Talk:Self-deprecation

self "depreciation"

Someone changed this article to "self depreciation". I see now it has been (rightfully) changed back. But to clear this up for anyone who may have had any doubts, I want to reiterate: Self deprecation is the common term. The only Google results I could find for self "depreciation" are about some kind of psychological condition, and a few message board posts where people apparently meant to type "deprecation". See also the Google Fight link for this. 71.35.143.8 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The person who changed it to self-depreciation was correct. First consider the meaning of deprecate and depreciate. deprecate: 1. to express earnest disapproval of. 2. to urge reasons against; protest against (a scheme, purpose, etc.). 3. to depreciate; belittle. 4. Archaic. to pray for deliverance from.

depreciate: 1. To lessen the price or value of. 2. To think or speak of as being of little worth; belittle.

Based on the definitions of these words, self-deprecating should be the mental condition since it means "self-hate" and self-depreciating should be the type of humor in which you belittle yourself. Historical usage also confirms this. Until the late 19th century self-depreciating was the standard form. dictionary.com actually has a usage note that explains the mistaken origins of self-deprecation. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should adhere to the most correct English, even if common usage had distorted the meaning of self-deprecation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.0.248 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted at Wikipedia:NOTDICDEF, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. The common usage, "self-deprecation", should be the title and the term used throughout the article. Gsf (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are misrepresenting Wikipedia:NOTDICDEF. A dictionary entry is no more prescriptive than a mathematics entry that explains the limits of a theorem's applicability: so the article would still be descriptive. Second, the subject of this article is still the actual humor, not about the correct word for it. But I learned recently that self-deprecating outnumbers self-depreciating 50:1. Self-depreciating is still more correct--and deserves mention--but self-deprecating seems to have permanently invaded on the other's meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.0.248 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

real negatives vs. purported negatives

Self-deprecating humor purports to be self critical, but sometimes the "negative" that is pointed out is not so negative. For example "oh, my skin is so white I can't get a tan", in a culture where whiteness is generally seen to confer status is an example of self-deprecating humor that is not (to borrow a term from above) self-depreciating. 71.190.66.244 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

entire article flawed

Self-deprecation is not solely a form a humor, yet this article speaks of it as if it is. That's a critical flaw. I'm fixing it. Fourthcourse (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

As self-deprecation does not seem to simply be a form of comedy, perhaps it would be productive to split the pages as this subject amasses more content, adding a header similar to the one on the Hmannan Yazawin page. E.G. "This article is about the comedy technique. See Self-deprecation (Psychology) for an article about the general psychological term." I am not at all an expert in comedy, so I will leave the details to such experts. 98.81.1.151 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.corebrand.com/views/562-louis-ck-and-the-human-side-of-business

  Triggered by \bcorebrand\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Example

This could use a good one. 184.44.0.128 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms?

The criticisms sections on this article is ridiculous. There are no citations and the link to the seven deadly vices doesn't make any sense. Who are the "many" who think it is a character flaw? The section sounds like someone's personal opinion on the subject.Smithj18 (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If no one objects, I think the Criticisms section should be deleted entirely and I'm going to go ahead and do that in a couple days unless someone can provide some citations. Smithj18 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's one citation - a positive one. 75.155.53.29 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Give us more. Or maybe the Criticisms section should be removed? OhWhyNot (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what, edits are undo on Wikipedia , so I'll remove the "Criticism" section. It honestly makes no sense without an honest source. OhWhyNot (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

edit

Self-deprecation is often perceived as being a characteristic of certain nations, such as Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, where "blowing one's own trumpet" is frowned upon.

So there are nations that are do not value self deprecation? Which ones? You should have a source since you claim certain nations i.e. only examples given are European when you have civilizations that have been around for 4-5 000 years and surely must have been somewhat modest (Chinese, Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc. The irony is, when you claim certain nations are excessively modest, you are contradicting yourself by 'blowing their trumpet' for them when they in fact trying to avoid this and that is the whole point.