Talk:Satire

Bias Alert

I agree with the person who suggested changing the O'Reilly references from "conservative" to "controversial". O'Reilly's positions are a mixed bag if you really take the time to listen to him. He calls himself a "traditionalist" and makes pointed distinctions between that label and "conservative".

Unfortunately, labels like "liberal" and "conservative" have reached the point in our society where they stimulate reactive behavior at their mere mention.

More or less total rewrite!!!

This article had a lot of good stuff in it, but a lot was totally over the top. I have taken the liberty of completely rewriting it (well most of it, anyway). In particular I have excised some fascinating but probably untenable bits about satiric intent in Homer, Plato, Shakespeare, and the Bible. I enjoyed these immensely (are they in fact intended as satire of literary criticism? - that's certainly how I took them!) but they really don't belong in an encyclopedia article - do they now?

Any comments???

If you "enjoyed them immensely" why deprive others of them? Why not just add your bit and leave mine there too? Why constrict the ideas? I think you should redo your rewrite! This is a progressive encyclopedia, after all...Brenda maverick 21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Australian impersonator. Parody is not the same as satire, and it is not the same as irony either. This rewrite is poor: it does not distinguish distinguish the genres.

I enjoyed them (very much) as examples of satire - in this case satire of literary criticism. Historical and literary consensus says that Plato was not being satirical or ironical at all - the very different moral standards of his day were well.. very different!! The Shakespeare and Homer examples are also highly eccentric, as you probably recognise yourself. As an interesting personal take on Homer, Plato, and Shakespeare the bits I excised were great fun, and I removed them with regret - for all kinds of reason however, they were NOT appropriate in an encyclopedia article, which ought to avoid the highly personal point of view. They also confused the central issue a bit, anyway.

"Parody" and "Satire" are not different examples of the same kind of thing - they are totally different things altogether.

It's a bit like saying "Green" and "Large" are not the same thing. Something can be green and large, (although not all green things are large, nor all large things green).

Parody is very often used in satire - although satire does not necessarily involve parody, and parody is not necessarily satirical.

None the less, (with regret) I have let your removal of Barry Humphries stand - not for the reason you state, but because including him was a little ethnocentric on my part. Also the article is just as good, and shorter, without him.

I think you need to keep thinking about the concept of "moral fiction" if you want to understand satire. It is an amazingly useful working definition. Swift and Twain fit into it perfectly AND so do all of my other examples, inc. Homer, Euripides, Shaks, bible. You probably would say (with most everyone else) that the Greeks never questioned the morality of slavery, but see my "Meno" piece (unless you plan to hack it up). You can't say the ancients (esp the greeks !) were moral barbarians. And this IS what you are saying if you think that they thought a boy who submitted to a man out of fear of being beaten ought to be ashamed, as Pausanias says. The old man ought to be ashamed, then as now. And just because Coleridge thought Hamlet is a moral coward, this means WE should ignore two pages of monologues by Hamlet on Christian logic. How many thousands of years shall HE hold sway over us? and why?

When I say impersonation is not satire, I am trying (as you are not) to ISOLATE the concept, unconfuse it, seperate it from its relatives !!!! And I regret all your deletions and your skimpy paragraphs. You never explain, as i try to do, how satire works. What good does it do to drop names?

The ancient Greeks were definitely NOT "moral barbarians", but they did have VERY different ideas of what was "moral", especially in regard to sex. In particular, the idea that you don't blame the victim is very modern - in fact far too many still haven't caught up with it!! I'm not saying that your idea (that Plato was being ironical, and in fact satirising the morals of his day) is necessarily wrong. You may have a really sharp insight going there. At worst it is an intelligent alternative idea - I would probably mark it very highly indeed if it occurred in one of my students' essays. Although I would probably comment that assuming people in ancient (or recent modern) times lived in the same moral universe as us is VERY fraught. Actually of course it's worse than that - it's plain wrong, 'cause they didn't.

Whether you are right or not isn't really the point anyway. Either way, it is a personal view, in conflict with the academic consensus (in so far as there is such a thing) - and doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. Similarly for the Bible, Shakespeare and Homer. Heaven forbid I would suggest that you "ignore" any aspect of those great works that interests you. But does every personal insight you might have "belong" in this very special context?

Impersonation is not necessarily satire - but on the other hand it is not necessarily NOT satire, either. One can impersonate someone in a satirical manner. Put it another way, one can USE impersonation as a simple "funny trick" - OR in order to make an ironical point about human failings. In the latter case that particular impersonation IS satire. Barry Humphries IS a satirist, in the very strictest sense of the word, as you would agree if you knew very much about his work. None the less, I agree that he was NOT a good example to use here, and it was ethnocentric of me to do so.

This is exactly the same as saying "humour is not satire". It isn't - so you'd be quite right to say so. On the other hand, satire IS very often funny - and humour is quite often satirical. They are NOT the same thing at all - but they cannot be separated or "unconfused". To try is the result of very confused thinking. Not just because they are too closely related, but also because they are not the same KIND of thing. It's like comparing a colour with a shape ("I think triangles need to be clearly distinguished from green things" - so what about green triangles???).

Humour can't be ISOLATED from satire - not while the great majority of satire is in fact humorous. Neither can impersonation be separated from satire - not while it is so often used as a part of satire. Swift, for instance, in a sense "impersonates" a person indifferent to the sufferings of the poor - and gives us an exaggerated view of that person's attitude. Twain speaks to us through Huck Finn throughout his novel - in as thorough an example of "impersonation" as anything I can think of!

"Moral fiction" is an idea that may help one understand what satire is. On the other hand I have tried very hard, in approaching a definition of something that is very hard to define, to avoid introducing another term that is also hard to define. In fact I don't agree that ALL satire necessarily involves the constructing of an alternative moral universe, or moral fiction - although no doubt it often does. To me it is not actually a defining feature of satire.

It is very important to keep an article like this as short and to the point as possible. I still think it is probably a bit long, to be honest. Have you any more ideas of what we could cut - while still presenting a good introductory treatment of the subject? Your point about "name dropping" is a good one. Do we need to abbreviate (or even cut altogether) the list of satirists?

I'm trying to take you point for point here. You say that the ancients lived in a very different moral universe than we do, and lets limt ourself for a moment to the Geeks. What is your evidence for this. If you say that the literature does not question slavery, pedophilia, blood revenge, and blaming the victim, I ask how do you think you know this? If you say the literature does not put it to question, you are arguing circularly and I am unconvinced. All I want to be granted is that intelligent people have always been capable of questioning norms.

To say that slavery is archaic is of course wrong. Our founding fathers all had slaves and it is only recently that we have become "enlightened" about it. Many parts of the world still have versions of it. As for pedophilia, male enclaves in recent times have winked at it (the Catholic church, until they were recently busted.) Why do you think blaming boys (who may have been threatened with beatings (slave boys?) were blamed for submitting. Because Plato says so? I say he DOESNT say so.

You Aussie, then? I think our examples should be taken from well known sources and classics.

I see you contradicting youself. You say that satire is often funny.I could not agree more. Most of the time it is, BUT it is not always. This is what we have to land on Swift's proposal has not a bit of chuckle it it. The OT is not chuckle satire either. This is a big tip off that satire is not identical with comedy. Your green triangles are not helpful here (with me anyway) Comedy does not to be satire and vice versa.

You think there is something to my "moral fiction" idea but worry that it introduces a new concept. It IS new (I thought of it myself) but I think it is very easy to grasp. It has given me the clarity that I have been hunting for years.

You don't want the article to be too edgy, but we don't want to err on the other end. Satire is the edgiest, cleverest genre of literature, and we don't want to dull it down, make it seem unexciting. In my explanations, I try to communicate the edginess (for lack of a better word).

I completely agree that the list of examples is bloated and terrible. I want to add Chaucer, Veblen, Kierkegaard, and of course, my favorites, who you have deleted. Rather than being enthusiastic about fixing the list, I am thinking about giving up on the article, because it is not doing enough of what I want it to do. You've taken the punch out. Great satire IS punchy, not well mannered, never benign. It is anger sublimated into art, and it is a tthe best we can do.

I just think the list is over long - and includes far too many people who (while they wrote some satire - who hasn't!!) are really mainly known for other things. It certainly needs pruning - as it has degenerated into a list of "great authors".

I HAVE done a little work on our definition to bring out the qualities of anger present in good satire - tell me what you think!

Look, I have said (at least twice) that I personally quite like your take on Plato. I hope I won't get squashed by a falling Christian if I say I also like your interpetation of the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah, not to mention Hamlet. In fact your Hamlet one is I think spot on (but NOT really satire). On the other hand there is a danger of missing the point if we don't recognise that the moral world of the past (as I said, the quite recent past as well an ancient times) is very different to the here and now. It always has been. These things DO change (continuously). "Not blaming the victim", and "Looking after the environment" (for instance) are, alas, very recent indeed. The idea that slavery is totally wrong is (as you say) also quite recent. Quakers and others who disagreed with slavery were freaks and way outside the mainstream until some time after the anti-slavery movement got underway in eighteenth century England.

Plato constantly challenges the mores of his day, of course. The academic consensus says not here, at lest not in the way you say. The academic consensus may very well be wrong, and you may very well set it right. Not here though. Perhaps you could set up a subject like "literary revisionism" to knock down the whole concept of academic consensus about what literary works really mean. Personally I think they mean something different for each of us anyway.

Do have a think about the green triangles. The fact that something can be comic AND satirical (in fact MOST satire is humorous - to repeat myself for the third time, although most humour is not satirical, or at least not predominantly so) shows that we can't set up two boxes, one labelled "funny" and the other labelled "satire". They are different KINDS of thing - not different kinds of the same thing. The triangular thing about a green triangle is its shape, the green thing about it is its colour. Try to appreciate this if you can - 'cause we will be talking in circles forever if you can't.

Look, I agree it would be wonderful (in a way) if this article were itself more satirical. But then the very people who don't know what satire is at all - or think it is MAD magazine or something - do need a clear, simple, and reasonably polite definition.

Agreed?

---

Righto  :-) Thanks

---

Satire and parody are not the same thing. They don't even resemble each other

• Satire, "An attack on wickedness and folly", paraphrasing Samuel Johnson.
• Parody, "A form of literary mimicry", Cambridge Companion to World Literature

Sounds interesting. Any ideas where I can find out more about this? --Ellmist

---

As for satire and parody:

• 1984 and Brave New World are satires.
• Mad Magazine is parody.

And, Vicki, satire isn't a genre, it is a literary form.

Best regards to all, Ortolan88

...

Some parodies with heavy elements of satire include:

• The Monty Python opus, satirizing British character types.
• Private Eye magazine
• , a satire of journalism
• The Misprint, parodies politics in India
• KTAB News, parodies news in the UK
• The Framley Examiner, a parody of a small-town newspaper
• Brainsnap, parody of yellow journalism
• Hot Shots, parody of Top Gun, and Hot Shots 2, parody of the Rambo films
• The Austin Powers trilogy, parody of 60s spy films
• The Capitol Steps musical performances satires politics from both sides of the political spectrum and day-to-day life
• The Scary Movie films, parodies of horror films
• Biblical consistencies, an article satirising Biblical inconsistencies

Sean Curtin 04:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think the Daily Show references should also be removed? While the show does at times contain satirical elements, having a political bias does not automatically make entertainment satire. I don't think anyone would argue that, while a roast of William Shatner is not satire, a roast of George W. Bush is automatically satire for the sole reason that he is an elected official of the United States government. Sometimes mockery is just mockery; ridicule is just ridicule.

Contradictory?

Quote:

Some works of satire are subtle enough in their exaggeration that they still seem believable to many people. The satiric nature of these works may be lost on the public at large, and there have been instances where the author or producers of a satirical work have been harshly criticized as a result. In 2002 the British network Channel 4 aired a satiric mockumentary entitled Paedogeddon in the Brass Eye series, which was intended to mock and satirize the fascination of modern journalism with child molestors and paedophiles. The TV network received an enormous number of complaints from members of the public, who were outraged that the show would mock a subject considered by many to be too "serious" to be the subject of humor.

This is good stuff, but seems to mix two things. 1. Some satire is too subtle and people take it literally. 2. This program was criticised - NOT because people took it literally (according to this text) but because the subject was too serious for mockery (according to those quoted).

Perhaps these two should be separated; both are good points, but not the same point. Perhaps an example of the first case is needed. Notinasnaid 10:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark this one for update

Satire seems to be an incredibly important literary genre. I'll take a stab at outlining something at least marginally coherent. Gary 19:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Satire topics

The Satire topics, since Aristophanes, are always been four: Politics, Sex, Religion and Death. I think the article should definitely include this. BMF81 00.41, 08 Mag 2005 (UTC)

And where does Houyhnhnmland fit in those catergories. Not everything can be so simply categorized.Maprovonsha172 01:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Palahniuk but no Alexander Pope?

I'm not getting into opinions here, but in a list of satires we put Fight Club, The Onion, The Daily Show etc., yet not Alexander Pope and his Rape of the Lock (which I've only just added)? Just as we've had to make a distinction between what is satire and what is parody, an equally important distinction is between satire and mere invective. Satire is a certain thing, and it isn't certain things. Satirizing isn't parodying, lampooning, attacking (for the hell of it), or whining. Satire, however presented, attacks something deemed unethical or at least foolish and offers a better solution, in this way proper satire offers no fantasies of that which cannot exist, only that which can and should exist.

Also, that Fight Club is satirical isn't even mentioned in the Fight Club article, nor is satire a link at the bottom though transgressional fiction is. It seems that Fight Club is either satirical or transgressional fiction, depending on whether we take it literally or allegorically, but not both.Maprovonsha172 00:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent "Satirical" Works of Literature

White Noise isn't a satire of Consumerism, it is more of a comment on that and the other things mentioned in the article. I would hesitate to put any work of the last 50 years up on this page.

Here, here. But you should become a member here if you wish to share, first of all. But I agree with you. There is no mention of how Fight Club is satirical in it's article, and as I have shown above there are contradictory accounts of it presented on this site regarding whether it is satirical or not.--Maprovonsha172 01:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Satire is Gay Sex-way of writing "I love you..."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Is this comment simple vandalism??

Is 'Natural Born Killers' an example of satire? Although Oliver Stone claims this on the Director's Cut DVD, I would suggest it's a parody with satirical elements or techniques. Grace43 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so... But that's for the viewer's to decide. 'Tho he might mean it like that. But we might take it seriously...Whatever. But how can a comment be 'Vandalism'? Last I checked, Vandalism was somehow destroying or tearing down something already constructed. 'Tho comments? They're just added views and opinions on it afterwards. And a fuzzy comparison, aswell... "Gay-Sex way of writing "I love you" - Is Satire? Yeah, well, if it's on other of your own sex. I think "Monosex" (Masturbation) would be a better word... It is against your own behalf, with the purpose to make other's who really think so look stupid. But 'kay, enough slap-stick humour from me, bah-meh! It's supposed to mean nothing.-OleMurder 23:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

List of satirical literature

cobra libra, or anyone else, are you interested in beginning a List of satirical literature, similar to the List of dystopian literature that can found on wiki? i imagine it would be set up similar to that on the dystopia page - that is, as a link to a separate page. i understand that there will be overlaps with works on the dystopia list, and you can't really separate satire from parody etc., but that's kinda my point. if a list is available, those who really want to find out, can read the works and surrounding criticism, and make a judgement of their own.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. List articles tend to become an unmoderated dumping ground, where people add the last thing they read. If it is done, I would apply strong criteria: I suggest that links (a) be only to Wikipedia articles (b) that it be only to articles which specifically and strongly define the work as satirical. Following this rule would mean there was no separate requirement for verifying sources. Notinasnaid 07:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would the Simpsons be considered Satire of Modern society, or does satire have to be purely political? Behind the veil

Take a read of the first paragraph of The Simpsons... and the first paragraph of this article: satire does not have to be political. Notinasnaid 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

i should open my eyes :P Behind the veil

shouldnt there be a mention of the Simpsons? Behind the veil

Personally, I don't think so. I think only literature (etc.) whose primary purpose is satire should be included. If one includes everything with satirical elements most modern comedy would be in there. Notinasnaid 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition

It would be helpful to me if the article started with a real definition.--Mercutio Livingston 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Theatrical Satire

Satire isn't limited to the television. Some people do appreciate stage satire, especially in the United Kingdom, where theatre isn't secretly censored for critical political content like in the United States. There ought to be a paragraph about stage satire, including its history, dating back to the Vision of the Golden Rump, a satire on the Hanoverian King George II, which at the time, was subject to enormous political satire. Television isn't the be-all and end-all. Theatre isn't yet dead on its feet, folks!

I didn't think the article said much about TV; most of it is about literary satire. But if you can add a sourced section on stage satire (which surely goes back all the way to the greeks, and continues up to the modern day with people like Fo), that would be a good thing. It's probably as well to focus first on works whose primary intention is satire, as satirical elements litter classical drama as much as they do modern TV. Notinasnaid 11:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spitting Image

Last week I added Yes Minister and Spitting Image to the list of notable contemporary satire. Somebody has deleted the latter. Rather than start a revert war, I'll just ask what the problem is? Spitting Image was hugely successful in the UK and influenced a generation of satirists. I would have said it was marginally more influential even than Yes Minister, and certainly more so than No Quarter (which doesn't even have its own article). (Note that I am only able to compare notability in the UK, and I am assuming that the deleter is from the UK for the same reason.) Magnate 10:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed them, I think, though I suspect I meant to remove Yes Minister. There is a problem: this article isn't a catalogue, but it constantly attracts "the last book I read" type additions as well as self-promotion of minor satirical websites. So it needs aggressive pruning. On this basis I remove anything that is not defined in its Wikipedia article as being predominantly and most importantly satire. (So, e.g. I remove the Simpsons, which has satirical elements). What elements are listed here should be based (in my opinion) on their importance as satire, not their popularity and cultural importance otherwise. So I propose dropping Yes Minister. Thanks for pointing out No Quarter. It will be gone shortly. I should point out that I am not speaking for a consensus, just trying to improve an article. Notinasnaid 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added both Yes Minister and Spitting Image because I feel that they are both extremely important examples of satire in popular culture, which is the title of the section. Neither is recent - both had their heyday almost 20 years ago - but both have left an enduring legacy in satire. Both were primarily satire, not just comedy with satirical elements. Both have wikipedia articles which support this. They are both more specifically satirical than other enduring comedy originating from the UK (eg. Monty Python). I think they should be the two most important UK entries in the list, along with Private Eye. Please do not delete either of them until we establish some sort of consensus on this. Magnate 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. The only other UK entry in the list is Chris Morr/is - he's undoubtedly an influential satirist but it kind of depends how big the list ought to be. I don't think his contribution or influence is greater than the three UK satires mentioned above. Magnate 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What counts as satire (and comedy) is at least partly in the eye of the beholder. shouldn't the fact that Jonathan Swift was reviled as a monster for his "Modest proposal" serve as a warning to us that satire is a uniquely tricky literary genre?Brenda maverick 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) So go easy on the deletions unless you have something to ADD, no?

Guys remember that we need to cite sources, otherwise we risk to add just junk material.--BMF81 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Eye of the beyolder, indeed. The editors of wikipedia, however, must not be that beholder. If information cannot be sourced, it must be removed. At the moment, the Shakespeare stuff, eloquent as it is, seems to me to be in that category. Notinasnaid 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your'e right: let's go back to the medieval model of what counts as "knowledge". Let's pay more attention to what the authorites tell us than to our own close observations, and lets not use basic logic.

Sorry, this is not negotiable, whether I agree with you or not (and I have seen enough of my "immortal prose" deleted because I couldn't source it). Now is the time to deal with this, to save you frustration in the future. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose job is to present the information in verifiable sources. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. I hope there will be a way to preserve this stuff if and only if it doesn't represent an original insight, because the article certainly needed better writing and more information. Notinasnaid 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear with me --- I'm just not sure how calling attention to Hamlet's own logic (which is consistently discounted) counts as "original research." I love Aristophanes too, but why do you want to call him a satirist and not a comedian? We should try to keep the genres seperate.

Contemporary Satire

I hate Bill O'Reilly as much as the next guy, but I'm going to go and change all the Reilly bashing under contemporary to just "controversial". Also, Colbert is f'cking hilarious and smart, but that section isn't very neutral.

The part about Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem on the Colbert Report seems questionable to me. I saw the segment, doesn't the fact that they weren't offended by his stereotypical 50's man behavior show that they were in on the joke? I know some out of touch congresspeople have been caught off guard by Colbert, but I can't even fathom that two intelligent women like themselves don't know about Colbert. amRadioHed 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points

Hello, the article has it that "an essential, defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm," but then a little later on, states that "it is strictly a misuse of the word to describe as 'satire' works without an ironic undercurrent of mock-approval."

I was wondering a) if the latter doesn't somehow invalidate the former (the definition implies to me that satire does not have to contain irony), and b) what the technical term would be for a (written) piece, satirical in tone (or even purporting to be a satire), rich in sarcasm, but with no irony at all? Thanks!Extenebris 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By definition, satire has either irony or sarcasm (often both). In fact is is probably pedantic to worry too much about the difference between irony and sarcasm in this context. Sarcasm is a crude form of irony, and one kind of irony, at least, can be seen as a subtle form of sarcasm.

Changing "without an ironic undercurrent of mock-approval." to "without an ironic (or sarcastic) undercurrent of mock-approval" might be a little clearer. -- Ok, thanks! Extenebris 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doonesbury Act?

Still can't find a legitimate citation, but I believe that that incident took place in Georgia, not Florida. Perhaps it should be removed until the information is more conclusive.

Was it copied directly from [1] (pg 3) or vice versa, I can't tell? --Yono 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

David Horsey / Finnreklama[2] Poster accreditation

An anonymous contributor (IP 216.254.24.141) who uploaded a contribution to the David Horsey page and Image Talk:Reagan-digitised-poster_PNG.png has asserted that the Finnreklama Oy printed version of this poster used as the basis for this digitised version, was plagiarised from a David Horsey black and white original, BUT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS/HER ACCUSATIONS. Finnreklama Oy's printed version is entitled to be regarded as their copyright unless and until the accuser can substantiate the accusations. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY has to be regarded as NOT-NEGOTIABLE. The digitiser is not involved directly in this dispute and is entitled to accept at face value Finnreklama Oy's poster as legitimate unless it is proven not to be so. It is not the digitiser's responsiblity to verify the copyright status of Finnreklama Oy's poster, or investigate the possibility of it being someone else's copyright. Or to police the copyright rules. The digitiser made no claim to possession of copyright conferred or not conferred by the considerable efforts needed to digitise the material for distribution to a wider audience. At this stage, no evidence has been presented, only unsubstantiated assertions, despite several attempts to inquire of the accuser for evidence. It is because of the accuser's failure to produce any evidence for the accusations made, that the poster caption on the Satire page has been reverted to its original form. If the copyright can be verified as belonging to David Horsey, there can be no objection to Horsey being accredited. But at present, these unsubstatiated assertions do not meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. Anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations, by their very nature, are little different from an anonymous letter, and also, by their very nature, are discourteous and offensive to other contributors, who MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. That this anonymous accusation has been circulated on the internet is not an excuse. The same high standards in public life are required here, as everywhere else. Also see:

• David Horsey,
• Talk:David Horsey,
• Image Talk:Reagan-digitised-poster_PNG.png,
• Image:Reagan-digitised-poster_PNG.png - especially 'Further note on accreditation'--Brian.Burnell 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, we could let the users see the picture here [3] and here [4] (incl. Horsey's signature), leaving the debate to them, also having sufficiently pointed out they are fine pictures indeed. --Flammingo^Parliament 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Isn't The Simpsons Included?

The Simpsons, in its prime (the first 9 seasons), was a brilliant, sophisticated satire of American culture and greater philosophical ideas, e.g, "Scenes From a Class Struggle in Springfield". I have repeatedly attempted to include it under the list of "Notable Satire and Satirists in Modern Popular Culture", but it keeps getting removed. It is maddening that one of the greatest satires of the 20th century, one that will go down in history next to Voltaire or Hogarth, is being excluded. The Simpsons was a profound, subversive show that was the gold standard in equal opportunity skewering. I doubt anybody commenting in this forum has gone a year without using a Simpson's reference, a tribute to its permeation and influence on our culural fabric. The Simpsons will stand as one of the greatest literary and artistic acheivements of the 20th century. I plead with you, include this heroic show in your list of modern satire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.9.119 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for finally coming here, which is the right way to resolve disputes. Each time I have removed it, I have explained why in the edit summary. I have removed it because it is not primarily satire. If you were to include every significant TV program with satirical elements you'd have just about everything. And the list is way too long already (anyone volunteer to prune about half of it)? Anyway, that's my opinion. More views? Notinasnaid 10:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

both sides give good arguments, but when it comes down to the basics people think of The Simpsons as a satire. Regardless of what episode is about. I think it should stay. -142.46.140.214 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement of headings

Please - whoever is doing this stop it! The "classic examples" are meant as clarification of the definition - not as part of the "history". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.79.120 (talk • contribs)

Done it, reading the development should clarify things (chronology is expected in an article, isnt it?); additionally, a paragraph on terminology should explain related terms and the differences. To pick out a chapter "examples" would raise an unnecessary (fruitless and endless) discussion on whose the worthiest satirist to be in that category. Swift? Some American? The Roman inventor? (Also, please click "sign your name" anyway)--Flammingo^Parliament 12:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages

It may be argued that Chaucers Canterbury Tales was in fact a fabulous piece of satire. I noticed that the page says that there were "hardly any examples" during the middle ages, but I just thought I would put this idea out there for further thought. Thanks!

Persia (done)

This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or a textbook written only for western people. If it is not to include satire of other languages, we have to change the title of the article to "English satire" or "Western satire". The article in its current form is POV. Sangak 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your addition suggested that the first appearance in history was in Persia, which would be great, but as it followed, the satirists was from the 14th century CE. Please note your addition is still included, all writers except those where their own page didn't quote them as satirists. Also, they would have to write something that is a satire and called such by the source i mentioned. Satire is indeed not English-speaking (neither am I!), but there is no source to say that it's not Roman (Roman!) And this is not about "Western"!!! --Flammingo^Parliament 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Sorry for thinking you were trying reverting. This seems just fine. Still, the question above remains--Flammingo^Parliament 12:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly about history, which makes sense trying to point out the development. That's exactly my point: I don't see another influence to satire from other regions, like Asia; still, avoiding POV, It's good PPersian satire is mentioned, we should keep that, but this wiki is in English language, so that the main focus should not be on any other (Persian, Russian, Bantu, French, whatever) unless there was a huge influence on the former. That's why it should be very, very short (like it now is)--Flammingo^Parliament 12:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct, this is just the english language wikipedia, and this does not mean that the content must be english-centric. English/western culture must have the same weight as other cultures (as long as there are mainstream scholar sources available, in any language).--BMF81 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the Article

With the adding of an overwhelming Persian paragraph that did have a lot of praize for its authors (also adding wrong chronological order), the question is what this article wants. It's in English, so the biggest part of the readers will be reading English satire. My suggestion would be outsourcing to a List of satirists and satires - which will be endless, like a true encyclopaedia ;-) Also, the satire came from the Romans, and any addition that says otherwise will be removed unless there is a thorough discussion here first (based on widely available mainstream academic literature). The current sources are given, Cuddon Dictionary, and my knowledge which is backed also by Brockhaus and the Britannica 2004 (no quotations from those!).

• What to do with the list of satires? (to List of satirists, but no satire without its author)
• What to do with other regions? Satires outside western culture? (Also for the Persian guy: via Hellenism the Persians got the Greek culture as well, incl. satire, and they were neighbors of the Romans, inventors of satirism).

--Flammingo^Parliament 11:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is far from being a good article. Besides I did not put my edit in a chronological order with the rest of the article. The point that these guys are indeed satirists is not questionable. If it is not in their page, it means those articles are not well written. I have already provided review articles on the issue in this page: Persian satire. Sangak 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The List of satirists is becoming too long, and there seem to be some agenda behind it. First of all, the first ~25 satirists are from two millenia, opposed to ~25 from the 20th century. That must not be, at least the list should be restricted as "until 1900" (date of composition). And a lot of them are only "famous", not "notable", meaning they influenced and helped shape the

satire. Of course any known satire might be claimed to have made a difference on something, but that would have to be non-pop culture (belongs to section below) and, if necessary, a different encyclopaedia or critical source to say that one is chiefly known to be satirist. Also: all should be quoted with their literarily known satire (to see why they are listed, eg. no shows, which are pop).--Flammingo^Parliament 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists are always a problem: they become a magnet for "hit and run" additions, and sometimes dedicated placement by fans. The whole idea is a problem: how can it be sourced? What reliable source can be said to include one thing and not another. I did not propose this before because there wasn't enough of the main body, but I now propose deleting both lists, as unsourced and unverifiable. Notinasnaid 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice (the way they develop now they are hardly any use, well at least they are sort of chronological...), but I fear the article will be used instead and some sentence wrapped around it, which is even harder to keep track of and delete if inappropriate. I suggest List of satire authors, hoping to exclude singers (Eminem-fans) and institutions (magazines), and the like, also forcing to give a link to the satire (not that a fantasy author with humor like Pratchett stay there). Then they can knock themselves out.--Flammingo^Parliament 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that reflects the point of view that authors are somehow more important than other (perhaps more commercially successful) forms of satire are not. And why is Pratchett less worthy of consideration than Pope? These are important questions to consider in defining a balanced article. Notinasnaid 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouhhhh... ;-) As for Pratchett, he is not criticizing anything when Macbest and his witches do funny things in fantasy Discworld. But then, bringing examples for every single author will be tiring and really not worth it. But that way of discussion is even harder with hundreds of daily satirists/comedians from TV. Isn't there any set of limits to avoid that? Say, dead+what's his satire+five per century? Or what would you propose--Flammingo^Parliament 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

Could Jon Stewart be considered a notable satirist? He was pretty much Colbert's forerunner and is the main anchor of The Daily Show, which is in Colbert's credits.

See the previous discussion; I think it is much more important to trim or perhaps remove the whole section... Notinasnaid 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add him to List of satirists since I think he's at the very least notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.155.167 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any comment on the (very relevant) proposal in the next section? Notinasnaid 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove sections

I propose removing the sections "Chronological list of notable satirists" and "Additional notable satires in modern popular culture" because

1. They are a magnet for drive by additions and the lists, especially the first, are already unwieldy (and would be many times the size if they had not been arbitrarily pruned).

2. They encourage editing in the form of lists rather than the addition of proper encyclopedic material.

3. It is virtually impossible to find a good definition of "notable" in this case which both keeps the size of the list manageable and is verifiable.

Comments, please. Notinasnaid 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be greatly reduced to historical satirists such as Swift and Horace and changed to a "See Also" section. The section could include List of satirists as a link. The list seems excessively long and hard to read, so only the most well-known names should be left, along with a few publications and perhaps a TV show such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, since they have become very prominent nowadays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.155.167 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

---

Definition

Online Webster says: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

For the point of clarity, "Trenchent" could be substituted with it's near synomyms "smart and articulate". (Less smart or less articulate pieces could fall under attempted satire, but not satire.)

The current definition on the Wikipedia page is a fair discription, but it could be more precise as Satire has exact definitions in both art and law. I DO like including the derivitives of the word, as the derivitives convey the positive playfulness underlieing even serious political Satire. I would say that "positive social change" is more characteristic than "criticism".

The current Satire article states:

Satire (lat. medley, dish of colourful fruits) is a technique used in drama and the performing arts, fiction, journalism, and occasionally in poetry and the graphic arts.

>That's a complete sentence, but not a complete definition, which it could be. It continues...

Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the primary purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a witty manner.

> Criticism has both positive and negative connotations, while Satire always has SOME positive underlieing moral message.

I agree that the previous write-up was excellent. Since the definition of "Satire" in the legal realm has been hashed over repetitively, the definition deserves more research.

If I did something wrong in how I posted this, please help. My email is mindinspace@hotmail.com. I'm new to posting.

Barryleelandis 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur?

Under the "Ancient Rome" heading is this confusing bit: "Unlike an 16th century confusion states, the term satire ..."

I have no idea what that sentence means, because I have no idea what that quoted bit means.

Does anyone get the drift well enough to make it sensible for a simpleton like me? :)

timbo 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried, but i'm not sure. I hope it makes more sense now, but i am still not too happy with it. Do you get the idea now and could polish it? Flammingo^Parliament 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Much clearer now (to me). I hope I've just made a small improvement there, too. timbo 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)