Talk:Humour/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Making up words

One question for all of you: Doesn't making up words count as humor? Like if i tell my friends I'm going to "Wikipedia" it? I know it derives some laughter because it's so common yet unmentioned, so does that count too? I'd like to hear some thoughts. --Macrowiz 04:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"It has been claimed that humour cannot be explained. However, attempts can be made, such as this one"I like poo do you?

Is that funny, or am I just a Itioot?

I thought it was hilarious theres two of us...

Dissapointed to find "Poo" leading right back to humour. Seems like it should have it's own page. Datepalm17 15:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. It shouldn't be included.

Considering the number of vandals who seem to find it funny, it might be worth examining why... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Sun

Announcement: This page was listed in the Saturday, May 29 edition of the Vancouver Sun as one of the best pages for humour on the internet. Kathy T 20:19, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

Added a link

humor as a defense mechanism in the holocaust

I added a link, . I am not sure if it has more information than the wiki articles or if it just shows them in a different format, but the things on it are things I havn't yet seen here. It gives credit to the wikipedia.

I took it back off because it seems to be just a copy of this article. I will keep it in here for reference.

Why isn't there a link to somewhere prominent on this page?

Why isn't there a link to somewhere prominent on this page? maybe an icon just to the left of the page/entry's Title? maybe a "Lookup {current page title word}" to the right somewhere? these are simple questions to ask. like "where's your toilet?". so little real estate; so much scissorgy.  :)Ozzyslovechild 04:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So add it yourself! Be bold! --Zakharov 01:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trust thyself, young padawan. Have confidence.--OleMurder 12:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragements:). I was just scribling on this discussion page cuz that's where i was when it occured to me to ask/suggest, but it's more of a site layout topic not specific to this article. I wanted to be reminded later of the wonder on my watchlist so I could mull it again and then at some point ask it somewhere that discusses the overall layout. Seems like there should be a link to the relevant Wiktionary article for all Wikipedia search terms, with implementation decisions needing to think about for all or for all single-word searches? for only those which have Wiktionary articles already created for them? for only those with articles already created & for words that exist in a valid-word file depending on technical feasibility? -:)Ozzyslovechild 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad Link

Why does lawyer (in the rabbi, priest, lawyer example joke) link to shark? is this intended humo(u)r?Stale Fries 01:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes this was intended humor. Quite amusing, really. I fixed it though DaveTheRed 02:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that asking kills the joke, but what is the significance or humor in this? Besides the fact that lawyers are obviously not sharks...Stale Fries 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers are frequently called "sharks," "ambulance chasers," etc. 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sample joke: "Q: Why won't sharks eat a lawyer? A: Professional courtesy." Jerry Kindall 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


This article isn't very funny. Anyone mind if I add a pun or two? Or maybe it's already subtly been incorporated but I'm too dumb to figure it out. 14:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about humour, not a humourous article. --Pokettrokett 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A pun is the lowest form of humid, so if your wit is dry, pun away, quickly! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How could any wit be dry with all this humidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder puck (talkcontribs) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbal vs. NonVerbal

it seams to me that catagoricaly seperating into "verbal" and "nonverbal" hinders the scope of complexity within which each style of humure opperates. alternatives? we recognize that books are humorass and thus "literal" would make a good catagory. and then knowing that we can listen to jerky boys or a richard prior album we recognize verbal or audio /hyu-mer/ is "literal" + other factors such as timing, intonation, dialects/voices, and bodily noises (like spitting/blowing a rasberry). and then there is "performative" or "visual" hoomoar which is much of the "verbal" + visual stimulation through facial expressions, costume, timing of movement, visual satire/charicature, sequential cartoon or surrealism. So many of these styles "parody", "dry humur",etc exist in all of "literal", "verbal/audio" and "visual/performative" catagories of humore. but "performative/visual" cant do everything that the "literal" can accomplish. for instance punctuation or type hughmar. (ie, James Joyce or the imagist poets) each catagory as defined by its medium carries its own "media humre" that can only exist within that particular medium of communication. some might call this a "metaphysical hiumir". point being, we need to both broaden and specify the catagorical listings. if this is not possible then i prepose we do away with catagorization of the hummors all together.(20:19, 6 April 2006

Relation with humour

Shouldn't it have more examples of humour around the world? Every culture deals with humour in a very particular way... I have an old book with me, "Around the World with Laughter" (Pierre Daninos), and although the book isn't updated (I have a 1º edition from 1956) it contains a great deal of historically relevant and interesting information about humour. For example, in Japan people's relation to humour is always secondary, due to their rather serious nature. In the beginning of the last century, when the first company of Italian Opera settled in Japan, the show was regarded as being highly amusing, leading the auditory to tears of laughter. The book doesn’t state the reasons why this happen, but I guess it's a case of cultural shock. Again, this is a very old book and I don't know the sufficient to talk about the current situation of humour in Japan. I would lend a hand on the editing, but I don't feel secure of my English (I’m a native speaker of Portuguese) and I'm a Wikipedia newbie. I can only do so much as quoting the book I have in my possession. Kind of pathetic, but it's the least I can do.

Baltazar A.S. dos Passos

P.S.: Ah! And what about physical humour? P.P.S.: Man's relation to humour is something unique in nature. We can laugh at something stupid like a fart but the same display will leave an animal indifferent or at best startle it. Aren't there any philosophies related to humour? The main impression I get from seeing Monty Python's films is that humour at times functions as a way to justify life itself... Maybe this would prove to be a worthy topic.

-- 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

More specific references

I think the Understanding humour section in very interesting; althoug I think it is really missing specifig source references.--BMF81 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tack {{cite needed}} after anything you think could use it, then?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
you're right, i'll be bold. --BMF81 22:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


What is with this retooling! I came here so I could see the techniques but SOMEONE retooled the ENTIRE ARTICLE and got rid of the techniques! AT A TIME WHEN I NEEDED THEM A LOT.

I fixed it myself. Hmph.

Suggested Merge with Comedy

I proposed these two pages be merged since they cover the same topic. Given that Comedy was put up first, Humour could easily be added as a subsection therein. This page should be replaced with a disambiguation page between the current and archaic meanings of Humour. 10:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Humor and Comedy are two distinct things. The important distinction I think is that Humorism regards the tecniques that provoke a laugh; comedy is insted one of the possible uses of humor (to just have fun); another use being satire (to have fun to make people think and provoke social change).--BMF81 10:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. They are different things. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 12:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I was going to fix "humourous" which appears several times here, and many times across Wikipedia. I'm fairly sure it is an error, although does list it. However, also lists, for example, "publically", which I think is clearly wrong.

Does anybody object to standardising on "humorous"? I'll hold off for now. See also [1]

--Guinnog 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 18:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, in all dialects of English humorous is the correct spelling. MrTroy 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So far nobody has complained, so I'm confident I did the right thing! --Guinnog 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to confirm - 'humourous' is always incorrect - you were right to change it to 'humorous'. L1v3rp00l 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen reference in techniques section

I deleted a reference to Woody Allen in the techniques section, as it was not relevant.

It is highly relevant as it is explained:

Humor is a branch of rhetoric, and there are about 200 tropes that can be used to make jokes. A notable example on this is the classical trilogy of Woody Allen's writings (Getting Even, Without Feathers, Side Effects), which covers the whole comedy spectrum, using all the 200 tropes.

If you really want to keep that out, you better give a reason for that.--BMF81 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Style Of Humor" and "Specific techniques for evoking humour" sections

What are the differences between these two sections? For instance, I do not see a reason why "satire" is only in the Style of Humor section, yet not in the Specific Techniques section. Could it not be considered both?

I am just curious about the difference, but maybe it should be written into the article. It was the first thing I noticed when I started reading it. BrotherGeorge 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Haha. I added the "Meta Humour" section under "Understanding humour".

It's really intersting that an article talking the world about humour that isn't even humourous (example of meta humour).

Or a website seriously dedicated to jokes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by YS Wong (talkcontribs)

Very nice. Thank you very much. Meta humor happens to be my favorite type.

--Andyminor (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


I think The Funny Wiki would be a good thing for External Links. A website where they can actually add funny stuff. So, can I put it there? Can I have permission please? —The Thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't even work. (anonymous) 08:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It moved here. —The Thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the site Funny Jokes and Stories? It has some classic examples of modern day humor, from standup comedy to jokes.


Why does Humor redirect to Humour, an article in which the subject is spelled humor? Prometheus-X303- 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC) should be spelled humour in the article, I believe There's been a lot of discussion on humor/humour --iamajpeg 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) To clarify, it should be spelled humour in the article because the title is humour, at the moment. I'm not reopening the whole 'should the title be humor/humour' debate --iamajpeg 21:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't want debate anyway, just to know why it was spelled without the u in the article. Seemed kinda silly.Prometheus-X303- 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this English version of Wikipedia in British English or American English? ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently British, as "humour" is the British spelling. Granted British Humour is very good, but what is the standard for Wikipedia articles? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The standard is to follow either: the dialect the article was first written in, or the dialect that relates most to the article (so for an article about a British subject, use British English; for an American subject, use American English etc). However there are other guidelines affecting this too, such as the guidelines not to change an article against consensus, or where it will not improve the encylopedia --iamajpeg 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the majority of English speaking users on Wikipedia are more likely to be American, it's only proper that the American spelling is preserved. This being said, many articles based on subjects such as 'humour,' 'behaviour,' 'rigor' and the like should be edited as the article on color/colour was, and add the vandalism disclaimer (about preventing "spelling wars") in the editing page as well. (As stated by the above user, it should be fine to leave the alternate spellings when the article is in reference to a chiefly British subject. But articles unrelated to any particular British subject should retain Americanization, noting as well the British spelling.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
Thats silly. British, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand and many many other countries spell it Humour. Its a bit Deceptive to call it British English. Humour is International English, Hmour is American English. And throughout most of Europe and many other continents when english is taught as a second language the International method is taught. In any case how many people spell the word a certain way is not how wikipedia works and nor how it should work. - UnlimitedAccess 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "International English". And Europeans, by the way, are divided on usage. The point, however, is this: the Humor/Humour article represents a weird case, since it was originally written as "humor", someone changed it to "humour", in violation of policy, and no one noticed/cared for a while. Current WP guidelines don't provide clear guidance in cases like these. One group has said: "We need to correct the violation that changed it to "humour"! The other says: "We need to follow the 'don't change unless there's a good reason' rule!" (And the first says, "there is a good reason!" And the second says: "No there isn't!!" etc., etc., etc.) My recommendation: leave the article as it is, unless there are lots of people who think the original violation should be corrected. Main thing: let's be thinking about a better solution to the problems of dialectic differences on WP. --Truth About Spelling 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone let me in on the policy here? Colour redirects to color, humor redirects to humour. This is not at all consistent. Are we to sit around and leave it inconsistent because the original authors were of one nationality or the other? The most agreeable thing to do would probably be to have and domains, but that would be resource-consuming. People have made claims that American readership is greater and that British-spelling readership is greater; this is all irrelevant! The conflict will remain as long as there is no clear policy as to whether this wikipedia is supposed to use one spelling or the other and there are individuals of both varieties who use this wiki; and I believe that that will be the case for quite a while. --corp

Yawn - as noted previously there isn't a simple divide betnween UK English and US English, so your "solution" is unworkable. What we have now is perfectly workable (and educational too) if only people like you would stop moaning about it. As for policy - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Any more you have to say about spelling should go on the spelling subpage. Jooler 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Describing something as workable "as long as people don't complain about it" is faulty logic, since if people are complaining, there might be something wrong with the system, don't you think? Why is there not a link to this article at the top of the talk page of every contested article? And yes, they are contested, as evidenced by the complaints! Policy aside, the instinct of a bona-fide editor would be to try to bring about some sort of consistency. My point is that people complaining about the situation (like myself!) would be more efficiently dealt with by a flashy link to the correct forum to voice their concerns (or even a snarky "your opinions don't matter, the system is fine" comment - automated, or mentioned atop the page, you wouldn't have to go around and tell people this manually.) --corp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
It occurs to me that leaving it spelled Humour could actually be a kind of amusing, sort of a self-referential joke built into the page, particularly if everything else on the site is redirected our->or. David A Spitzley 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia pefers articles to be in one or the other so it is not confusing to readership. O personally like it to be stated on a page but they don't do that. If the original creator was british then i guess we stick to british english, it seems only fair especially as the american does get a little tiresome. Toload1 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Terribly Written

This article feels as if it was written to fulfill a "Number of words" requirement. There are quite a few sentences which go nowhere and I don't find it funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know about any part of the article struggling to be funny, but I did notice some awkward sentence structure.
If no one minds, I'm going to go through and clean it up a little bit, and/or look into the "struggling humor" bits.
--Andyminor (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoo sign: not humorous

The sign on the bat enclosure in Bristol Zoo is painfully unfunny. Woul anyone mind terribly if it were removed? --Yath 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me, consider changing picture so we have something there though --iamajpeg 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would change it if I knew of something good to put there. But this image is so bad that nothing at all is better. --Yath 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we photoshop it so it reads "...they may shit on your head"? Now *that* would be funny, though I'm not sure it would be acceptable under fair use.Bedesboy 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see how some people may find the sign funny, but to me that doesn't seem to be the sign's intention. It seems more like a euphemism to me. Perhaps someone can find a suitably funny comic strip under the creative commons licence. AndrewSvet 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I'm not too sure of how to replace it with the original text, but under 'understanding humour' one of the quotes says:

"Motherfucker you know how much I hate Garfield."

Could someone who knows how remove this? Phunting 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. There is a lot of vandalism taking place in this article, maybe it should be blocked for unregistered users. John C PI 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me, please!

The British spelling is killing me!!! FirefoxMan 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The subcategory "abuse" (and the link) is not appropriate. Could somebody correct this, please?

Editing doesn't stick to non-users

Things I edit can't be seen by non-registered users? Why is this? Nfanslim 8:27PM, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Humour is defined as the ability to evoke amusement. Amusement is defined as "the state of experiencing humorous events". Isn´t that weird? A.Z. 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny Picture?

That painting is very stand-out. I like it, and it goes very well with the subject. Heheheheee. I just thing that it should say who painted it like most other paintings. Just a suggestion.PЄ|>ρ3® 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to poke his belly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoX101 (talkcontribs) 14:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Additional external Link

I think this [2] is an essential link for somebody who is in Wikipedia to understand Humor academically. Let me know your thoughts so that we can add this. --siavash siavash

  • Support Mieciu K 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also found this link in checking the citations on the article page. It seems like a good resource for someone trying to get additional information on humour. International Society for Humor Studies. I am going to add it now. --Tinned Elk 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Humor as an attractive quality women desire

Has this web page on humor discussed how humor can influence women's opinions of potential mates? Please let me know. Albert Cheng 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't men find humour just as attractive as women?AndrewSvet 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, women like men who make them laugh. Men, on the other hand, enjoy the company of women who laugh at their jokes. Albert Cheng 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone tell me if the line stating 'Children of all back grounds prefer slap stick' is sourcable or has a reference. As I don't believe for a second that all children prefere slap stick or anyone really. Do children even like punch and judy considering how it has died out and a lot of people and children find it scary not funny. i doubt children of a lot of different back grounds even know what punch and judy is. I know a lot of children who absolutly hate slap stick and for some reason companies seem to push slap stick on children especially Hollywood with films such as Dumb and Dumber. If I was to say which children do find slap stick vaguely amusing i would say boys. Anyway i would like this line taken out and I am wondering if it is vandalism. Toload1 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have amended this as nobody objectedToload1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


What is the noun for "serious"? Seer? Sear? Siere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

--Andyminor (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Humor in sci-fi suggestion

Do you think it would be interesting to mention the unability of machines to understand humor? I remember in Star Trek Generations how Data couldn't understand it until he installed that new chip inside of him. Also, I'm reading a book called Ringworld by Larry Niven and on page 73 an alien creature named Nessus says that "We do not joke. My species has no sense of humor.... Humor is associated with an interrupted defense mechanism." What do you think. (I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. This is my very first post.)

JBR0807 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

non-verbal humour reference

I think a better reference could be used instead of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, a short lived, unsuccessful televison show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of humour

I'm not sure the first paragraph is a good definition of humour. Where is it from?

Current definition:

  • Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the ability of people, objects, situations or words to evoke feelings of amusement or happiness in people.

Apart from the poor grammar (objects and situations don't have ability because they are inanimate) I think it does not convey clearly what humour is. It doesn't even mention laughter. I suggest a better wording below but surely there must countless better attempts to define humour by experts?

I absence of these, here's my best attempt at a description:

  • Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement. Many theories exist of what humour is and what social function it serves. However, people of all ages and cultures respond to humour and many share a common sense of humour.

What do people think?

--Billtubbs (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An entirely novel category of humor

Science cartoons have a long history, but this new website has cartoon category that is fast becoming very popular. These are cartoons about science research. Not for everybody, almost exclusively for those in science research. I think wikipedia can mention this new category of humor in an otherwise projected as a dry field! The link is, I hope some editor will take a note and think about adding/permiting me to add a short description with this external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Described (talkcontribs) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Humour: Evolution of Humour: Alastair Clarke

{{editsemiprotected}} The quotation included from Alastair Clarke needs some extra clarification; it should read: Alastair Clarke explains: "The Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour is an evolutionary and cognitive explanation of how ..." This makes it clear that his work relates to that specific theory of humour rather than explaining other existing theories.

Would it be possible to create a link from Alastair Clarke in the Humour entry to a further clarification of the theory as below:

Clarke’s Pattern Recognition Theory of Humour presents a cognitive and evolutionary explanation of humour that awards it major significance in the development of humankind’s unique perceptual and intellectual capacities.

The theory removes all stipulations of content or context from the material in question, stating that, essentially, the brain finds something amusing when it recognizes a pattern that surprises it. The humorous response, as a reward, exists to encourage such cognitive activity. “Obviously content is necessary for patterns to be identifiable, but once that content exists it is the level of the pattern at which humour operates and for which it delivers its rewards,” states Clarke.

The ability to recognize patterns instantly and unconsciously provided early humans with a distinct perceptual advantage, not only in spatial manipulation but also in matters of recontextualization and adaptability. Encouraged by the rewards of the humorous response the cognitive capacities of the species became unparalleled in the animal kingdom in terms of speed and efficiency.

Clarke claims the theory has wide-ranging implications in infantile cognitive development, animal behaviour, psychology, linguistics, neurology and artificial intelligence, among others. He has also pledged to produce a software engine within a matter of years that will prove the tenets of his theory by providing a computer or robot with a basic, unisensory sense of humour.

Alastair Clarke is an evolutionary theorist and science writer based in the UK. He studied at Oxford and London universities. Nicolahern (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This article is not for the promotion of Alistair Clarke.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alister Clarke makes some extravagant claims: to mention one: he claims to have found a universal theory of humour. As there is still no agreement what constitutes humour, such a statement is ridiculous.

He appears to have things back to front: laughter/humour is, in some cases, the result of pattern recognition but does not encourage or facilitate pattern recognition, which is an innate faculty throughout the animal kingdom.

I concede that laughter might help young children learn, but again it is the laughter process that facilitates learning not humour.

Alistair Clarke should have consulted as many humour researchers as possible and acquainted himself with all the pitfalls of writing a book on humour. I have sent him my essay: Laughter as a displacement activity: the implications for humor theory, and my reservations concerning his book, but have received no answer.
Laughterman  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 

CFD of Category:Humor

Category:Humor is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 7#Category:Humor with the objective of renaming it to match the article (or vice versa). Please direct all comments to the CFD page. — CharlotteWebb 08:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


I was looking for an article on the word hilarious but it's redirected to humour so I'm putting a question here and hoping someone sees and answers it. Is it "AN hilarious set of circumstances" or "A hilarious set of circumstances?" (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "A" for words beginning with a consonant. "AN" for words beginning with a vowel. ~ Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on how you pronounce it. Personally I pronounce the h, so I write "a hilarious". I think a lot of people, especially in the US, don't, so they write "an hilarious". This is the rule from Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It is pronounced with an H in the US. I've never heard it pronounced any other way. Source? --Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It seems you are right. It didn't occur to me that some people could still be following that old rule that prescribed "an" before 'h' sounds that start an unstressed syllable. But I found this on the web: "In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour). An was once a common variant before words beginning with h in which the first syllable was unstressed; thus 18th-century authors wrote either a historical or an historical but a history, not an history. This usage made sense in that people often did not pronounce the initial h in words such as historical and heroic, but by the late 19th century educated speakers usually pronounced initial h, and the practice of writing an before such words began to die out. Nowadays it survives primarily before the word historical. One may also come across it in the phrases an hysterectomy or an hereditary trait. These usages are acceptable in formal writing." See [3], in one of the passages starting with "Usage note". I am not sure the other such passage is consistent with this one. Hans Adler 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

who cares? *dream on*dance on* 03:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talkcontribs)

Humor, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I suggest to add this link to the external weblinks:

Would that be all right? --Chris Howard (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Editors of this article might be able to use some material from this essay to expand the article.--Aervanath (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2