Jump to content

Talk:Humour: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 127: Line 127:
::::That's he most pathetic thing I have ever heard. Somebody should change it back to "humor".[[Special:Contributions/83.187.175.181|83.187.175.181]] ([[User talk:83.187.175.181|talk]]) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
::::That's he most pathetic thing I have ever heard. Somebody should change it back to "humor".[[Special:Contributions/83.187.175.181|83.187.175.181]] ([[User talk:83.187.175.181|talk]]) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hey, is this the "Free Citizens for Humor" against the "Liberated People for Humour"? Can I join in? You guys keep me goin... ROFLCOPTER Know what, we should try to make newspaper headlines: EDIT WAR ON WIKIPEDIA ON "HUMOR" VERSUS "HUMOUR". I mean, this _would_ be funny! [[Special:Contributions/89.204.137.148|89.204.137.148]] ([[User talk:89.204.137.148|talk]]) 03:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hey, is this the "Free Citizens for Humor" against the "Liberated People for Humour"? Can I join in? You guys keep me goin... ROFLCOPTER Know what, we should try to make newspaper headlines: EDIT WAR ON WIKIPEDIA ON "HUMOR" VERSUS "HUMOUR". I mean, this _would_ be funny! [[Special:Contributions/89.204.137.148|89.204.137.148]] ([[User talk:89.204.137.148|talk]]) 03:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Notwithstanding your appreciable sense of humo(u)r, wikipedia is here for objective information, not for frivolous entertainment. Therefore, this is not the right forum for your kind of thinking, and you should let the wikipedians solve their own problems in their own ways. [[Special:Contributions/89.204.137.148|89.204.137.148]] ([[User talk:89.204.137.148|talk]]) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:27, 13 December 2014

Template:Vital article

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that the new article Humour sense (which probably refers to "sense of humour" - a redirect to Humour) be merged into Humour. As it stands now, Humour sense seems to be a bit of an essay with some academic references. The reasons I'm not proposing to delete that article outright (and believe me, I definitely considered a PROD for a while), is that some of the references might be useful in the Humour, possibly with an expansion of "sense of humour". Singularity42 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can attempt it, but that article is pretty bad. Ignoring its overly casual tone, it's going to be hard to figure out what to salvage and what to throw out based on references. But hey, give it a shot. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right. I took another look at the article and unless I want to research the papers cited there, I wouldn't know what is salvable. I think I'll leave this merger proposal for a few days to see if anyone else has some thoughts, and if that's the general consensus I'll prod the article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote for striking it altogether. I've never seen the term humour sense before, and Googling for it doesn't find too many hits. Rp (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the author wanted "sense of humour", which already redirect to this article's page. I'm going ahead and PRODing the article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, the list of references in Humour sense is real and valuable, if accompanied by a discussion. Rp (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the references here, so that they'll still be around to work on when/if the other article is deleted:

  • Boyle GJ, Joss-Reid JM (2004) Relationship of humour to health: a psychometric investigation. Br J Health Psychol 9(Pt 1):51-66.
  • Clark A, Seidler A, Miller M (2001) Inverse association between sense of humor and coronary heart disease. Int J Cardiol 80(1): 87-88.
  • Kelly WE (2002) An investigation of worry and sense of humor. J Psychol 136(6): 657—666.
  • Sayre J (2001) The use of aberrant medical humor by psychiatric unit staff. Issues Ment Health Nurs 22(7):669-689.
  • Thorson JA, Powell FC (2001) Undertakers' sense of humor. Psychol Rep. 89(1): 175—176.

Singularity42 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MR bean???

Really, why is Mr Bean the flag-ship of the topic? It's one of the worst movies in history! I didnt laugh a single time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.186.249 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more comedians to balance things up a bit. Biscuittin (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on Theories of Humour is all wrong! Raskin's SSTH (1985) is not the same as Attardo & Raskin's GTVH (1991) - I corrected that now but still it is a very poorly written article and does not do justice to the wide area of research and the varieties of existing theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.185.18 (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a good comedian Ganesaninfo (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests

Regarding this edit: WP:V only requires citations for claims that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and nobody is going to seriously challenge the statement that "humour" exists, or that people have a "sense of humour". Editors do not have to provide citations to claim that the sky is blue or that water flows downhill. Hut 8.5 10:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respectfully disagree, there are plenty of philosophers who make it their mission in life to argue that things like humour don't exist.
67.180.86.254 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text below is from a humour research forum

"Of course, saying that "humor doesn't exist" is a methodological point of view ; we must prove the occurrences of humor, each time it appears. I think that many scholars have made a confusion between the word "humor" and the wide range of events occurring in everyday life, in literature, in arts, etc., labelled "humor" by human beings. Of course, "humor exists"... but is there only one way to define it, to define its mechanisms ?... I'm not sure of this. As we all know here, all the definitions proposed by all scholars (from Antiquity to nowadays) don't explain the phenomenon at a moment or another. Because there is no ONE essence of the phenomenon nor ONE definition which explains it ." Médéric Gasquet-Cyrus (University of Aix-Marseille/France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadees (talkcontribs) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humours of Yahoo Matches

Yahoo Matches asks members to self-report on a classification of humours - eg. dry humour. That typology could be analyzed here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.198.51.211 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

humour and psychos

humour can also be used by bad people such as psychos to deflect criticism - thus trivialising an awkward situation for them.--Penbat (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The French and humeur/humour

"The French were slow to adopt the term "humour"; in French, "humeur" and "humour" are still two different words, the former referring to a person's mood or to the archaic concept of the four humours."

What does that even mean? I can accept "slow to accept the term" if it can be dated (even tho, "slow" can be derogative), but humeur and humour are two different words with two different meaning and for good reasons! Just because two words share the same etymology doesn't mean they have to have the same sense / be merged. You wouldn't even think of merging in English "mood" and "humour" to get a new word encompassing both concept would you?

"Humeur" is an exact translation of the english word "mood" and while it's true the term derive from the old bodily humours concept (just like the word "humour" meaning funny/comical in both french and english) it nowadays have nothing in common meaning-wise. I guess the English language is not used to have homonyms, different words with different meanings but with the same writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.38.79 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the recent theory described in "Inside Jokes"

A recent book: Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and Adams, Reginald B. Jr. (2011), Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, presents a very promising and very comprehensive theory of humor. It will be excellent to integrate their ideas into this article. They begin with a survey of theories of humor, comment on each, then present their theory and finally show how several earlier theories are partially correct and combine to support their theory. If I ever get some time to spend on this I will, but perhaps someone else, who has some background in the theory of humor, can take this up. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the recent theory described in "Inside Jokes"

A recent book: Hurley, Matthew M., Dennet, Daniel C., and Adams, Reginald B. Jr. (2011), Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, presents a very promising and very comprehensive theory of humor. It will be excellent to integrate their ideas into this article. They begin with a survey of theories of humor, comment on each, then present their theory and finally show how several earlier theories are partially correct and combine to support their theory. If I ever get some time to spend on this I will, but perhaps someone else, who has some background in the theory of humor, can take this up. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democritus the Laughing Philosopher

The Young Rembrandt as Democritus the Laughing Philosopher (a 1629 self-portrait).

Under the section heading for Humour#Ancient Greece, please add the image at right. 72.244.206.77 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for deletion of this image or the laughing peasant woman. They might be laughing for any reason. Of course, there might be more explicit images used. Does User:Staszek Lem have any idea for better images? CarolMooreDC 07:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humour/humor graphics

Ok there is one pic of people smiling/laughing, two similar ones removed because weren't humourous. But that one really isn't humorous either. So lets find a few actual examples.

So why not find some that actually ARE funny and described thusly in photo description? CarolMooreDC 15:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page assessment

I came across this page while reviewing Pending Changes. Someone in one of these projects should do an assessment on this page, because it is no longer a stub. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British English??

Why is this article in British English, when it was started in 2001 in American English, and continued that way for a year before it was unilaterally changed to British English, against WP:ENGVAR? I do notice that many articles are being changed to British English, and editor who use American English seem to not care nearly as much as when articles that are in British English are changed to American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humour, particularly dry humour, has strong national ties to Britain. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: You're joking, right? Humor is a universal human phenomena; it's hardly isolated to one geographical region. If anything, American culture is stereotypically much "funnier", whereas British culture is stereotypically more mundane. JDiala (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is anecdotal evidence that some Americans are unable to even recognize, let alone appreciate, a dry wit. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's he most pathetic thing I have ever heard. Somebody should change it back to "humor".83.187.175.181 (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, is this the "Free Citizens for Humor" against the "Liberated People for Humour"? Can I join in? You guys keep me goin... ROFLCOPTER Know what, we should try to make newspaper headlines: EDIT WAR ON WIKIPEDIA ON "HUMOR" VERSUS "HUMOUR". I mean, this _would_ be funny! 89.204.137.148 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding your appreciable sense of humo(u)r, wikipedia is here for objective information, not for frivolous entertainment. Therefore, this is not the right forum for your kind of thinking, and you should let the wikipedians solve their own problems in their own ways. 89.204.137.148 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]