenced everywhere on the internet, I think this article should be kept, not removed. And if you want to create an article titled "Accuracy of questions in headlines", do so, but this article should be kept, and reference "Accuracy of questions in headlines". Fcassia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you have never heard of Stigler's_law_of_eponymy Shalmanese (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-indeed the "headline with a question: the answer is no" appeared in Andrew Marr's book about news "My Trade: A Short History of Newspaper Journalism" (2004) [1] - “If the headline asks a question, try answering “no”,” advises Andrew Marr in “My Trade”, his short history of British journalism."

And when he wrote it, the formulation had been known for decades inside Fleet Street. It might be interesting to know the etymology of the saying. As much as anything, the advantage in the UK of a headline ending in a questionmark - "Is this Britain's most notorious criminal?" for example, beside a picture of the queried notorious criminal - is that it cannot itself be the cause of a libel action because it does not make any statement about the person; it just asks the question, which the reader is then expected to answer. --Charles Arthur (Fleet Street bod since 1995.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.68 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a remarkably handy "magic word" to avoid the legal consequences of libel. It makes me wonder why newspapers don't stick a question mark after every sentence. I'd have thought the main thing that stops "Britain's most notorious criminal" suing for libel is his lack of reputation to damage -- after all he is Britain's most notorious criminal 86.165.78.215 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think (s)he is right. The question mark gets you out of libel suits. The same as "allegedly".86.136.95.34 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-FWIW here is another similar formulation that may or may not be independent of Betteridge's : Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal Comic #2075. It specifically refers to science journalism rather than all journalism and it doesn't claim that all question-headlines can be summarized as "no", just that if YOUR headline can be summarized as "no" you should not write the article. Not sure how it fits into this wikipedia article since it makes no reference to Betteridge but I thought it should be mentioned somewhere since it makes you think about the same set of issues (and is hilarious). If only SMBC had mentioned Betteridge somewhere we could put it in a "In other media" section ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyclarke (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Given that this has around 7,700 results on Google from a wide variety of sources, I'm thinking that it's notable enough for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.180.52 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on keeping this for notoriety. Whether the concept has come up before or not, Betteridge seems to be the first one to have phrased it as a property of journalism in general and stated that it is always true, which is distinct from merely recommending that question-headlines be avoided because it's usually bad writing. I came on this page when a blog-commenter linked to it to explain a joke another commenter had made referencing Betteridge's law. To me this is a perfect example of Wikipedia serving to give an efficient, unbiased summary of a theory that has enough social clout for people to reference it without mentioning the source. Jeremyclarke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just added a reference to Andrew Marr book. Seems to need it, given foregoing discussion, and gives more complete guidance for readers. Alt62 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also included references to more examples. I'm a newbie to editing, so be grateful if anyone can let me know the protocols for removing the notability flag. Is is something anyone can do? I would have thought the matter was determined now. Or is the idea that only the person who flagged it can remove it when they are satisfied? Alt62 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-yes/no questions? Like: "When is something considered a scientific discovery?" Are there headlines like this in "nature"? 188.23.79.124 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the law[edit]

The article mentions that Betteridge broke his own law. Aside from 'law' being a dubious term for his observation, this doesn't make sense. It isn't a law that can or can't be broken. Maybe a principle to adhere to is "Don't structure headlines as questions" quorn3000 (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


for example any question in sort of "How much" or "How many" - answering "no" makes as less sense, than answering "no" to statement question. 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.41.170 (talk)

Is "Trends Towards Being Universally True" Too Bold?[edit]

"The maxim trends towards being universally true"

I realize it is a little pedantic but I think it is reasonable when an encyclopedia article contains a line like that. I am sure that there are just as many examples for what, where and why.

Who Will Be Next to Call Nuclear Energy Indispensable? http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/who-will-be-next-to-call-nuclear-energy-indispensable/?scp=6&sq=&st=nyt

Who Made Those Fingerprints? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/who-made-those-fingerprints.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=&st=nyt

When Should Juvenile Offenders Receive Life Sentences? http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/when-should-juvenile-offenders-receive-life-sentences/?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

Who Should Teach Our Children? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/who-should-teach-our-children/?scp=15&sq=&st=nyt — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasCalvert (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Easter Eggs Were There In Deadpool? http://nerdist.com/how-many-easter-eggs-were-there-in-deadpool/ 89.75.41.170 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks like this was rightly cut some time between 2012 and 2016, the article no longer makes this claim. --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why is this noteworthy?[edit]

sounds like a perversion of the word 'law' (in either the legal sense or the scientific sense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47EB:7299:21B:77FF:FEAD:46DE (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as reasonable an entry for Wikipedia as Godwin's law. [[2]] Keith Henson (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you head of the term "Murphy´s Law"? not every ´law´ has to be a law in the legal sense. Fcassia (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this notable?[edit]

I cannot find any reference to this term aside from those that scrape wikipedia - does anybody except the author himself use it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( insert your own self-referential joke )
Actually, if you look at the top of the talk page, not even the author. Unless you meant the Wikipedia article author. --174.118.1.24 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard references to this concept for years, but never found a complete explanation until someone pointed me here. This article educated me. I'd vote to keep it -- though I wouldn't call it a "law". Suggest renaming, not deleting. 72.208.151.106 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"References to the concept" really means feeble joke - "If a headine has a question mark, the answer is no - haw haw haw!" I don't see how you could rename it - what would it be called? I think we should kill this friggin' thing, and I usually want to keep pretty much any article. But this strikes me as a classic "I'll say something obvious and call it a law with my name" puffery. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello chaps. As the "inventor" (but see note above) of the law, I thought I'd add a few bits of background. I actually don't use it much, but it's become fairly common currency in tech journalism circles (see here for a recent example) under this name, and as an adage it's been commonly used in journalism for longer (see the references to Marr). It's pretty common currency. (As an aside, it now has its own site, which is absolutely nothing to do with me - I would love to know who's doing it...). As for whether it should be a "law", I'd say that if Sturgeon's Law can be, so can this :) --Ianbetteridge (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an old adage - I've been a newspaper reporter for 30 years, and it's been a commonplace my whole career. (Question-mark heds have always been frowned on in newspapers because they're seen as a cheap come-on, like a comic telling a drug joke or something. Ledes should not be questions for the same reason. These rules are changing fast as the industry morphs/collapses.) Perhaps I'm just annoyed that somebody's name has been attached to a commonplace! I like the above reference - unless you're the secret Macalope, of cdourse - my objection was partly because I couldn't find your name attached to this comment anywhere else. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the reference to the article, and some other references showing that the concept has been around. ONe place calls it "Davis Law" although I don't now who Davis is/was. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As its recent attribution emerged within the tech journalism world, I suspect Davis is early tech journalist Fred Davis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Davis_(entrepreneur) PFR 15:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)
Sadly, I am not the Horned One - at least not to my knowledge :) --Ianbetteridge (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here is an appearance of the term in an online discussion forum: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/did-michelle-obama-fake-a-stutter/article4521994/comments/ 174.89.172.247 (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is notable. It´s used everywhere. I have added a reference from the Financial Times today, what else do you need to remove the notability label?? Fcassia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note - I've removed the notability tag, I'm satisfied that Notability has been established. Manning (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this point in time it is notable and it's fine for Wikipedia. I think the reason it became notable was because of this Wikipedia page, though. All the cites proving the notability are linking back to this page and whenever I've seen the concept referenced in online discussions it's with a link to this page, as proof of it being a "real concept" because it has a Wikipedia page. Tmdean (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More general title[edit]

Can anybody think of a more general title for this page that could then list all the various names by which this adage has been known? It seems silly to give such prominence to Betteridge's name when the article gives historical precedence to others, and a lot of equivalent usage. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that this law is flawed and untrue?[edit]

"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Alright, then.

Headline: "Who did Tony Blair call on the day of his retirement?" Answer: "No."

Headline: "How did scientists find the Majorana fermion?" Answer: "No."

Seriously? By that logic, you can answer "no" to absolutely everything anyone asks you ever. This law is simply not true.

"Hey, what time does the movie start?" "No."

213.220.203.77 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking this way too seriously. Check the meaning of adage - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, citation needed: none of those are actual headlines. The law doesn't state "any sentence ending in a question mark can be answered no." It refers only to headlines.
(And, as Brooks said, it's a quip. It's not actually literally true that anything that can go wrong will go wrong, either. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only applies to yes / no questions[edit]

As alluded to above, only yes / no question headlines are capable of matching this adage. Did the adage originator cover this, and / or should the article be changed to mention this obvious corollary? Wormald (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the quoted sources: no, they just say "any headline which ends in a question mark" and "If the headline asks a question". Most questioning headlines (at least before the age of clickbait) would have been yes/no ones. As DavidWBrooks says above, this is a general adage - appending an "obvious" corollary to this (or anything else in Category:Adages; "in some cases, the enemy of your enemy could actually be your enemy...") would be WP:OR, and missing the point. --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which/That[edit]

Is the quote really "Any headline which ends in a question mark..."? If so, it's egregiously ungrammatical. It should be "any headline that ends in a question mark...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry James in 1888[edit]

Maybe someone can add this 1988 cite that I found. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/if_there_is_a_question_in_a_headline_the_answer_is_always_no/ Barry (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - excellent find! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major oops! On further examination, it appears that the passage in "The Reverberator: A Novel" is modern (2013) and not from the original 1888 book. Still an interesting passage, however, showing that the idea existed in the 19th century. http://books.google.com/books?id=4C7fcOujx60C&pg=PT13&dq=%22question+in+a+headline%22+%22the+answer%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BHUUUqCrHOGEyAGWq4CYCg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22question%20in%20a%20headline%22%20%22the%20answer%22&f=false Barry (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - should have looked more closely. I'll revert my last edit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No no at No[edit]

No has no link to Betteridge's law of headlines, except on No's talk page. No, having been of no help to me, I ogled elsewhere for Betteridge's wiki'd law article. I twice linked it from No, the first having been reverted by anonymous, and the second by an editor who stated emphatically that Betteridge's no has no business at No. for his is unambiguous. Does Betteridge, himself, agree? —Pawyilee (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suitable page for a link from No - as a disambiguation page, No should like to all pages with No in the title, not to every article which encompasses some concept of negativity; that would be thousnads of them, maybe milions. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's 3 strikes for no no at No, and +++ for other search engines. —Pawyilee (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede, and History[edit]

I put the article back into a form in which the lede is short, and the history section details the history, specifically the history of various similar epigrams and versions of the law prior to Betteridge's formulation.

The lede shouldn't be longer than the article, and "history" is accurate title for the subheading.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the law easily falsifiable[edit]

what about the headline, "Is Elvis really dead?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8100:9BDA:1947:B731:CD76:CD6B (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betteridge's law of headlines is about actual headlines, not about hypothetical things that could in principle appear as a headlines.
It is also a quip, like Murphy's Law-- in fact, sometimes, there are things that could go wrong but don't go wrong. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betteridge who?[edit]

Fixed. Kortoso (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liar's paradox[edit]

> The adage was humorously led into a Liar's paradox by a pseudonymous 1988 paper which bore the title "Is Hinchliffe’s Rule True?"

Is this really a liar's paradox or just a proof by contradiction that Hinchliffe's rule is not valid?

? = ends in a ?

P = proposition being questioned

"P"? -> ¬P (Hinchliffe's Rule)

1988 paper:

let H = "P"? -> ¬P

assume H to be true

"H"?

therefore ¬H

but this is a contradiction not a *paradox* because H could just be false without causing any other contradictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.84.166 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betteridge's law of headlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 3 & 4[edit]

I don't know if this is an artifact of previous edits, but it's not at all clear what works are being cited by Dawkins or Gooden. 76.102.29.147 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - looking back, they were added in Dec. 2015; one with more information (which I have returned) the other with nothing but the name, so I have removed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions[edit]

Somebody added a couple of headlines that end in question marks and yet could be answered with the word "yes". I have removed them because there are a bazillion such examples - more importantly, as the article says in the introduction, As with similar "laws" (e.g., Murphy's law), it is intended to be humorous rather than the literal truth so finding exceptions is pointless. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I don't think that dates like "1883-06-09" and "1916-11-08" are supposed to be used in unquoted English Wikipedia article text. AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Betteridge's law of headlines valid at all?[edit]

Am I asking for a friend? Matthead (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines&oldid=1199937157"