Talk:Joke

This article used to be brilliant...

... with detailed examples of lots of different types of humour, but clearly the Wikinazis have been at it culling away all the best bits. Does anyone know of a backup site of the article, or a diff from when it was more detailed? Saint91 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Could this be it? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joke&diff=269513299&oldid=267158035 You get these from http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joke&action=history Njaohnt (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it

I fixed the table of contents. Is it good to take off "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2011)"? Njaohnt (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely rewritten!

In a single edit, Smithriedel has replaced the whole contents of this article with his own. The new article is decent and sourced, but so was the old one. I haven't gone through all the details, but the lede of the new version reads a bit more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. But that's not my main concern.

Replacing articles wholesale tends to violate WP:OWN. This drastic change was done without talk page discussion; other editors did not get a chance to participate. What was wrong with the old version? What is better with the new? How could the old be so poor to have nothing worth salvaging?

I'm tempted to revert, but I'll wait to see if anyone else has concerns. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

After weeks with no support, I've reverted all changes, per WP:OWN and WP:BRD. We need consensus to remove all user contributions before this rewrite. I suggest Smithriedel start an RfC for this so we can get multiple editors involved and form a consensus -- for, against, or (more likely) something in-between. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this otherwise I would have commented. Broadly agree with you. I'd urge Smithriedel to not despair, as his/her changes were not all bad (and very good in places) but they did have a few significant issues, chiefly due to it being written like an essay;

• Don't address the reader directly "you" and "us". This is not an discussion between reader and writer.
• Don't describe what the article is in the lead. The article is an entry in an encyclopedia, it doesn't need introduced any differently.
• Don't editorialise. The reader decides what is interesting and important, on the basis of what is described. The writer shouldn't be telling them.
• Everything should be written in a neutral tone. Don't voice opinions unless you can cite them to an excellent source, no matter how slight.
• The article is written in UK English. Don't change its regional style without reason.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am (and I suspect others, too) extremely ambivalent with respect to the two versions. Both have their strong sides. Looking at the history of edits of user:Smithriedel, I noticed he is an author of a few, but very thorough contributions. There are plenty of reasons why a wikipedian prefers to be a "Lone Ranger", and I don't think that WP:OWN is an issue here. I sincerely hope that Smithriedel will undertake the changing of the tone of their text. On the other hand I see nothing inherently wrong with Smithriedel's complete rewrite the article was begging for, and for a very long time.

Now, answering the valid questions of User:A D Monroe III

• What was wrong with the old version?
  • It is chaotic, begging for citation for years, full of lacunae, a collection of disconnected quotations from authorities (resembling trivia sections), poor connection to general theory of humor.
• What is better with the new?
  • Coherent narration, broader coverage, better footnoting, much more content, including recent developments.
• How could the old be so poor to have nothing worth salvaging?
  • Don't exaggerate: there is a significant overlap between the two contents. If something important is missing, I don't see troubles with transferring.

My conclusions:

• It terms of content the new version is vastly superior. And my firm POV is that content always trumps formalities of style. We have plenty of wikignomes who can fix this and that.
• Ignoring the issue of narrative style, it is much easier to implant lost old referenced content into the new one rather than vice versa.

Therefore I am in favor of the new version. I would gladly have undertaken the "merging" of the texts, but unfortunately English is not my first language, and in article like this one the writer must command a good prose. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SmithRiedel: I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. I will start an RfC once I have found out how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

rewrite of joke page needs evaluation, review

I rewrote the Joke article, it is a topic that I have worked on as a Folklorist. The first and main problem is that the original article had not correctly defined what a joke is; it does not include everything funny. That was done in the lede. I then, according to current research in linguistics, psychology, folkloristics, ethnography, etc., explained what a joke is. If there are problems in the style, I will be happy to work with editors to correct these. My goal is for accurate information, cleanly described. I think that my rewrite of the Joke article does this. Smithriedel (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)smithriedelSmithriedel (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: the new version written by Smithriedel is here. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was careful to incorporate all the relevant info from the old article into this one. See list of joke cycles. I also limited the topic, needed, to be only jokes, not performance comedy. That needs to be under its own heading. Smithriedel (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedelSmithriedel (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to my short list above. If these are addressed I'm fine with going with the new version. Good work. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback. I will make the style corrections as suggested by Escape Orbit and post the new version. I am traveling this week, so it may take a few days. Smithriedel (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)smithriedelSmithriedel (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Frame analysis

The frame analysis article link doesn't seem appropriate. — MaxEnt 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

There should be a section about jokes on the internet, and how many are purely an internet phenomenon. Here's a good source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C2C4:5B00:B51A:4510:37C2:F62B (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Pre-classical jokes" come from a non-credible ghost study

The source of the 1900 BC Sumerian and 1600 BC Egyptian jokes is very shaky. Nearly all of the claims made in that paragraph are not even tangentially mentioned in the original source, and even if it was the article is not credible whatsoever. It's a 2008 Reuters article that references a now-deleted article written for online comedy channel DaveTV. The article was written by Paul McDonald, a professor of creative writing at the University of Wolverhampton with minimal research experience and no experience in archaeology or history. There is simply no credible evidence to say that the Sumerian is the "oldest identified joke" without at least a preamble of "It is commonly believed" or "It is suggested by Dr Paul McDonald." Furthermore, I tried and failed to find any dating of the Sumerian proverb in particular.

This being said I've identified sources for the jokes from their original sources or academic compilations.

Sumerian Proverb: A compilation of sumerian proverbs that includes the one referenced in the article

Egyptian aside: From the third story of the Westcar Papyrus

Conkaeso (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bangla Jokes

Bangla Jokes refer to the jokes told by the Bengali or Bangla speaking people living in Bangladesh, India (West Bengal, Tripura, and Asam provinces), and even in UK, USA, and the Middle East.

The Bengalis love to tell and listen to jokes whenever they are in light mood. It is their age old tradition. Jesters like Gopal Bhar, Mullah Nasiruddin Hozza, and Birbal are very popular among the Bengalis.

There are mainly two types of Bangla Jokes: Koutuk (takes several minutes to tell) and Chutki (quick joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahelala (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mahelala: That link does not confirm to our reliable source or external links guideline and has no place in the article. If you can find a reliable source discussing Bangla joke, then content about it could probably be included in the article, but the blog does not belong. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Greek puns

• παρτιζάνοι ➡ παρτουζάνοι — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.152.47 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019

CURRENT: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The author of the collection is obscure

PROPOSED: The earliest extant joke book is the Philogelos (Greek for The Laughter-Lover), a collection of 265 jokes written in crude ancient Greek dating to the fourth or fifth century AD.[4][5] The earliest-known Chinese joke book, Forest of Laughs (Xiaolin), ascribed to Handan Chun, dates to the 3rd century AD and is partially extant in the anthology Taiping guangji.[6] The author of Philogelos is obscure

[6] Christopher Rea, The Age of Irreverence: A New History of Laughter in China (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015), p. 21. 72.165.143.34 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I haven't implemented this request for now because in its current form it would break the paragraph which has information regarding Philogelos. It would seem weird to insert a single sentence about Forest of Laughs in a paragraph discussing Philogelos. Other than that I did verify the source you provided was reliable and did have the information about Forest of Laughs that your wanting to insert into the article. I would recommend re-reading the paragraph about Philogelos and re-submitting the request adding the information about Forest of Laughs after the that one paragraph about Philogelos with a little bit more information about Forest of Laughs.

If you would like another editor to re-review this request please change |answered= from "yes" to "no". Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2 meanings?

Hello, I am a little puzzled about the meaning of ‘joke’. It seems that in Dutch, we have two terms which could both translated to ‘joke’:

• A ‘mop’ is verbal and is usually a short story or riddle ending in a punchline (which can be a single word)
• A ‘grap’ can be almost anything meant to be funny: a ‘mop’, but also wordplay and puns, (‘woordgrappen’), nonverbal humour (pranks and funny movements), teasing, hoaxes, ironic remarks and spontaneous wit (about a situation occurring or about a person).

The present article and SmithRiedel’s comments above suggest that ‘joke’ has approximately the same, narrow meaning as ‘mop’. However the Dutch word ‘grap’ would also often be translated with ‘joke’. Until I read this article, I had the impression that the English word could have the broader meaning as well. Note that the interwiki link at the moment leads to nl:Grap instead of nl:Mop (taal).

It could be possible that the article describes the term ‘joke’ as defined by folklorists and other scholars, while it is used in a broader meaning as well in everyday language. If that is the case, the difference between jargon and everyday language should be mentioned somewhere in my opinion..

It could also be the case that English does simply just not have a single word for the broader meaning I described. Or it may have another word for it that I am not aware of.

Can somebody enlighten me? Bever (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree! This article seems to be about "mop"s, without really mentioning the fact that 'joke' means both grap and mop (I doubt Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton in the introductory photo are laughing at a mop, most probably something situational that someone said that was a funny quip). I'm bilingual, and Greek has this grap/mop distinction, and I've always looked for how to express it in English. The closest thing that I've settled on is "street joke" to refer to specifically the notion of a mop, but I don't believe that this is very standard language.

If it is the case that 'joke' means something specific to folkorists and scholars, then I agree that the introduction to this article should address this. As it stands, my native speaker friend was reading over my shoulder and said "wait what? the article just seems to be about street jokes". The introduction seems to imply that this article is about all forms of verbal humor (eg by saying that other forms of humor are practical jokes and slapstick), when it is mostly about the restricted notion of mop, and this should probably change. Toiziz (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

joke

a joke sometimes doesn't end in a punchline, for example, an image of corn & someone says "if the sun was hotter, it would be popcorn" or there are jokes that most people don't get, such as "I did a roof eating today" (this is not meant to be info for the article, as it is a comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBoy32904 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Does a Joke need to be defined by words?

Multiple Jokes are defined in which there are no words, as an example a silent gag is often considered a Joke however has no words. Other types of non-verbal Jokes also exist. I think the best solution is to hit the books and look for scholarly definition, the Dictionary agrees with the current interpretation whilst other scholarly citations state a Joke does not need to be in spoken form. Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The OED says that a joke is something that you say or do to make someone laugh. Denisarona (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Denisarona Indeed many dictionary definitions define Jokes as purely verbal or text and I think that for the definition it is completely correct. I do however believe the best solution would be would to add a "Definition" section in which we put different view on the definition the section could even be split into a sub article, so I agree. If we take other examples like the era of silent films, in which the main form of acting was often physical, and lacked audio and text are usually considered jokes. Indeed they have all the formatting of the jokes, a setup, a buildup, a negation in which the audience expected result is negated, and an ultimate punchline, using all physical elements. Other types of humor including slap stick often lack any verbal communication. However the definition is defined by words, so I think the section reads perfectly fine and I agree with you. There is debate as to the definition and as outlined multiple theories exist on the exact definition so the best solution would be to add a "Definition" detailing different perspectives on Jokes. Des Vallee (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)