|WikiProject Comedy||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Linguistics||(Rated C-class)|
After adding most of this article, I realised that it overlaps largely with Double entendre. Are they close enough to being the same thing that they should be combined into one article?
Tjwood 20:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I say it should be changed, because in the top section it states how 'Double entendre' is commonly unintentional, while innuendo is always intentional. --Sadistic monkey 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we mention Mad Magazine's "Guaranteed non-slanderous campaign smear speech", which satirizes the US politics thing? It's composed entirely double entendres and innuendos. Uncle Ed 17:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Innuendo as innuendo
I've heard the word "innuendo" described as, in itself, innuendo, as the word commonly makes people think it is sexual in nature, when it is not necessarily. Does that make any sense? --BDD 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
External link is dead. --711groove 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- For example, in Are You Being Served?, Mrs. Slocombe makes frequent references to her "pussy", such as "It's a wonder I'm here at all, you know. My pussy got soakin' wet. I had to dry it out in front of the fire before I left." A child might find this statement funny simply because of the references to her pussy cat, whereas an adult would detect the innuendo (pussy is sexual slang for vagina).
There is a very similar paragraph at double entendre (one was obviously taken from the other, though the wording is different now); I posted about this on its talk page. To that, I'll add that the problem here is even worse, because the example seems to be used specifically as an example of a pun a child would not get, whereas, as I said at the other page, an older child would very easily get it. There are many better examples that are readily understood by adults, but not children. The pun about "melons" further down the page is a much better example. Perhaps this paragraph should be replaced by the one about "melons"? I'm not sure enough to "be bold" and commit to it, though. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
lack of reference
The reference at the bottom of the page, about U.S. Politics, appears to no longer be available. It references the url http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000386;p=1 All that is there is a page that says that "You have requested a topic that does not exist!"
Maybe it's just me?
In my opinion this page sounds uncyclopedic. No offense to the writer.
18.104.22.168 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with the above comment so I did a big old re-structure - before there was very little structure at all, which is what made it seem too dense to read.
The paragraph on cartoon humor gives no real information - just a huge list of cartoons. This should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecold.trashcan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
-- Yeah but I don't believe its appropriate to place citation needed subscripts for every cartoon show. I think its perfectly safe to agree that those shows all use this figure of speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sexual innuendo is not always disparaging, nor directed against a particular person. The introduction to this article seems to equate it to sexual harassment, (which it can be a form of, admittedly).126.96.36.199 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)anonymous
The entire section of Innuendo in the media is rather unnecessary. It is just a list of media that employ innuendo when the list is only a small handful of potentially endless forms of media which use innuendo. It contains little useful information and should be simply removed f4hy (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The final paragraph is stuffed with innuendo. It has been very well preformed, and drawn out at length. As such, I with to congratulate whoever was so talented in their chosen arena. The largness of the innuendos is impressive, but the appropriateness of such behavior, talented and experienced as its performer may be, seem suspect in an encyclopedic setting. Perhaps it could be given in Talk as an example of the kind of technique one should strive to employ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Removal of section on Sexual innuendo in media
Right now this is a laundry list of disparate instances with little to no critical commentary or encyclopedic value. I removed this section because it was becoming a dump. At best, it needs a complete overhaul. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs better cock picture
This article seems to be mostly about innuendo as euphemism or risque humor. Might be good to talk a little about innuendo as in yellow journalism, e.g., strong claims made without evidence, expressed indirectly so as to appear innocent or avoid legal liability. For instance, this article implies that former national security advisor Susan Rice has gotten rich through unethical or illegal means, without directly saying so or offering any hint of how she might have done it: https://investmentwatchblog.com/fun-fact-susan-rice-has-a-net-worth-of-50-million-as-a-career-u-s-public-servant-with-a-maximum-salary-of-172000/
Articles of this type may use rhetorical questions, rather than direct statements: "First of all, how is someone like Susan Rice worth between $23.5 and $43.5 million? If the media did their jobs, maybe we’d know how a UN diplomat could amass so much wealth." Or they may make statements attributed to vague sources ("Some claim that..."), etc. Innuendo is a way of leading readers to believe the article says something it doesn't actually say, using carefully-worded sentences that don't directly libel anyone. Thotso (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)