Talk:Humour

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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.

• 500 plus of Brit spelling
• [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=humor 500 plus (though less relevant) of Amer'can spelling.

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

• Some are described as humor, but not useful, some, well.... Hafspajen (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Bacon materializer
• 
• 
• 
• 

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)

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)

Humour, particularly dry humour, has strong national ties to Britain. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

For discussion regarding spelling please use Talk:Humour/Spelling. 89.204.137.148 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2015

Humour → Humor – This is bound to be controversial, no doubt. This article started as American English, and was subsequently changed. IF we are to follow policy, it should be restored back. There is precedence to doing this after a long time ( yogurt ). The common argument that the British founded humor, or that the British are funnier is obviously patently wrong. There is an argument to be made for keeping the article as it is, as it's been that way for awhile, but again, see yogurt or this own article's talk page where it was brought up repeatedly to change back, and shouted down by a contingent who didn't dare want to lose their 'u'. By policy, this is a simple revert, for an undiscussed move. Cheers, ipuser. 94.2.198.12 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RETAIN. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sure, Obama told a funny one when he claimed the Iranians agreed to his "historic" nuclear deal, but Cameron can do this. The initializer (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES – The article titles policy is very clear on this matter. Let me quote:

  Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state).

There is no justification for changing the title, contrary to the article titles policy. Leave the stable title alone, per WP:TITLECHANGES. If one looks at the move log, one will see that this page has a long history of fly-by-night users unilaterally moving it away from this title disruptively. Let's not feed into their disruption further. Speedy close. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it started as humor [1] Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're missing a lot. Look in the talk page archives. Regardless, that's irrelevant. This title has been stable since 2002. It cannot be changed per WP:TITLEVAR. MOS:RETAIN does not apply to article titles, and certainly doesn't apply to articles that have been stable since 2002. Even if it were to apply, please note what it says: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How does it not matter how it started? The quote you just used was literally American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa it gives no time limit. This has been discussed before, true,and everytime, people come in and say "well, it's in BrE now, so, thus, it's stable." The article started in American English, and was changed without discussion, a clear revert on the surface. Why does the policy of "articles started in one variety of english should not be changed" not apply here? ~~ip user 94.2.198.12 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, I seems wrong to systematically use American English for a world encyclopaedia. Vlādis Mānisqā

(talk) 06:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

True, but it seems just as wrong to go through and unilaterally change articles from American English to British english while hoping that nobody notices, on a world encyclopaedia~~ip user94.2.198.12 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose our policies on English usage aren't supposed to be used as tools to rake over ancient history. The article has been at this title for the last 13 years, and 2002 might as well be ancient history as far as Wikipedia is concerned (the site was only founded in January 2001). This move is so old it predates the logging system and wouldn't be in the history at all if someone hadn't done a history merge to restore it, and it predates all the applicable guidelines. WP:TITLECHANGES says that titles which have been stable for a long time should not be changed unless there is a good reason to. Hut 8.5 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RETAIN and Indian English, the worlds main form of English. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you can claim that there was consistent consensus to leave this as british english for the last 10 years over American English, it has been constantly brought up, and constantly shouted down, since 2002, by BrE speakers who don't want the change, though, it was started as a American English article. It's not coming in and raking up old history, it's acknowledging an argument that has been going on for...all of wikipedia. Had it not been changed from the original non-stub version, it wouldn't be an issue, but it was, and people have been clamoring to have it back since. Which policy does it violate to move back? ~ip user 94.2.198.12 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)