Jump to content

Talk:Irony/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cosmic Irony example

http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=20621 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.114.122 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Other definition?

What about irony in the sense of hipsters liking something out of fashion to be "ironic"? 68.126.199.216 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's basically a type of verbal irony, when intention differs from expression. If I wear an item of clothing ironically, then my expression (that im wearing this clothing because I like it or consider it fashionable) differs from my intention (im wearing it to make a statement about how ugly it is, or to piss off people who hate it, etc) 67.180.178.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

This article appears to contradict itself.

That seems ironic.

How does the article contradict itself?--In Defense of the Artist 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the contradiction notice up, so I can't say what the reason was, but one self-contradiction I noticed was that one example of Situational Irony says that it's ironic that the one member of ZZ Top who doesn't have a beard is named Frank Beard while the Irony of Fate section says that the fact that a person named Justice was convicted of a crime and executed is NOT ironic, merely coincidental. PotatoKnight 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it up. My problem was/is that the article can't seem to agree on whether "killed by a falling safety sign" type incidents are ironic, or merely incongruous. PotatoKnight (who has a freaking awesome username) has put his finger on the issue exactly. Eleland 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is ironic. The story of a man getting hit by a sign is what would be understood by a casual listener of the story of a casual observer of the incident. The fact that it was a safety sign is the ironic part - it is a deeper meaning to the incident. Regardless, I don't see a mention of it anywhere in the story, so we can take the notice down. Rm999 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is ironic. So called situational irony is still not universally accepted. I would expect to see a caveat explaining that this is an emerging use of the word but not yet standard. 66.43.76.51 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Spinlock

There is no expectation that a man whose last name is beard should have a beard, nor that a name of 'justice' should be carried by an innocent. Killed by a safety sign however... maybe. Irony first requires a conventional meaning attached to class of thing, which is expected, and then contradicted by the actual meaning of the particular something itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.56.161 (talk) 14:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

In fact, by the definition given at the beginning of the article, all of these examples are ironic by its definition of cosmic irony. However, perhaps this should also mention that this higher being or force doesn't have to be a literal entity, but if someone watching could imagine a higher force or being interfering with the person's life to create these settings for their own amusement, the situation is cosmically ironic. The article seems to try to get this across in several discussions of cosmic irony (irony of fate), but never explains it entirely explicitly. Perhaps this explanation should be added? --Haridan 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the names stated above: In stories, the first example (with Beard) could be considered ironic, but only by a stretch and not as a general example. The example with JUSTICE, however, would be considered ironic, as names are often considered to be specifically chosen by the author, and can be argued and/or used as a point in a literary analysis. That a person named Justice does not have justice delivered to him is ironic. 24.16.135.149 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't quite think the "No Smoking" example is really ironic. 24.16.135.149 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It IS ironic. How funny it is is subjective, but it could definitely be considered ironic. I'd also like to mention that the higher being or force I was talking about before doesn't actually have to be a higher being or force and could be just whoever created the ironic situation. However, a lower degree of seperation between the force or creator of the ironic situation and the situation being considered can make it less ironic. For example, if Frank Beard gave himself that name it makes it less ironic that he has no beard. However, that could still be very ironic if another member of the band does have a really awesome beard. I'm not really so sure about my previous explanation of cosmic irony though, as the way a higher force or being would interfere with a situation for their own amusement is a bit more specific than just what's funny. Irony is hard to explain. Haridan (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Death by falling safety sign: Yeah, that's ironic. The purpose of a safety sign is to prevent harm, so the prevention of harm is an expectation implicit to the mere existence of such a sign. I'd say anything that causes an event that it was created to prevent would fall under irony, so long as the event is dependent on the object in question. So, while a falling safety sign killing someone would be ironic, being beaten to death by someone who just happened to pick up the nearest object wouldn't be, even if that object was a safety sign. Now, if the fatal bludgeoning object happened to be a Nerf bat, well, I think we're back in ironic territory. Similarly, getting crushed to death by a lifeboat, while sad, is not ironic. On the other hand, getting your lifejacket caught on a sinking lifeboat a hundred feet offshore has irony to spare, especially if the one wearing the lifejacket happens to be, say, a dolphin.

The beardless Beard: I'd give this a pass on irony, too. Being named "Beard" doesn't imply having a beard, but being a member of ZZ Top does. The irony is dependent on the uniqueness of the combination of the name and the facial hairlessness. If Beard was one of two beardless members, or if there were two members named Beard, only one of which was beardless, the situation would fail to be ironic.

Execution of Justice: Not quite. Someone named Justice being convicted of a crime and executed might be of some small semantic amusement, but it's not ironic. Now, someone named Justice being falsely convicted and executed... that would be ironic. -=(Alexis Brooke M (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC))=-

I think Alexis' explanation of those examples is fantastic, better than anything in the main article (is that ironic?) and, should be given an encyclopaedic re-write and incorporated into the article, maybe replacing some of the not so good examples. Jamie 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try to make similar explanations, but Alexis has done a good job at it. It wouldn't be ironic to be killed by a falling safety sign that said "Warning: This safety sign may fall. Risk of death!" Or would it?

Being bludgeoned to death with the sign is still ironic as you wouldn't expect the random object to be something made to protect people. Would being trapped in a car after an accident be ironic? The car is meant to allow you to travel but it restricts your movement.68.166.172.84 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Show/Colbert Report?

Do they use the Socratic Irony a lot? (Colbert report perhaps more than Daily Show). --81.105.176.121 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Colbert Report goes, that's satire. The Daily Show is just comedy, not really irony or satire. Maybe some segments include those elements, but the show as a whole doesn't. --ErikB 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it ironic that there is better programming in a parody? --64.109.56.207 06:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand Socratic irony, Colbert uses it 100% of the time. He says things he doesn't mean or that he knows are irrational to get at his real meaning. 68.166.172.84 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage controversy

The so called second meaning given seems to me to identify what is essentially irony of fate (cosmic irony) already mentioned. The possible fact that some do not recognize irony beyond this narrow application does not make it an alternate meaning does it? Dainamo 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fowler the Strict?

Regarding this bit:

Other historical prescriptivists have even stricter definitions for the word irony. Henry Watson Fowler, in The King's English, says “any definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.” Fowler would thus consider the Sullivan example above as incorrect usage.

On the basis of what's quoted here from Fowler, it does not follow that "Fowler would thus consider the Sullivan example above as incorrect usage." The key word here is 'include': a definition that must include something can hardly be said necessarily to exclude what isn't explicitly excluded. Rather, Fowler identifies verbal irony as a necessary component of any acceptable defintion of 'irony'; a sufficient — that is to say comprehensive — definition would be likely to include other shades of meaning besides — as does Fowler's own (in Modern English Usage), which also includes what he terms 'the irony of fate':

Nature persuades most of us that the course of events is within wide limits foreseeable, that things will follow their usual course and that violent outrage on our sense of the probable or reasonable need not be looked for. These 'most of us' are the uncomprehending outsiders; the elect or inner circle with whom Fate shares her amusement at our consternation are the few to whom it is not an occasional maxim, but a living conviction, that what happens is the unexpected.

That strikes me as an apt characterization of the Sullivan example. (Note that The King's English does not develop a definition of irony beyond verbal irony; neither, as noted, does it limit it to that. Also note that it was was co-authored by Fowler's brother, Frank, and therefore should be attributed to both.) So not only does the author's statement not logically hang together, it is contradicted by Fowler himself.

I would strongly suggest striking this paragraph entirely and perhaps replacing it with a discussion of Fowler's (or Fowler & Fowler's) more developed and nuanced views on irony and usage.

I'm also wondering what a 'historical prescriptivist' is, and how Fowler — certainly one to hold strong opinions — can be classed as one. Sneedy (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Futurama's definition

The final episode of the 4th (final?) season entitled 'The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings' contains several jokes dealing with the definition of irony. [transcript] When the Robot-Devil proclaims it ironic that Fry is to receive his own hands randomly selected 'randomly from somewhere in the universe'. Bender counters 'It's not ironic, just coincidental'. It continues with Bender deafening Leela with his new airhorn nose, preventing her from hearing Fry's concert, which he says is not ironic, just mean. Finally during the concert when the Robot-Devil reveals that he helped Leela in return, not literally for her hand, but for her hand in marriage. Bender sings from a dictionary: "The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, now that is 'irony'!" So how does this usage fit into the definitions given in this article? 61.192.245.168 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)urameshiya

isn't that definition the definition of sarcasm, which leads to the irony that bender is actually wrong etc? 203.33.162.55 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm is a form of irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.154.137 (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In just those jokes, I don't see where Bender is ever wrong, used irony, or was sarcastic. As I see it, Bender is plainly pointing out that the Devil used irony (actually dramtic-irony, and it is also verbal-irony), to intentionally mislead Leela as she was unaware of the literal meaning. Bender's quote from the dictionary is a non sarcastic insult at Leela because she had been unware of the irony, and probably too at any viewers who don't know what irony is. 86.14.238.200 (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article still appears to contradict itself (and that's not ironic)

The material above deals with the primary dictionary meaning of the word irony...It is currently quite common to hear the word ironic used as a synonym for incongruous or coincidental in situations where there is no “double audience,” and no contradiction between the ostensible and true meaning of the words.

And yet, the material above provides Spinal Tap, the chairman of IBM saying, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers," (which is not only not ironic, but was accurate at the time), Ludwig van Beethoven’s loss of hearing, an anti-capitalist selling anti-capitalism T-shirts for a profit, none of which are examples of the "primary dictionary meaning", and many of which are elementary misunderstandings.

My use of the "contradict" tag was not a joke, and the incongruity (not irony) of the act didn't occur to me at the time. Please fix, kthx. Eleland 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many ways to comment the tag. --64.109.56.207 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is still a mess. Nowhere near as clear and concise as most other pages I've seen. What is the point of all the examples? Half of the examples are not really irony. Does anyone know what Irony is? UnPunkMonk 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sampling is irony?

I fail to see, or rather the article fails to explain, how the practice of sampling in music is necessarily ironic. — Gwalla | Talk 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ironic means enxpected . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.241.27 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't just mean unexpected. Did you read the article? And anyway, samping is not necessarily unexpected. In genres like hip-hop, it's the norm. I'm going to remove it unless someone can provide an explanation of how it fits the technical (not Alanis Morrisette) definition of irony. — Gwalla | Talk 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sampling is not ironic in itself; rather the irony lies in the sampling of genres which would not be expected from a particular artist, for example if a black rapper were to sample a White American Youth song. 3fingeredPete (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That wouldn't be ironic. (Although, I guess if the rapper had done it without realising it's origins...) 78.148.103.25 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely it would be ironic due to the double audience (ie those who are aware of the music and politics of White American Youth and those who are unaware)? Either way, someone needs to make the definition clear.3fingeredPete (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure opinions differ. But as I understand it, it's going to depend on the song. Having two different sorts of appreciation in the audience doesn't make it irony. Either the artist would have to write from a viewpoint of someone who didn't know something about how the audience would view the song (tragic irony); or the song would have to imply the opposite of what he actually meant (verbal irony). So if your black rapper track was about racism, then sampling racist music would certainly be ironic. But I'm not sure just being a black rapper sampling racist music would do it... 78.148.99.182 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Whoever invented the word should be shot for not defining it.3fingeredPete (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's definition?

In the article we read: "While many reputable critics limit irony to something resembling Aristotle's definition..." and then goed on to describe a differnet, broader view. Yet Aristotle's definition is not mentioned in the article at all. Maybe it is, but in that case it is not attributed to Aristotle. Could someone put the definition is the article, or attribute it to the philospher (along with mentioning what book it comes from), in case it's already in there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's definition of irony turns out to be something called "Socratic Irony", which is nothing more than the socratic method and has nothing to do with irony as we currently understand the term. See this. So I'm afraid the reference to Aristotle is a ref herring. 78.150.253.144 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It most certainly remains a facet of irony in today's world and your reference does not imply it is an archaic use. The reference covers socratic irony as a teaching method but it is also aplliacable to a mode of questioning used in argument (e.g. politics and legal) to expose what might not be readily admitted through feigned ignorance or agreement in questions. It is ironic beacause of the hiiden intent or meaning in a question that may only be apparetn to the quesationer and those who recognise his true agenda. Dainamo (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As of January 8 2008, several of the links in the External Links section are broken. Specifically, the link to the gaurdian story looks like a custom 404 error page, and both links to AHD just give the home page of bartleby.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.105.29 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Example farm

I have removed the example farm, if any individual is of note in relation to Irony then use prose and explain, with reliable sources. Gnangarra 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Examples in music:

OED definition

There seems to be some argument here about what irony is. We can't use it in the article, obviously, but the OED says:

  1. An expression of meaning [...] by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency,
  2. An ill-timed or perverse arrival or event [...] that is itself desirable.
  3. A literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
  4. Of or like iron.

Presumably the OED knows what it is talking about. And I'm sure that everyone posting here will follow this definition from now on. 78.148.105.189 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

This page is very very sloppy. I don't even know where to begin. There are typos everywhere, and examples/definitions very obviously hobbled together from people with a thin but enthusiastic grasp on what irony actually is. I'm putting the Cleanup tag back on.

Why don't you WP:SOFIXIT instead? It's hard to fix things, easy to point out places where others should fix things. You do that at home, too? How does the family feel about it? SBHarris 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical irony

I think a good picture for this section would be that one of the man with one of the first portable telephones with the caption "They'll Never Catch On". Can anyone can find it? ArdClose (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ironic" similes not ironic

I fail to see how "funny as cancer", "clear as mud" are ironic, they mean exactly what they say, they are purely similes, not even oxymorons. There is no incongruity between the words and the meaning. Just because a single word in the simile has a meaning opposite of the meaning of the whole phrase doesn't make it ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.241.27 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because cancer isn't funny and mud isn't clear. The examples use a word (e.g.: clear) to mean the exact opposite (that the situation the simil refers isn't clear at all), thus it's verbal irony. Elessar (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that's exactly his point. When using the terms you're describing something that isn't funny or clear, in which case you're saying exactly what you mean, even if the way you're saying it seems a bit off.75.121.136.113 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic irony and tragic irony

These appear to be two sections again. Could someone explain why they think they are different things? 78.148.103.160 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Holes and preditor/prey examples removed

Both of those examples are simply coincidences... in 'Holes' the boys did nothing to prevent the area from becoming a girl scout camp, so its just a coincidence that later it actually did become a girls camp. As for the 'hunter becomes the hunted' example, theres no irony there, its just a trick. -Wesman83 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Postmodernistic claptrap

Irony threatens authoritative models of discourse by "removing the semantic security of ‘one signifier : one signified’";[2] Would somebody like to interpret this academic babble? It seems to be some kind of deconstructionist reference to an older theory of semiotics, but I need a little "semantic security" because otherwise I cannot tell what the hell the author means to say here. I suppose it is an authoritative model of discourse to say something clearly? If so, then whoever this is, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SBHarris 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Folk taxonomies?

Regarding this sentence:

Regardless of the various ways folk taxonomies categorize figurative language types, people in conversation are attempting to decode speaker intentions and discourse goals, and are not generally identifying, by name, the kinds of tropes used.

Two points:

1. 'Folk taxonomy', in this context, is a contentious term, as it basically means a 'non-scientific' taxonomy, and I fail to see how such a distinction is relevant to the discussion. Generally speaking, a taxonomy that doesn't use scientifically accepted terminology and relationships is a 'folk' taxonomy (not to be confused with a 'folksonomy', which might be seen as a type of folk taxonomy). On one reading, virtually any taxonomy used in the humanities, 'social sciences', liberal arts, etc, would be a 'folk taxonomy'; but this seems to unfairly denigrate taxonomies that don't originate in or that aren't aligned to the 'natural sciences', because so-called 'folk' taxonomies can be perfectly rigorous and formal. And even when they aren't, they are still hardly 'folksy' in the way, say, a farmers' almanac treatment of types of pests might be - which is the kind of taxonomy generally referred to as a 'folk taxonomy'. I suspect there are far fewer parsers of ironic tropes than there are farmers who can name you a dozen bugs that can ruin your wheat crop. Did the author mean to imply that the approach of the article and of linguistic analysis or literary criticism are 'unscientific'? If so, how is that defensible on objective grounds, let alone relevant to the topic? The term 'folk taxonomy' is rarely used, even by people (such as myself) who develop them for a living, and in this context the 'folk' qualifier is completely unnecessary (no one would be tempted to think we were borrowing a taxonomy from, say, particle physics) - and therefore needlessly contentious (though I suspect it wasn't intended as such). And if one rejects the identification of 'scientific' with the natural sciences, 'folk taxonomy' is also a misnomer.

The term folk taxonomies just refers to the fact that many of the attempts to categorize figurative language are based in intuition, and nothing more formal. Perhaps the term is not the best choice. Also, "folk taxonomies" don't categorise tropes, people do. So I changed the sentence, you're right.

2. In an otherwise well-written piece, the sentence stands out a bit awkwardly as undergrad-speak, torturing the painfully obvious, and adds nothing to our understanding of irony.

Therefore, I would suggest removing this sentence altogether. Sneedy (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I don't believe it should be removed entirely is because there is an important point in it. Language users don't go around categorizing utterances when they hear them, so the value for theorists in making categories is questionable. If categories are to be of any service, they should be rooted in the logic of the utterance types and the differential effects they have on listeners. Thus far in this kind of research, categorization schemes have not helped in understanding how different "kinds" of tropes are used to elicit patterns of cognitive effects.Jcrabb (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical irony?

I am just curious about historical irony. Would Mick Jagger's statement about "I'd rather be dead than singing Satisfaction when I'm forty-five." be an example of historical irony?

ONEder Boy (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The irony in Ted Stevens's case

One or more anonymous editors keep reinserting a photo of Ted Stevens, with the caption "Ted Stevens who once referred to the internet as a series of tubes was indicted in July of 2008 for failing to disclose gifts from a firm that operates an oil pipeline, a literal series of tubes". According to the article itself, and especially its Usage controversy section, such a situation is not ironic: it is just a moderately amusing coincidence. I have already reverted twice this edit, and rather than keeping doing so, I'd like to hear other editors' opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not remotely ironic--one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I mean, it would be ironic if he made a name for himself getting other people in trouble for failing to disclose gifts and was indicted for that very indiscretion. But the fact that he once referred to the internet (which has nothing to do with the scandal) as a series of tubes isn't related, ironic, notable, compelling or coincidental. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The characterization of the situation as ironic is extremely far-fetched. A remark Stevens made, which struck some techies as dumb, is linked to his present predicament by a strained use of the word "tubes." I can't assume good faith here; this is just someone who dislikes Stevens and is seeking a reason to insert a gratuitous reference to Stevens' indictment.
Nor is there any particular reason for using a picture here. The juxtaposition of silhouettes of a smoking Sherlock Holmes and a "no-smoking" sign is a visual illustration of irony. A head shot of Ted Stevens is not.
In a sense, any case of "the mighty have fallen" is ironic, but the case of Ted Stevens is not a particularly good example. Furthermore, in searching for illustrations, there is no reason at all to use contemporary examples that have a political edge to them, when one could just as well use an historic one. Stevens is not such an apropos example as to justify annoying readers who admire Stevens. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad... well, by most standards of human decency it's good, but for purposes of illustrating irony, it's too bad... that Dr. Guillotin was not, in fact, guillotined. That would be a legitimate example of irony. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz

This, too, seems like a weak example. As it happens, I read "The Wizard of Oz" just a few months ago, and many things about this remarkable work struck me, but irony was not one of them. Like many childrens' books it seems to have a layer of subtle content directed at adults, which in some cases amounts to irony. But it's not an overwhelming ironic book. We shouldn't be using examples where it requires much insight to see the irony. A discerning reader can probably find mild strains of irony almost anywhere.

We should be using examples where the irony is immediately obvious... as it is in the "No Smoking" sign surrounded by images of Sherlock Holmes with a pipe.

In contrast to The Wizard of Oz, I give you an extract from Eugene Field's 1901 book, The Complete Tribune Primer:

Dpbsmith (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Support Our Troops" sign

A while ago I inserted the below photograph of a "Support our troops" sign on a cemetery lawn. The picture has since been removed because apparently it doesn't fit the definition of "irony." The picture was removed from the article by Haukurth with the following revision summary: "Is this really situational irony? How? What is the disparity between intention and result?"

"Support our troops" sign on cemetery lawn in Independence, Oregon.

I'm certainly no scholar in this topic of irony. I understand that irony is often misunderstood. But my layman's understanding of "irony" is that it is when the intent is the opposite of the result. The intent of the slogan "Support Our Troops" seems to me to suggest an idea of protection, that we should be protective of our troops and that this protection of our troops will ensure their wellbeing. Isn't it ironic that a statement about the importance of protecting the wellbeing of troops is placed on the lawn of a business devoted to burying dead bodies?

Death, being dead, is the exact opposite of being protected. Death results from a lack of support/protection. In fact, it may be said that being dead is the ultimate example that one is NOT protected. To support a person or a concept usually means to protect it; when a person or group of people are described as protected it is usually assumed that by protected they are kept alive. I think it's ironic that a business that needs dead bodies is telling people to support, thereby protect, thereby ensure the survival of, US troops.

The underlying social commentary is also obvious: people who do not support the Iraq war do so because they do not want US troops to be killed.

It seems to me that this sign on a cemetery lawn in fact is a perfect example of irony. If it is not, could someone explain to me what exactly it is? Thanks. (I have a feeling that this picture may've been removed because it's too sensitive of a topic.)

Another interpretation may be as follows:

  1. A cemetery profits from death and in fact needs dead bodies.
  2. The Iraq war has caused thousands of deaths.
  3. The sign therefore could be interpreted as saying, "We support our troops going to war to be killed because we need dead bodies because that's how we make our money."
  4. The idea that they want the troops to die because they profit from death is in fact the opposite of what they intend to say when they say they support the troops.

I think it's pretty clear here that this is a perfect example of the result being the opposite of the intention. Copy Editor (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a supremely ironic photo and commend you for taking it. The reason why it probably wouldn't last in this article is because it seems to promote a certain political point of view. There are some editors (mostly administrators) who manage to keep similarly political content and images in articles, but they have a certain level of clout, high-level friends, persistence, meatpuppets and an abundance of time that you and I may lack.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is too sensitive a topic. In an article that is about current political figures or events, there's no way to dodge sensitive topics; they must be dealt with. In an article that is about irony, no encyclopedic purpose is served by using examples that may annoy or offend a significant number of readers.
Furthermore, your sign is perfectly susceptible of a non-ironic interpretation. Consider a person who engages in a high-risk activity, such as running with the bulls at Pamplona, or climbing K2. I heard an interview a few days ago with the mother of one such climber... not one of those who was killed. To paraphrase, the reporter asked the mother whether she supported what the young man was doing, and she said, basically, that she did; the risk went with the sport, but he believed it was worth it and she accepted that. When people are killed in risky sports, their loved ones often say "Well, at least he died doing something he loved."
In other words, support doesn't necessarily mean protection.

I just wanted to note that I think that with soldiers going to war it is a far more severe situation. While deaths may occur from extreme sports, death is far more likely to occur when one is a soldier going into a war. The very concept of "support our troops" (though quite vague as per the article) seems to be to hold the troops in good esteem so that they are not harmed. It's akin to the Yellow ribbons that are tied around a tree. Implicit in the statement "support our troops" is the idea that they are in danger and may die. To "support" does not mean to hope they are hurt or killed. To "support" means to hope they end up okay. It's ironic that such a sign is placed on a graveyard. Copy Editor (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can understand this in terms of sport, it should not be difficult to understand it in the context of war. It is quite possible that the sign means "I understand that our soldiers are risking death in order to protect our country... in fact, I'm underscoring this by placing it in front of a cemetery... and I support their commitment, including their willingness to die."
Perhaps you don't agree with such an interpretation, but you should be able to see that it's a possible interpretation. This is a case where irony is in the eye of the beholder.
For a less emotionally loaded but similar example, consider the signs there used to be at SAC bases that said "Peace Is Our Profession." If you were a dove, it was ironic; if you were a hawk, it was sincere.
Now, even if we could find something contemporary and political that was a perfect and unambiguous example of irony, there is still no good encyclopedic reason to use it, when it is possible to find excellent examples that will offend few if any readers. The "No Smoking" signs surrounded by silhouettes of Sherlock Holmes with his pipe is a beautiful one. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think that ultimately it is simply too sensitive a topic. Usually, the term "Support Our Troops" is used by people who "support the war." The slogan is usually used by war supporters as a means of admonishing objectors to the war. To oppose the war is to oppose the troops; those who support the war have the best interest of the troops in mind. But the result of being in the war is often death -- which is what the cemetery profits from.
To me, it just appears that the owners of this cemetery have unwittingly made the statement that they need the troops to die so they can profit from their dead bodies when they are buried.
I'm sure there are non-ironic interpretations possible. But that doesn't mean that an interpretation on an ironic level is not possible as well. I'm sure you're right that the Sherlock Holmes picture is better because it's non-controversial. But there is a non-ironic interpretation of that situation as well. Bottom line, it communicates that no smoking is allowed in the establishment. Some people will see only that and cease to smoke.
At any rate, I inserted the picture because of the irony evident in it. I'm not passionately contesting its removal. I just wanted to see if I was correct that it IS ironic. Like many people, I've had difficulty at times understanding the true definition of irony -- just like Alanis Morissette. :) Copy Editor (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Arguments for the image's ironic content are specious. Compared to workers in other occupations, a high percentage of soldiers die on duty; in action, in accidents, or through natural or other causes. And, potentially, a soldier's remains may be buried in a commercial cemetery. But deaths in the United States in 2007 totaled 2.4 million. American military deaths in 2007 totaled 1,950. To claim that cemetery owners (what about coroners or florists?) "need the troops to die so they can profit from their dead bodies when they are buried" implies that cemeteries rely on 0.08% of yearly American dead to increase revenue. That is nonsense. The image is a political statement misrepresented as an example of irony. Its removal is, in turn, an example of Wikipedia editors fulfilling their responsibilities. Mubaldi (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I keep coming up with reasons why this is an ironic picture. I just thought up another reason.

  1. The "Support Our Troops" slogan is often used in an attempt to draw attention away from the grim reality of war, which is that people -- including the troops -- get killed.
  2. Most people would say that nothing reminds a person of death more than a cemetery.
  3. Placing "Support Our Troops" on a cemetery lawn makes a person remember death. Thus this result of placing the "Support Our Troops" sign on the lawn ultimately defeats the intent of the slogan.


width=2400
width=2400

The result is the exact opposite of the intention. The slogan is meant to be a positive slogan, and from most perspectives there is nothing more negative than a graveyard. But, again, I understand that this picture is not likely to make it back into the article because it's just too controversial. (I recall the Bush administration banning photographers from taking pictures of the coffins of US soldiers because that was just too grim a reminder of the realities of war.) -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A thoughtful observer can see many ironic overtones in your picture.
To the right is another example of a picture that has ironic overtones but isn't a particularly clear exemplary illustration of irony: Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


The problem is that you're all trying to make this fit under the definition of 'situational irony' when irony is traditionally about meaning. The slogan 'support our troops' is a euphemism for 'support the war'. Soldiers get killed in war, as exemplified by the cemetery. The true meaning of the slogan becomes clear when you place it in the context of the cemetery; 'support out troops' really means 'send them off to die'. Really it is the slogan itself that is 'ironic', but that irony becomes clear when placed in the context of the cemetery.

As I said, irony is about meaning and meaning is dependent on the beholder, so what may be ironic to one person is not ironic to another (one person may see a double meaning and another may not depending entirely on their perspective). This is why we have such arguments about whether or not something is ironic. In fact, the only things that can definitively said to be ironic are things that are intended to be so. TLAKABM (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading article

The article claims that irony relates to incongruity or discordance. This is incorrect. Irony relates to opposition. Irony occurs when the meaning of a statement is the opposite of what is said. Irony always involves opposites, not mere incongruities or discordances.Lestrade (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Silly loops

Socratic irony redirects to irony, which in the opening blurb, says that it refers to the Socratic method. So now, nowhere on Wikipedia is there any mention of that Socratic irony actually is. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tragic magi

The magi story is listed under ironic tragedy alongside Romeo and Juliet. Honestly, it doesn't seem tragic to me. It's a loss, yes, but all that was lost is some money, and they ended up getting luxuries they can survive without. They weren't able to use the brush or watch chain, but they could still get by, because they found their love for each other. Tyciol (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputing both images

I'm going to dispute both images here currently in the article as I feel that neither truly demonstrate irony.

No Smoking

This requires the viewer to assume that the tiles are meant as some kind of indication that smoking should be encouraged in the station, and not as an homage to the a great British character who is extremely famous and is traditionally seen with a pipe. Its also contrary to what several people have said (including experts) about the song "Ironic" not containing anything actually ironic, since her song contains a blurb about a no smoking sign on the ashtray.

Police Car

There is no context provided as to why the police car is there. There may have been an emergency on a narrow street and the police were given no choice other than to park in the empty spot. Police are often not subject to various traffic laws in the execution of their duties during any kind of emergency situation (allowed to travel over the speed limit, make u-turns, drive off the marked road, etc) were such a situation occurring the fact they were parking there would not be illegal. I assume the basis for considering this irony is that the police are supposed to encourage following the law, and they've allegedly parked illegally. This sounds like original research on the part of the uploader and the editors who have gone ahead and considered this irony.--Crossmr (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Figurative irony?

I've also heard of figurative irony, particularly in my high school English class. Anybody care to add that one to the list? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was different from all the other ones... Lady★Galaxy 22:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No "Controversy" section?

Given the amount of heated discussion on the subject that I've seen over the years, I was surprised to see that there wasn't a section discussing the "incorrect" use of the terms 'irony'/'ironic'. I think there should be a section pointing out that there is a viewpoint that the term is misused/overused, and outlining the arguments for why such usage, while common, is viewed as incorrect. (We should also include any rebuttals, if we have a WP:Reliable Source for them.) I think a skillfully worded section can inform the reader on the issue without prompting an acrimonious edit war. -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Frame problem

It seems to me that the debate about the definition of "irony" always gets mired in interpretation differences. As evidenced here, what qualifies as irony seems to be a function of the context of the statement. That context could be different for author and reader, different readers, different situations, etc. To me, this is a classic example of the Frame problem in artificial intelligence, and I doubt that a single satisfactory definition will be suffice to resolve all contexts. In light of that, I recommend categorization of irony by context (situational is a good start), and shifting the debate to what the context is, because it becomes more obvious what is controversial from this perspective. 70.250.176.8 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Definition and Types of irony sections are clearly written from the perspective of someone who thinks that the primary definition of irony is "... the difference between what someone would reasonably expect to happen and what actually does." The other definitions of irony are then framed in the context of that definition. However, that is not the primary definition of irony; not if you look at the history and etymology of the word. These sections need to be rewritten to make it clear that the primary definition of irony is, more or less, when someone says something but means something else. Or in the interests of neutrality, make it clear there are different interpretations of the primary definition. TLAKABM (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you bother to look the word up in a dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster?

1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony tragic irony

The 3a definition would seem to cover the difference between expected and actual results which is marked by unusual incongruity, quite well. SBHarris 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Misconception had bad example

Is it ironic that the "misconception" section of an article on irony had a bad example of irony? :-) The previous example that I replaced was based on the premise that an animal control office should be able to handle any animal without fatal injury. That, to me, is analogous to saying that a fireman should be able to handle any fire without fatal injury or that a police officer should be able to handle any criminal without fatal injury.

When someone dies in the performance of their dangerous job (especially a public service job) it's tragic, but it's not necessarily ironic. Davidyorke (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "correct usage of irony would be" example from the "misconception" section, as the article already has six sections covering the correct use of different forms of irony, in detail. --McGeddon (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The section on "misconceptions of irony" seems to be simply someone venting about something that bothers them, and without references to published usage guides or other authority, serves little purpose. Given that any unexpected result with "perverse enlivenment" can be considered irony, according to another section of the article, it is reasonable that there will be a large degree of subjectivity regarding what is and what isn't ironic. (For example, the coincidence of a chicken landing on one's head could strike some as perversely enlivened by the fact that that the person had a chicken dinner that very day.) I've removed the section, probably without proper discussion up front, but if it gets put back, I expect to at least read a defense and see a citation. 76.246.35.44 (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Source

I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Additional irony definition ironing?

look here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.34.219 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not bad

Actually, considering the subject, I think this article is pretty good, although it can be improved of course. Well done editors. Because irony depends on *meaning*, it will always be difficult to find good examples to illustrate it that most people will 'get'. We all bring our own meanings to the table so something obviously very ironic to some will not be so obvious or not be ar all ironic to others.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussietiger (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Socratic irony

Deleted the false statement that socratic irony isn't irony; it is. Specifically Socrates pretends to be ignorant, when actually he is showing his interlocuter to be ignorant.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.46.230 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This definition is completely wrong

Irony is not something merely incongruous. Irony is when the actual meaning of a word/idea/phrase is the OPPOSITE of the intended/literal/implied meaning. The definition of irony is being perverted to where nearly anything weird can be described as "ironic".--18.127.1.9 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, but irony is not merely saying the opposite as what is meant. There's different types of irony, and what you describe isn't necessarily always irony. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, implying the opposite of what you are literally saying *is* always irony. But irony is not always implying the opposite of what you are literally saying. Is that what you meant? 78.148.105.100 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for making sense out of that! BubbaStrangelove (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to try and give the thing some internal consistency

Okay, I came back as a user and tried to fix the thing. I hope that no-one is offended. I tried to make the smallest change that resolved all the errors I saw, plus I fixed the fact that there were two 'types of irony' sections, and explained what aristotles' definition of irony was (and why it doesn't help here). I've left a lot of stuff in that I didn't see was really irony -- the music sampling, for example. I didn't want to rewrite the article in my image, just make it better. ShadowFirebird (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, Derhexter, rather than just reverting me, why don't we talk about it? Wouldn't that be more grown up? ShadowFirebird (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
...many thanks. ShadowFirebird (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found another reference to "Aristotle's original definition" and removed it. Aristotole's original definition was Socratic Irony, which isn't irony as we currently understand the term. (I'm happy to be proved wrong -- in which case, someone please add to this article what "Aristotle's definition" actually was.) ShadowFirebird (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there's plenty to do here.

  • Can anyone tell me why the "dead end" picture is ironic? It seems to me to be a pretty weak example of situational irony. The baker street tube station one if far better. Can I remove it?
  • Can anyone point me to a definition of "ironic art"? Is this really a valid term? I confess that ironic art doesn't seem very ironic to me, and looking at this discussion page, I'm not the only one.
  • The section on dramatic irony needs work -- in fact the introduction to this article seems to do an excellent job of describing dramatic irony. Maybe it should be moved there.
  • The examples in the sections on situational, cosmic etc irony that are fictional in nature are in fact tragic irony, since they rely on an audience to see them. I guess you could argue that all tragic irony is situational, but I think that's needlessly complicating matters (and is probably backwards).

I'll leave the page for a while before I make any more edits. ShadowFirebird (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Gift of the Magi example seems to fit better under the tragic irony section. For situational irony to warrant inclusion, someone needs to directly describe how it and tragic irony differ. At present, the only difference seems to be that situational irony happens in real life, and tragic irony happens in literature. --Kneague (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear you say that. It's my theory that situational irony comes from an understandable but mistaken impulse to apply tragic irony to real life. But, of course, unless someone important says that in writing, I can't put it in the article. OTOH, look at the Baker Street Tube Station picture; there's clearly a disparity between something and something else going on there... ShadowFirebird (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some more changes: removing a picture and some superfluous examples; moving some examples of "fictional situational irony" into tragic irony; and generally trying to make the section on tragic irony make sense (although, I think it actually needs some creative writing rather than editing ... I'll have a go later on... ShadowFirebird (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've actually written some new sentances. If you're missing something from the introduction, it might have got reworked into the section on tragic irony. Again, I'll leave things for a few days. Next, ironic art. ShadowFirebird (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other thing about tragic irony, is that it's TRAGIC. How you tell Shakespeare comedies from his tragedies: everyone ends up married in the first, and dead in the second. That isn't exactly an artificial and superficial distinction. Tragic irony needs tragedy, whether in reality or art. The Gift of the Magi is art, to be sure, but more comic than tragic. Hint: these involved are married and in love, and the situation is reversible and not fatal. Hence, irony of situation but certainly not irony of tragedy.

I would suggest that irony of tragedy is simply a subset of situational irony, as is irony of comedy. Either can occur in life, or in representational art (plays, stories). Litotes and sarcasm are on a boundary where they aren't meant to be representational art, but more of a sort of performance art, and perhaps (like spontaneous humor) they merit a separate category. SBHarris 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Baker street picture

I've stuck it back in again. If you want to delete it, would you mind explaining why here? Ta. ShadowFirebird (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've had a final fiddle, reworking the section on ironic art to make it less ... well, waffly. Tidied up a few references and such. I've also had the audacity to remove the cleanup tag, which is what WP:Cleanup says to do when you're finished. YMMV. I still think the article waffles in places, but it's no longer confused, wrong, or painful. My 10p, anyway. ShadowFirebird (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead End Picture

For the sake of discussion, Shadowfirebird: I believe the Dead End sign was an example of irony, as it was placed where the dead actually begin and not end (the cemetery)... I commented on this earlier in the discussion. The picture wasn't placed there by me. I believe the person who placed it there did a google search for irony, because recently that was the first image that would come up; however, I don't believe the person who placed it there got why it would be ironic and captioned it incorrectly. It was the same joke as the "No Smoking" sign, and I actually thought it had more weight, as there wasn't actually anyone smoking in the latter picture. It doesn't matter to me either way, but I'm surprised that a year later and it still seems no one has come to what seems like the most obvious interpretation. It seems like all the attempted explanations have been pretty "out there" BubbaStrangelove (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonexistent Source?

Hello, I'm concerned about source 4, a supposed article in the New York Times titled "It Dawned on Adults after WWII: 'You'll Shoot Your Eye Out!' ". I've checked the Times' online archive and the article does not exist in an online form. There is a Wall Street Journal opinion([2]]) piece with the same name and the fact cited is mentioned at the bottom of the article.

Unfortunately, this doesn't end my concern. It's believable that a lapel pin may have been recalled for one of those reasons, but all three? That seems completely over the top.The fact seems too good to be true.

I cannot find a reference to a supposed recall online that doesn't source either the WSJ or this Wikipedia article. This fact has spread so far from this page, that it's very troublesome to have no verification outside the WSJ opinion page. The fact that this story could be considered "anti big government" and the source was attributed as the liberal NYTimes instead the conservative WSJ makes it seem as though there may have been some manipulation so that the source wasn't called into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.43.176 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If the situation is so perfectly ironic that you just don't believe it, I take it that if we find a better source you'll agree that it's a fine example of irony? SBHarris 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed, and maybe it should be kept as a joke? ;-) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Socratic irony

  • "for review of Socratic irony see Kieran Egan The educated mind : how cognitive tools shape our understanding. (1997) University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN p. 137-144."

Ummm, actually, could we maybe get a definition of Socratic irony in the article itself (as i believe is Wikipedia's usual style), as opposed to an instruction to go away and dig out some obscure book published in Chicago? Cheers. tomasz. 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Agree. This page needs some more substantial reference to Socrates, and the use of irony in rhetoric and argumentation more generally. I don't have any citations on that, though. Is there a philosophy major in the house? Conurbation (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture is dumb and not ironic

I deleted this picture a while back, but the photographer would have none of it and repeatedly reverted me, suggesting I take to the talk page. Here's how the caption currently reads:

"An example of irony - It is ironic that a 'dead end' sign, used for traffic, would be placed near a cemetery. The expected result - That traffic will know the road is a dead end. The actual result - a comical play on words."

That is an awkward stretch of the definition of irony--not to mention a needless overselling of a not-particularly-funny joke. Puns and coinicdences are not inherently ironic. In order for the placement of a "Dead End" sign to be ironic, it would need to be situated in a place that was quite the opposite of the dead end--say a crossroads, or--along punny lines--in a place that was full of life or birth, the oppposite of death. Unintentionally denoting a place with a lot of dead people a "Dead End" simply isn't ironic.

Naturally, the creator of the photo feels it should stay. What do others think?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - puns are not irony. Unless, of course, someone can provide an explanation for how it falls under any of the categories of irony defined in the article. But I don't see how it does.
Crabula 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ironic, because it says "Dead End" and really that's where the dead start. This seems to be a resolved topic, but I just wanted to point out what could be seen as irony in the photo. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A person attempted to add a picture of a chunk of Iron (as in the metal) to the page with the caption "An example of irony." I removed it as part of the "cleanup." That is the only change I've made. In my opinion the Sherlock Holmes head can stay because it's not a pun although a better picture is required to demonstrate a more common appearance of irony. SoLowRockerMan (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the Sherlock picture either, and actually think the graveyard/dead end picture that was the topic of discussion here was a better example. The person who captioned the picture didn't know what they were talking about and stated (as noted above): "An example of irony - It is ironic that a 'dead end' sign, used for traffic, would be placed near a cemetery. The expected result - That traffic will know the road is a dead end. The actual result - a comical play on words."
Clearly we all get that this isn't irony, though the picture was ironic because it was a sign signaling a "dead end", but positioned at the start of where you would go to find the dead. I may realize what happened. If you google "irony" that picture does come up, and again, it is a very good example of irony, but clearly whomever captioned it didn't understand why it was ironic. I don't care to re-add it, because I'm not sure of its copyright status, or have that big of a deal with the Sherlock picture. I just don't think it's on the weak side because there's no actual smoking going on. It would hit the nail better if the "No Smoking" sign was in a tobacco shop, or as I once saw - a "no smoking" sign at a restaurant called "The Smoke Shack"BubbaStrangelove (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would a picture of a burning "no smoking" sign be ironic, because the sign itself is smoking? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. A better example would be if you used a "No Fires" sign as fuel for a campfire. In this scenario, the effort which was undertaken in order to prevent fires is actually enabling the action. The "no smoking" is just another play on words and belongs in the same "weak irony" category as the "Dead End" scenario.--66.194.72.10 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be ironic, but it would be a pretty lame example. As for the image that started this section, no: it's not ironic, just a play on words. --Sneedy (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Example is not actually ironic if you understand physiology/are in the medical field.

"Jim Fixx, who did much to popularize jogging as a form of healthy exercise in his 1977 book The Complete Book of Running, died at the age of 52 of a heart attack (a death associated with sedentary, unhealthy lifestyles) while out jogging."

This is not ironic because heart attacks happen to people who jog, run, marathon, swim, bike, triathlons, etc. My point it, heart attacks do not just usually happen to sedentary people, and if you knew anything about medicine you wouldn't post that as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.72 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whereas Dr Atkins, who wrote diet books, died morbidly overweight. Potentially killed by his own weight in a fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.51.45 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Kinda clear most of that was via the accident. [3] Hogan (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Expansion by an Expert

I am not qualified to expand this, but I do wonder if the concepts of irony/sarcasm are limited only to western languages and cultures. It would not surprise me if true, since other things are culturally limited. But, for instance, do the Japanese use sarcasm when they speak/write and was it original to Japan or brought in by the Westerners?

Just an observation. Thank you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Sarcasm and related ironies are present in every language that has ever been examined for such things. Japanese people certainly incorporate sarcasm, although differently because of various differences in conversational norms and politeness. The concept of irony is inherent to thinking for people - it's not linguistic.

Is Ecology example of Dramatic Irony?

Because Ecology is (1) study of relation which are in nature a.s.n but is NOT (2) way how to protect nature (though Ecology contains knowledge for doing that).

Nevertheless it is used mainly in the "nature protection" sense ((2)) even by such reliable sources of information as newspapers (which is just irony?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge

In all irony there are two degrees of knowledge or belief or understanding - the greater and the lesser. In all cases, the more the two messages or situations or beliefs or understandings contradict one another the stronger is the irony. In verbal irony, there are two meanings, M(A) and M(B), present at the same time. Which meaning is understood depends on which code the listener is aware of, A or B. The person aware only of code A (e.g. the words taken alone - "literally") understands it to mean one thing, M(A). The person detecting code B (= code A + (e.g.) the extra inflection that undermines the literal meaning) understands the mesage to means something else, M(B). The person insensitive to the inflection picks up less information than the more sensitive listener who typically understands both messages.(Irony depends on someone being conscious of the discrepancy between the two meanings.) The extra inflection could be many things (e.g. a wink, a tone of voice, the implausibility of a literal meaning); it can function as extra substantive information or be an indication that the information given is to be decoded in a different way. In dramatic irony, the character understands a situation, A, to mean one thing, M(A), the audience knowing more (situation A + extra knowledge) understands things differently M(B). In cosmic irony, the extra knowledge ("the true fate") is gained later (by the character and/or the audience), even though it could be seen in retrospect that it was "fated to be so all along". In situational irony, a belief ("that A is the case"), based on a certain set of assumptions, is shown to be wrong (indeed generally "the opposite of right") in the light of a set of circumstances not previously contemplated (the world is more complicated than we think). Tsinfandel (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree real irony has a cognitive side: it plays around with two or more levels of knowledge, misknowledge or perception, it turns its object inside out and makes you see something new. That's what's missing in a lot of pretend irony these days, which doesn't really bring out anything other than idle cheekiness. Lots of people vaguely think if you act like John Cleese in Fawlty Towers it has to be ironic because he's so highly strung and so out of place: 'nobody would ever behave like that irl'. "Ironic" comes to mean "pathetically silly" or even "bathetic", provided that we're looking in on it and are not implicated in the situation ourselves. Too loose, isn't it?
Now there is an ironic quality to a lot of the foot-in-his-mouth storylines of FT - and to some in sitcoms of the same kind - but the histrionic style of Basil Fawlty (whom I'm a fan of btw), and his approach to running his hotel, or the heightened talking style of people like Eddie Murphy or Borat are not irony in themselves. Nor is it ironic when we hear that Armin Meiwes complained that his victim's "flesh was tough" and that he was angry the man had lied about his age, though it's a morbidly funny quote. Strausszek (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section with some notable examples of irony (of various types) in the media. One episode of Futurama artfully gives examples of every kind of irony. The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.208 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Actually, the Futurama episode in question points out many more items that aren't ironic than those that are, possessing only one actual example of irony and defining it as "The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention." A bit general, but accurate. Specifically, the ironic statement I'm referring to is Leela agreeing to give up her "hand" (in marriage). That is irony. --64.254.110.201 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Go Green & Save Paper/Tree Campaigns - Irony

Got a bunch of paper/mail from you bank on going green and saving paper. Thought someone should add more content on it and link with fallacy. $@M 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Wrong" definition is rapidly becoming the right one

I know it drives lexicographers crazy, but...The "wrong" use of the term has clearly gained enough currency to be acknowledged as legitimate. See definition 3 here. Languages are defined by their current, not historical use. Time to let this one go, just like "gay" and "nice". - Richfife (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker. Yes, I believe the article as such contains references to this kind of irony: poignantly contrary to expectation. I don't think the dictionary gives a particularly good example-- at least it's not poignantly contrary to MY expectation that clear-thinkers sometimes later go mad. Or that firefighters die in fires, or doctors die of disease, or whatever. The Devil is in the detail, and the detail here are the examples used as illustration. They need to be as poignant as possible.

Ah, I'm looking upward in your reference and see that definition #3 is also "sharp and unexpected coincidences" in life. Yes, that needs to be mentioned, too. There was some stuff about the pop song "Irony" which got removed because the purists didn't like it. But it fits here under a changing definition. SBHarris 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irony involves opposites. When something is the opposite of what is usually intended, it can be ironic. But there must always be an opposite in irony.Lestrade (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
That's not always true, see the article for examples of tragic/dramatic/situational irony BubbaStrangelove (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Irony is simply the expression of the direct opposite of that which is meant. For example, if I didn't enjoy the party and I say "I just loved the party," I am being ironic. I recently read the following sentence in an article about the stolen "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign: "The cruelly ironic phrase means 'Work Sets You Free' and ran completely counter to the purpose of Auschwitz…." The words "completely counter" mean "direct opposite." Because many people do not realize this, the word "irony" is often used incorrectly to designate other concepts. This is not surprising, due to the high rate of illiteracy and ignorance in today's society.Lestrade (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
"I just loved the party" is not irony, it's sarcasm! And "direct opposite of that which is meant" doesn't exclude obvious non-irony such as "it's like rain on your wedding day". There must be a causal relationship between an action and an unintended consequence. Here an action may be a statement ("Arbeit Macht Frei"), and consequence may be a meaning (work [at Auschwitz] kills you). Note that the sign is only ironic to a third-party reader; to the author and the inmates, it may well have been sarcasm (which involves intentional falsehood).dkturner80 (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the word "irony" is overused today for some stuff that's not irony but more 'tongue-in-cheek' or verbal slapstick, but I don't agree 'real irony' has to be as obtuse as you put it Lestrade. Sometimes the contrastive comment is more veiled, but still quite readable. I remember one morning in the summer of 1988, I was reading the morning paper and glancing at the umpteenth piece discussing the heritage of 1968. My brother came in and I said, without explanation "It was twenty years ago today!" He got the cue at once and replied "Yeah you need only say... /mentions the name of a well-known radical writer and professor/" Those lines were ironic for sure, playing around with the self-inflated image of many '68 veterans and the amount of space they got in the news - and both of these factors were much more obvious then than they are now. It was instantly decipherable to us (and would have been to many others at the time) even though there was no direct reference to the backwards glancing, self-publicizing "we are the centre of history" style of many '68 torchbearers.
My quote from Sgt.Pepper quipped about the idle amount of retro attention, while adding to the joke that the words had applied originally to 1967 - or even to some earlier fictional date! - not 1968. '67 of course was the hippie revolt that had been derided by many of the more orthodox left-wing radicals who came after - and he showed he got it and added a line to the effect that "they're everywhere and they don't even need to argue a point, saying your name is quite enough". Irony? Absolutely, and it wouldn't have worked if we'd felt compelled to be so obvious every John Blow could understand it. Strausszek (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now the herd of miscomprehension has taken over this venerable word how shall we now refer to the well defined concept of irony that people use in the correct sense; literary critics for example? --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems very unencyclopedic to include content that's wrong just because it's commonly repeated. Isn't that generally called an urban myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.51.45 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not really an urban myth since those are claiming fact when they aren't. Ultimately, it's use of language is what defines it. If enough people use a word wrong, then it becomes legitimate. Languages constantly evolve. Many people think irregardless isn't a word, but linguists would say it is a word because people use it. Words aren't based on definitions. Definitions are there to describe how words are used and understood. Thus, if irony is used and understood by enough English speakers as to mean what the colloquial meaning then that's what the word means. Brend0 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that irony wasn't simply something unexpected or deceiving, but something so bizarre and contrary to the premises that it seems comical or satirical. Most of these examples don't seem ironic at all. Real irony is noticing that a lot of pro-lifers are also for the death penalty. Or a mechanic that gets stranded when his car breaks down. Or a celebrity's biggest fan meeting them in passing and not recognizing them until they're gone. The Sir Arthur Sullivan bit is a good example, while the AHD example isn't ironic at all, it's just sarcastic. The whole verbal irony section just seems like sarcasm. The Ronald Reagan, Gus Grissom, and Gift of the Magi examples are great though, that's true irony. Wizard of Oz... no. Thoughts? TheBaron87 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a distinction, perhaps "Classical Irony", meaning involving opposites and absurd coincidence, and "Irony" meaning the foolish way people think of it today. -DJLO (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that too, but I guess it would prove hard to find indisputable third-party sources (linguists?) to nail this slide in the meaning of irony, and then it would get too close to 'original research' for some. I mean, we don't want a Wiki war about what is irony, do we? Strausszek (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a big problem with irony is that its used enough by the general population to have a canstantly evolving defintion, while its also used as a classical term retaining its orgininal definition, thus you have one word with two contradicting definitions, the one that is commonly used, and the one that is cited when someone gets irritated that people aren't using the original. (A simlar situation to the word "litarlly") Jef desu (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that too: "literally" is sometimes taken to mean "figuratively speaking":. An amusing example is this: President Megawati is literally getting sawed at ankle height by unanimous foreign correspondents" - that was actually in an article on indonesian politics in a Swedish newspaper some years back. "getting sawed at ankle height" is an idiom for "being mercilessly trashed and criticized". You can imagine, how did they get all those stringers to come and hold the chainsaw together, aiming it at her feet? :D Strausszek (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put the following in the sarcasm talk page: The difference between these is not simple. In the Wiki world I read that irony can be sarcasm and that sarcasm uses irony. I have always followed the Usage and Abusage rule:

Irony consists in stating the contrary of what is meant. ... Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner.

So, I think Partridge and I agree with Lestrade. Other Wikis seems to disagree with this, which suggests to me that things are not as cut and dried as we may think. Myrvin (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article a little with this distinction in mind. Strangely - given the confusions above - the article seems fairly clear on it too. I think much of the muddle on this page is because some people are talking about verbal irony (Lestrade) and others about situational and dramatic irony (Strausszek). Again, the article differentates these clearly. However, there really are those who think saying the opposite of what you really mean is sarcasm (dkturner80 ) and others who think this is verbal irony (Lestrade and me).
There is certainly a loose way of speaking which would call all cutting remarks 'sarcastic', regardless of what device is used to upset or laugh at the opponent. I think 'ironic' has also been used in this way.
The intro has been doctored a great deal, and was out of sync with the rest of the article even before I edited it. It talks about the 'irony of sarcasm', which doesn't quite gell with the rest of the piece. The 'irony of simile' seems odd too.Myrvin (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any trouble with including both verbal and situational irony, and when I use irony myself it's often verbal, though often it's not as 'obtuse' as simply saying the opposite of what you think and hoping everyone will get it. I'm more into twisting one part of a claim into overdrive to bring out the dark underbelly or the contradiction of it, or contrasting outright sense (denotation) and associations (connotation) of a word or an expression: Tough, unflinching outdoor Sadism is the new black throws a strange and whimsical light both on sadism and on the expression "the new black" - almost anything can be dubbed "the new black" these days, but haven't s/m fetishists been known to wear black leather and rubber since time immemorial? But talking semantics here, I'm more concerned with not blurring irony and a "generally cheeky/silly situation" or when someone who is in over their heads in an argument, meets with solidly founded opposition and wants to cop out by saying, for instance, "Uh you're so smart, wait till I get my hand on the numbers" or "Are you finished with the peroration so we can go for lunch?" (the intention being to make the people around you feel that numbers, words, the actual argument don't matter anymore, all that matters is to sound cool). That kind of thing is frequent in everyday discuissions and in some kinds of journalism but it's not irony to me, though it's often dressed up as such: it's mnore a way to change the focus of what you're talking of, deflating it.
Talking informally and outside of what goes for the article, there is a difference between dry irony and wet irony (my own terms). Real irony, to me, is tight-lipped, it leaves something out that the listener/reader/partner must discover for themselves. Some people won't even realize that the passage or the phrase is ironic, but will read it at face value. Wet irony dramatizes what somebody is like - yourself or someone you're talking about - and communicates,in a histrionic, emotionally overcharged way: "Look how silly i am, but I'm so great anyway" or "Look how silly he is! - (reply from bystanders or expected from readers, meaning:) Yes, he's so dumb!" No cognitive spark involved. When that kind of irony moves towards being completely dependent on whether you sympathize with the person speaking for to work, and the references to the outside or shared world become very vague, it drifts towards something that isn't irony at all but more 'cheeky powertalk', fluff or whatever you'd call it. Strausszek (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Karl Kraus, a man who knew lots about irony, once wrote that "proverbs are invented only in an age when language still knows the art of observing silence". Proverbs often have an ironic twist, and I think that line says something of irony too: it's supposed to include something - a side of the thought, a comparison, an undertone - that isn't made completely obvious. If there's nothing hidden or understood beyond the wording, no contradiction or no interplay between different levels, then it's not really irony. Strausszek (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jcrabb has been here and on the sarcasm article, altering text and removing citations. It is galling for someone new to do this without entering the discussion first. To say that the Partridge quotation is 'just incorrect' shows a complete disegard of other people's views. A quotation from a distinguished source cannot be 'just incorrect'. What is going on here?

Weirdly, in Sarcasm, this contributor removed a quotation from Fowler, and left this same quotation by Partridge.Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Myrvin: I am not someone new - I wrote most of the verbal irony section years ago and it has remained fairly unchanged in all this time. I left the quote in the sarcasm section because I felt just deleting it from both places was unnecessary, but I do feel the sarcasm article needs substantial revision. Actually, the Fowler quote should stay in the sarcasm article, and the Partridge quote should go. I'm sorry that my revision seemed like a complete disregard of other people's views - but most edits happen without discussion first.
The quote incorrectly characterizes the issue, and in my opinion, disrupts the flow of the section. Lets look at the quote: "Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner." The quote is wrong. First of all, sarcasm is necessarily ironic - if there is no irony, it is just criticism. Do you have an example that suggests otherwise? And sarcasm is by definition indirect language (not direct as the quote says) - a person says something other than what they mean. As the section explains, sarcasm is one of many kinds of irony - the distinction has to do with the intentions of the speaker, and the in the case of sarcasm, the target of the utterance. Jcrabb (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Guys, part of the trouble here is that "what you mean", the 'real' - deliberately communicated - sense of a line, isn't always the word-.by-word lexical sense. Understood implications, tone of voice and references to something everyone is supposed to know are part of a statement too if it's seen as communication and not just grammar. But that doesn't mean every statement that uses those means and feels sharp must be ironic. Some sarcastic, light-hearted or frivolous statements are ironic, orthers are not.
Just because the sense is a bit embedded in a context or one is using tone, emphasis on a certain word to add a facet to it that isn't speled out openly, etc, it doesn't mean you'd get a two-level or inbuilt-contrast statement, which is what essntially makes irony. We all use embedding and context all the time: if not, we'd have to start every small round of conversation by running down conditions for what we're about to discuss and to make sure the people we're talking to take the same lines, which would make any conversation a scholastic affair.
Example: Sometime in the seventies, Elvis Presley was appointed honorary FBI agent to fight narcotics in showbiz, something he was very proud of. that's hugely ironic of course: agree? John Lennon saw the irony and he's said to have asked Elvis "Are you gonna begin by arresting yourself?" Irony, okay? But if Lennon had said in a snappy tone, "Are you going to start your job by arresting me?" - and presuming Elvis had already heard Lennon was doing a good deal of drugs at the time - it wouldn't have been an ironic statement. maybe a half-joke, but hardly intended as irony. Strausszek (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Also - the Partridge definition of irony is also insufficient. "Irony consists in stating the contrary of what is meant." By this definition, many non-ironic utterances would be included in the category of irony. Syntactic ambiguity can result in saying something contrary to one's meaning, as can uses of metaphor, deception, and puns. The key missing element in this definition is that the particular opposition between surface features of utterances and their corresponding implicatures is intentional. Jcrabb (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I was aiming to show another viewpoint. You may disagree (and so may these Psycholiguists), but Partridge is a well-known and extensive writer on the language. You shouldn't dismiss him outright. I am happy that this may be rather too cut and dried and needs more work, but saying that all sarcasm is irony is going too far as well. Fowler says "Sarcasm does not necessarily involve irony. & irony has often no touch of sarcasm". - You would keep this in sarcasm even though you think that "sarcasm is necessarily ironic". Britannica says "Non-literary irony is often called sarcasm" - 'often' not 'always', and irony is often sarcasm, not the other way round. Chambers dictionary has: "language expressing scorn or contempt, often but not necessarily ironical; a jibe; the quality of such language." Websters (if you prefer a US source) has: "Sarcasm: 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain. 2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm." - 'often' ironic not always.
When Hamlet says:""Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral bak'd meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." He is being sarcastic, and there is no irony. This is also true of "Thou whoreson zed, thou unnecessary letter" in Lear. I wish I could easily check the psycholinguistic sources you (I assume you) have quoted - you can check all mine.Myrvin (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well well. I found a Gibbs work (Irony in language and thought: a cognitive science reader ). He actually writes here: "Even though it is possible to make sarcastic remarks without being ironic, most sarcasm uses irony ...". And he cites Fowler. A quick scan suggests he does not say that sarcasm is always irony. He does suggest that people perceive irony as being sarcastic.
Would people be happier if I included Fowler and Partidge etc. to suggest that there is some confusion here, as I did in Sarcasm? Perhaps in a new section. Myrvin (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking closer at Partridge (the definition quote that was edited out from the "Verbal irony" section) vs Lee/Katz - I haven't had the time to look at the Sarcasm entry yet - well, Lee/Katz are probably right that sarcasm gets directed at particular people proportionately more often than irony, but that's also because irony can be used in a more veiled way. With sarcasm, defined as something without a pronounced collision in meaning or reference, it aims more directly so it's easier to decipher. Let's say we have a bustling, robust and a bit judgmental lady (A) who affects to ´be always busy and boasts that she "doesn't have the time to be ill or be a sob sister" (Q1). One of her friends (B), who is fed up with A's unasked-for sneers and bumps-in-the-back from above, remarks to her one day "I know you have never had the pleasure of falling ill, dear" (Q2). That's basically a paraphrase of what person A has been saying, even down to "pleasure" - she's been implying that people fall ill and sob to grab attention and sympathy instead of standing up. But the line could likely be tossed back at A in a way that makes it both sarcastic and ironically double, because it implies something like "you're a dumbass to think that" or "you have really not been asked to tell your friends off that they are lazy simulants". The way it's delivered makes the difference - and probably determines something in how A might respond, too.
Returning at historical/dramatic irony, the following are three connected moments that I definitely think qualify as ironic. Lenin, on the run from the interim government and its justice in the summer of 1917 (they had dug up some leads to his contacts with the German Foreign Office, which suggested that he was a German collaborator and a traitor to his country) actually hid as a guest of the Chief of Police of Helsinki (after a few weeks masked as a farmhand). Finland was still under Russian rule at the time but actual Russian control on everyday terms was minimal, so it was safe to stay in Helsinki as long as he didn't move openly on the town, and the cop chief who was a Finn knew that Lenin, if he reached power, would let Finland go its own way, so he had no reason to send word to St.Petersburg. A few months later, the Finns sent a deputation to the capital to make a bid for recognition of their sovereignty; that deputation bumped into the October Revolution and had to turn back. When they made a new attempt a few weeks later, it was Joseph Stalin who handled the matter. It was one of his first pieces of big business politically and of course he signed the recognition paper. Twenty years later he would find Finland an insolent enemy which he would be at war with for years. Spontaneously (out of how I and many others use "irony") I would say all three are ironic, even though none of them is very surprising if you consider closely the general circumstances in 1917. I suspect many Americans, at least many who are fifty or older or who have retained the usage you often find in those generations, would not feel they qualify as ironic. Strausszek (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree that irony and sarcasm are in union sometimes but by no means all the time (like you indicate Myrvin). And notice something: that line could be read as if I was saying Myrvin had been claiming irony and sarcasm are always unified - but that's not my point, and the reason you understand that, I hope, is because of context, and because I removed a comma after "sometimes" to make it clearer.
This one is almost exactly on the borderline between (non-ironic) sarcasm and irony, I'm grabbing it from one of the Martin Beck mysteries by Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö. A loonie cop on a rooftop has been shooting at cops for hours and an attempt to take him out by a helicoipter-borne assault has just failed; the man evaded the tear gas canisters, killed the elite cop who was being wired down to take him and then shot off a salvo on the chopper; it crashes in full view of thousands of people. An experienced street cop and a police bureaucrat are witnessing the disaster. Bureaucrat cop says, incredulously "He...he gunned down the helicopter."
The street cop, who doesn't like or respect the paper desk boss, retorts: "So you've reached that conclusion too?"
Sarcasm? Sure, but if there is irony in there, it has to be in the understated, unphrased contempt, or in something like "Did you need to tell me that, jerk?" - not in any of the wording itself (taken from the novel The Abominable Man, filmed as The Man on the Roof (1976), with those lines kept in the script; film and book highly recommnded). Strausszek (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I am beginning to understand why Psycholinguists have (to my mind) come to confuse irony and sarcasm. They are particularly interested in how people can understand what is really being meant when the opposite has actually been said. And also, being Psychologists (and I hold a Psychology degree myself) they are even more interested in how people are then hurt by, or find funny, what has been said. From my researches (by internet it is true), they are all happy that irony is saying the opposite of what is really meant. They also realised that some irony doesn't hurt, but sarcasm does. Since they are interested in the opposite meaning thing, they are also interested in sarcasm in the form of irony. At some stage, possibly with Lee & Katz, they came to think that sarcasm (the hurt) could only be expressed by irony. It was a short step then to think that sarcasm was only a special form of irony, maybe because they were not interested in other forms of sarcasm.

Gibbs (see above) does not go along with this. He looked it up in the OED and knew that sarcasm could be something other than irony. (And he quotes Fowler too). In the book I cited above, he uses the term 'sarcastic irony' to show that he is looking at sarcasm brought about by irony. But I think he lapses at times as well. Presumably, those that read Katz and did not look up the terms, have continued to confuse them. This got into Wikipedia, and now tons of sites quote the Lee & Katz stuff (as written here) word for word.

Other Psychologists are not confused. Martin in 'The psychology of humour', p13, is quite clear that irony is where 'the literal meaning is opposite to the intended'; and sarcasm is 'aggressive humor that pokes fun ...'. He has examples too. For irony he uses "What a nice day" when it's raining; and for sarcasm, he quotes Churchill who when told by a lady that he was drunk, said "Yes madam and you are ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning" - bitter sarcasm, but no irony.

This latest argument here started because I inserted Partridge's view on its own. I now intend a new part which argues all (or most) sides - with citations. I do not intend many changes to the Psycholinguists part, except if absolutely necessary. However, this argument, going back well before my intervention, is obviously important and should be addressed properly. Wish me luck. Myrvin (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a probable drift of focus in these issues, then affecting how sarcasm got defined. Linguists are not above simplifying things and sometimes an angle or a way of picking up certain issues becomes the usual thing without in-depth deliberation. Because the double meanings/"double audiences" side of irony is a key point of interest to linguists, it isn't strange that it has often come to define the whole category, while the questions "why does it work to use irony as an argument? When does it work and when does it fail, and how?" are much less in the eye of linguists and ignored by philosophers. Then sarcasm became subsumed into the field of irony as discussed by linguists - yeah, seems likely (I'm a linguist too, though without an advanced degree). Strausszek (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE MY NEW SECTION CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION - On irony and sarcasm Jcrabb (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irony/Archive_2&oldid=1143781320"