Talk:Muphry's law

Addition
I’d like to suggest an addition as ‘The law of recursive Muphry’ in which someone criticises the spelling of Muphry’s Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.125.70 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wish
Well, this is interesting, but I wish the article gave some information about the empirical reasons this rule holds true, or how they came up with it.24.152.160.67 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be good to know. A great way to get an article to be more like you wish it was is to make the improvements yourself. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing
I just felt compelled to point out that anyone editing this article to make improvements should be especially careful so not to fall victim to Muphry's law. timrem (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

,Hyuck, hyuck. 76.94.201.49 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete "so". 203.22.236.8 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? I'd add "as". Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True life example of Law in action
The point is NOT to make fun of someone who has made a printing error. Everyone makes mistakes. The general thrust of the Law is that where the commission of the error comes about in the process of correcting someone else’s mistake, the attendant humiliation is so much the worse. It is an example of the “hoist by his own petard” syndrome: such a petard is invariably much more painful than any other sort. Several years ago, I read a literary review of some recently published English Criticism anthology. The reviewer wrote a phrase to the effect that the author “…mentions the Brontes (and appears to think there were more than one)…” Now here is an example of Murphy’s Law writ very large indeed. It is the sort of howler that would make you want to move to the Antarctic. For another example (although it is not REALLY an example), see the talk page for “Sword of Damocles” for my mention of the Sawed-off Damocles,a diabolical instrument of coercion as imagined by a writer who has heard the phrase and thinks it is some kind of shotgun. Myles325a (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a word for those mis-heard "Sawed-off-Damocles" things, though I can't think of it just now and it's infuriating me... something vaguely like "moldigrew" but not. Aaaargh. PamD (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it - it's either a Mondegreen (the word I was struggling for) or an Eggcorn! I went to one of my favourite websites, the splendid http://www.worldwidewords.org.uk, and searched for "malapropism" as the nearest concept I could remember the word for, and found them that way - and was delighted that there are WP articles on both already. PamD (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
No mention of the name of the law being from a deliberate misspelling of "Murphy"? &mdash; 217.46.147.13 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it obvious? Isn't it implicit in its origin as "the editorial application of the better-known Murphy's Law"? I've added it anyway, but in general, remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, and you can be bold and fix it yourself. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Exquisite Pleasure
Here be dragons. Anyone tempted to dabble in copy-editing (and it's innate in Wikipedians) must be aware of the exquisite temptation of the "edit this page" button on Muphry's_law. I have hovered over it several times, and indeed, clicked it but then cancelled my edit. It is both ultimately attractive and painfully obvious that it is just a Siren calling from the rocks, waiting for the next unwary edit. As I save this edit, I am certain that I can only fail &mdash; even here. No amount of spell and grammar checking will help. My adding to this Talk Page is merely an attempt to gain an uneasy internal peace. &mdash; Dizzley (Peter H) (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All those alternative names
I'm searching for sources for the other alternative names, most of which got into this article from having appeared in a deleted article on Skitt's Law which I had in my sandbox and drew on for this article. I think it's useful to include all these names, and to have redirects from them all, not least because it will reduce the likelihood of separate articles being created on any of them in future. I believe that usage in blogs etc is a valid source for these, as the article is recording alternative names for the law... but I am carefully avoiding using as sources the many texts which are clearly based either on this article or on the earlier one on Skitt's Law. PamD (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that that usage in blogs and the like are valid sources. They are unreliable sources and it would be original research to record the activity of the usage of such alternative names from primary sources (that is, from places where they are simply used instead of commented about). In this spirit, I'm removing as unreliable the chat conversation used as a source for asserting that there's an notable alternative name know as Nakuri Law. --Damiens .rf 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you misspelled it. My nick is Naruki, and the forum where they named the law after me was not a blog. It was (and is) the web comic known as User Friendly. The law is still cited frequently there, although most seem to have forgotten that I was not actually susceptible to it. Not sure why the Skitt's Law article was deleted, since I think that is a much better name than Muphry's Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.180.49.150 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 December 2009


 * Actually, they were all source to blogs... --Damiens .rf 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've deleted most of those names from the article, but I think Wikipedia is the poorer for it. PamD (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have a wrong idea of what Wikipedia is intended to be. --Damiens .rf 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's odd, but I read through the What Wikipedia Is and What It Ain't pages and I don't see where listing well-known alternative names for the main entry is considered "a wrong idea of what Wikipedia is intended to be." Can you link to the specific section you have in mind?


 * For the one using my name (Naruki's Law), I don't think it can be called a "chat sourced" usage. The web comic is still there, and all previous comments from the Daily Static pages still exist and are accessible, so you can see for yourself that the usage is quite common and still being used years after it was coined, not to mention years after I left. I believe the person who coined the phrase (using the nick adiplomat) is still there, as well. While not the earliest usage, this is the one where it was established: I'm tellin' ya! Naruki's Law is evil!


 * Periodically someone there will ask what "Naruki's Law" means, and they were usually directed to review the Wikipedia article on "Skitt's Law" as the same thing coined elsewhere. Now, of course, you have removed that entry, so I don't know what they cite. "Muphry's Law" is not a very good alternative, since it is too easily mistaken for the real law and thus causes more confusion. In my opinion, it is a great disservice to readers to remove alternative names from the references.


 * Now, if you want to argue that it should be removed because it is mostly confined to one locality (the worldwide readership of the UF comic), then you might want to explain how the Society of Editors Newsletter is more "global" in importance. But I don't believe you have made clear what your objection is, so this is just speculative rebuttal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NarukiOni (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Segal's Law
I don't really understand why there is a link to Segal's Law here. I'm not sure it is even in the same category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpatrickennis (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Recursion
Occasionally some party will be afflicted by Muphry even while clearing up its own messes. I forget where I heard this, but supposedly a newspaper once printed an apology along these lines: ''We are embarrassed by an error in last Tuesday's edition in which we described Major-General Hutchinson as a "bottle-scarred veteran". This should of course have read "battle-scared".'' Captain Pedant (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * reportedly it was in an Ontario weekly paper. Pam  D  07:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples Section - Is Gordon Brown's Limited Vision Important?
In the second paragraph of the Examples section, it is mentioned that, "...Gordon Brown, who has limited vision due to a teenage rugby accident..." wrote a letter in which he misspelled a surname. The mention of his limited vision makes the reader believe it will play into the incident in some way, but it does not seem to have any impact on it at all. It is not mentioned in the next sentence about The Sun or in any subsequent sentences. Unless someone who is more familiar with the situation, and knows that it did play a role in the incident, can write something that relates the significance to this article, I will remove that phrase in a bit. (Only the "who has limited vision due to a teenage rugby accident") Sakibomb222 (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed. MarkGyver (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The first example does not seem to be a case of Muphry's Law. He merely claims, mistakenly, that there is a typo. Unless his claim contains an error, Muphry's Law is not involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engelsepiet (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourced 1990
Bell's First Law of USENET: Flames of spelling and/or grammar will have spelling and/or grammatical errors. -- Andrew Bell cs.unc.edu 1990-05-15 05:26:AM

~ender 2013-11-22 12:04:PM MST

Incidentally, my Second Law of USENET was "No matter how facetious or satirical your post, someone will take you seriously" -- i.e., Poe's Law 15 years before Poe.Belltower (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

the law is demonstrated on this page
In the very first sentence, there's an initial parenthetical comma missing before "when". Good old Muphry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.127.36 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Power of Murphy's Law
Murphy is the most powerful force in the Universe. 63.225.17.34 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Blogger ref
I have removed the broken link to https://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/168/P30/

I searched for a correct link, and it was actually provided by the other cited ref http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2006/04/just-between-you-and-i.html. Here's the ref code I came up with:

However I got a popup saying that this was probably a bad source, automatically detected as coming from a blogging platform. So here you are.

Be aware that the remaining reference http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003070.html only references the blog post. So it's not really more authoritative than the blog post itself, it just says that someone read it. I have no idea how widespread the Zeno coining of the phrase is, because it seems that it went directly from the blog post to wikipedia. The blog post is from 2006, the wikipedia entry is from 2008, first google hits for the phrase start in 2010 (source google). So I'm wondering whether it is used because it was found in Wikipedia! Because the article is about usage, that would be an self-fulfilling prophecy. :-)

Jrob kiwi (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Archive of original post found at Wayback machine and added, in gap before this talk page post appeared. Pam  D  09:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Another interesting source here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003070.html Pam  D  09:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ANd http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/002035.html, following link from above. Pam  D  09:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

kudos for finding the original cited in webarchive, nicely done. (my removal was based on the "be bold" wikipedia stance, I have no problem with the rollback)

I suppose you have noted that your "another interesting source" is the one I start with, and also the following reference in the article? So hardly worth mentioning here. :-)

The other link is someone who looked around and found Zeno's blog post and liked it. On the same discussion forum as previously. Mmmh.

All in all I won't edit this (I just don't like dead links), but my personal opinion is that it's not usage just if someone uses it, it's usage if many people do, and I don't see much of that before the wikipedia mention.

I don't want to seem too critical, but looks to me like: find a phenomenon, invent a term for it in your blog, have a media notice you (any media really), get your term in wikipedia (media as ref), and hey presto everyone is using your term... cos they found it on wikipedia. It there are term for this? Maybe self-fulfilling usage observation?

I'm always glad to be proven wrong. Jrob kiwi (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)