Talk:Self-referential humor: Difference between revisions

Comedy Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Meta-joke was merged into Self-referential humor with this edit on 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

To keep the example "Self-referential humor is further explained here" or not? I say, though it's a little too cute for an encyclopedia, what the hey, it's a good example. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestown James (talk • contribs) 26 March 2007

Unfortunately it's not necessarily such a good example since Wikipedia articles aren't guaranteed to remain in a hyperlinked form. Print it out on paper and the line becomes "Self-referential humor is further explained here", which is kind of meaningless. I've never liked links of the form "see here" or "click this" for this reason. Also, update the Wikimedia software to make it slightly more sophisticated in detecting self-links or auto-tidy the article to remove the underscore and it becomes "Self-referential humor is further explained here". Bryan Derksen 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the meaning would be compromised if it was printed out, but wikipediais not a paper encyclopedia (also, here) and does not intend to be. Anyway, consider that the two links just mentioned in this paragraph would not make sense if this page was printed. (Obviously, there are countless examples of hypertext that doesn't display the exact location of the link.) As for the software issue, that isn't currently the case, and probably won't be the case ever. Jamestown James March 27

In your edit summary you mentioned how the example is merely a endless loop, but I feel that it qualifies. It's self-referential and humorous. I don't think we're disputing the funniness of the joke: It is indeed funny (Are we disputing?). How about this for a compromise: We take the Noises Off reference in the opening paragraph down to the list of examples, and the first paragraph could use the self-referential humor gag. The second sentence could go to the effect of, "An example of self-referential humor might be as follows: To learn more about self-referential humor, click here." Or something to that effect. Jamestown James 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self referencial humour isn't a joke with a link to itself... That is a misdirection... not a reference. That's like one of those joke cards that says "to find the answer, turn over" on both sides... and you just keep turning it... that's not a self-referencing joke card... it's just an endless loop and a misdirection... There is no REFERENCE in the line provided. In the Simsons quote, the reference is to an aspect of the show that they have unreal hair and is mocking or critical of that. The Degrassi quote is a reference to the "issue of the week" aspect of the show. The wikilink has no reference... it's just... well, a lie... there is no further explaination - in fact, I think the wikilink is just a direct digital copy of those cards that you turn over... and I don't think those cards are referencing themselves. Just because the format is a website now doesn't make it any more referential. For humour to be referential, it must refer to some medium which has aspects that can be joked about - this almost always refers to some form of identifiable characteristic... books, tv, movies, magazines... if there was a joke at the expence of wikipedia based on some characteristic of wikipedia, that could qualify, but this was a generic link joke that I could put in my blog, or on any website... generally to be self-referential, the humour doesn't make sense if it's used on ANOTHER show/movie/etc. which doesn't share the characteristic of the original (the simpsons joke, for example, would only make sense on another cartoon with characters having unrealistic hair). TheHYPO 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One quibble that may make a difference: there are quotes. "To learn more about self-referential humor, click here." vs just To learn more about self-referential humor, click here. (inline). The former is itself a quoted joke; the latter is more purely recursive. On your last point, this would NOT actually be funny if posted somewhere else (your blog, a website, etc); it is funny *because* it is posted in this article. Of course if you have some funnier SRH to propose for the SRH article, please do. ;-) --Sai Emrys 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added it in the first place: keep, of course (or at this point, put it back). :-) Perhaps some other form of the same gag, but come on, an article on self-referential humor WITHOUT self-referential humor‽ For shame! (I am highly amused at the discussion though. :-)) --Sai Emrys 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said, the only thing that would make sense as self-referntial humour in a wiki article would be a joke that plays on some known quirk of wikipedia. Just having a link back to the same article isn't self-REFERENCING. It's simply self-linking or self-directing. Referencing means actually making some descriptive reference to itself. It would be like Shakespeare including a knowing joke about how annoying it is when people make up fake words, or someone on Lost making a comment about how annoying it is when TV shows are over dramatic and use crazy off-key strings to add tension. Those are references. The other issue is that self-referential humour is humour - as in jokes. Your example isn't a joke, it's a gag. TheHYPO 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've run into a policy that agrees with deleting the "gag":

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. And, you've made some points. Basically the problem is that the joke would fall apart if taken out of context, which is something to be avoided (see article). But, if one was to make a joke based on the idiosyncratic nature of wikipedia, the joke would still fall apart if read elsewhere (e.g. a blog or a mirror or something.) So, how about a reference to the nature of the article? Jamestown James 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That was the policy, thank you - note the "think about print". the "wikipedia is not paper" policy isn't intended to imply that wikipedia shouldn't be printable - wikipedia is not paper policy is merely saying that wikipedia has no physical limits and needn't be confined as paper encyclopedias are. In the meantime, the self-ref policy notes that wiki articles should be printable - "and certainly don't use terms such as "click here"". Frankly, I don't see why we need to try to add a self-reference joke about the article itself. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sitcom script. Wikipedia needn't be "clever". TheHYPO 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we agree on policy! Some headway! :-).

As for the Why Have A Self-Reference question, the examples provided (The Simpsons, Noises Off) are not universal. Using the nature of the article as a point of reference for the example of self-referential humor is universal, because one could assume that reader is reading the article.

If you feel we haven't settled this yet, I suggest we get a Third Opinion. Jamestown James 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is relevant here. First, it's clearly a stylistic guideline, i.e. don't tell people what you're going to tell them and where, just tell 'em. Second, the joke is not a self-reference to Wikipedia, but to the article itself. Third, an article about self-reference should I think be exempt from a general guideline against self-reference. IMHO a joke is justifiable in the grand tradition of hackish definitions and examples being self-referential or self-exemplifying. I certainly don't mind changing the form of it - e.g. changing 'click here' to something like 'see self-referntial humor' - but surely an article about SRH can contain some actual SRH and not just quoted other-context SRH? I don't think SRH referencing Wikipedia would be all that funny or appropriate here; but I'm fine with anything that plays upon the article itself in some way. --Sai Emrys 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This ignores the basic point that what you want to add is not self-referencial humour... as I said, a card that says "how do you keep an idiot busy - turn over for the answer" on both sides, is not a self-referencing joke... it's just a never-ending gag. And that's identical to what you have here. Self-referencing wikipedia humour would have to REFERENCE some aspect of wikipedia - for example (not that I in any way suggest using this): "This article is somewhat vague. If only there were a way for people who read this article to improve it..." —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

That's perfect! Lets do it. Jamestown James 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above "Self-referential humor is further explained here" is totally unacceptable because it's not an example of self-referential humor. --JayHenry 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Summary: no.

• Not an example of self-referential humour, because it is not funny.
• While wiki is not paper, links in this style shouldn't be done.
• There are other examples in the article.
• If something funny and self-referential can be found, include it. There is not enough humour on Wikipedia, and an easter egg or two like this can't hurt.

--User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I should suggest that someone add in a reference to http://xkcd.com/33/ (a short comic strip about self-referential humor). 204.152.235.217 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we linked and or mentioned every mention or example of the phrase self-referencial humour in media, this article would be bloated and annoying. TheHYPO 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no references! We need some... Maybe we can reference this article. Get it? --Phred Levi (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was directed here from the RAS syndrome page. First thing I wondered was, "Why are there no examples?" Read the talk page, checked the history. While I do agree that a lengthy "Examples" section will only be detrimental to the article, eliminating all examples is not the best option. Without an example, the (very short, as of right now) article is a bit vague. In my opinion, one and only one example should suffice. The question becomes, then, what example to use? Well, since the RAS syndrome page already defines the term as self-referencing humor, we can play it safe and have this page use it as an example. Whether it is or is not a good example was decided for us, since its own page claims it is (I know everything is always up for debate, but for the sake of simplicity, falling back on what's already been established is a safer move to make). 64.203.238.108 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting on an explanation as to why this hurts the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion on whether this should be included, but I think the humorous impact will be greater if the link is in a "Not to be confused with..." hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an unequivocal case of
    WP:VANDALISM: "There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page."5.151.0.114 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

So that's your defense? Accusing me of vandalism? You should have quoted the first line. You know, where it gives the actual definition of vandalism? editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. But I guess that would undermine your argument, so naturally, you didn't.

@Uanfala: I rather like that suggestion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late by three years, but similar thing done, also as stated in the edit summary, I am 4D4850, just editing from a private window and can't be bothered to login, and thus any and all punishments should be directed at User:4D4850, and if you have doubts, somebody can use checkuser on 4D4850. 4D4850 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC) edit alot: I forgot this was actually not in the private window. oops, but not too bad in the scheme of things. 4D4850 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for bad humour (or any humour really). Remember,

Okay: [1] [2]. If you're too lazy to tread, they show that exposure to humor has a beneficial effect on cognition, meaning a reader will be measurably better at understanding this article if they're made to laugh first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) That you find something funny is no guarantee anyone else will. 2) This isn't even itself an example of self-referentiall humour, so it fails as an illustration. Clearly, the link provides no information not found in the article itself, so it contravenes the entire purpose of a "see also" hat note. You seem to be getting confused about whether this is Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia. 5.151.0.114 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) That you don't find it funny doesn't guarantee that no-one else will. 2) Yes, it is. You seem to be confused about a lot of things, including our policies on

collaboration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm with 5.151.0.114 on this I'm afraid. I thought it was funny, but I've laughed out loud at quite a few bits of vandalism around here, and we don't let those stand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to repeat, WP:Hatnote clearly states:

"The five basic rules of hatnotes are:

1. Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links. Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur. Links to disambiguation pages should always use the form that includes "(disambiguation)", even when that is a redirect." (emphasis added)

You are therefore simply mistaken when you said in your edit summary "there is no policy prohibiting or even discouraging it".

5.151.0.114 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't noticed this discussion at the time I did this [3] but I will note that (a) the {main} template's documentation doesn't seem to have the "other articles" specification mentioned above for {see also}; (b) it has a selfref parameter for self-references, so that's just perfect. This talk of vandalism is absolutely preposterous;
  WP:VANDALISM is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", and there's no question of anyone here trying to do any of that. I sincerely believe that a self-referential link, especially in the examples section as it is now, beautifully illustrates the concept for the reader. The fact that it may also amuse the reader does not detract, and even enhances, the article's ability to carry out its completely serious function. See [4]. EEng 01:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm okay with this. The main article link is no worse than a see also link.

• The assertion that this is not self-referential humor is ludicrous: this is neither a difficult concept to understand nor one complex enough to allow any real nuance. Asserting that it's anything else is, frankly, stupid. And yes, I'm aware that it has been asserted before. It was a stupid assertion then, as well. We're all smart people here, so there's no excuse for making stupid assertions.
• The assertion that this is vandalism is completely ignorant of what vandalism is. Two editors have now provided the actual definition of vandalism. There is no evidence whatsoever that this obstructs or defeats the purpose of this page, nor that it was deliberately intended to.
• The assertion that it's not funny is not only completely spurious (it's fucking hilarious), but also completely irrelevant. There's no requirement anywhere on WP that examples need to be poignant or emotionally hard-hitting or anything of the sort.
• The repeated assertion that it's not encyclopedic completely misses the point, and explains why the person saying it can't see the humor. It's funny precisely because it's not encyclopedic.
• The assertion that it doesn't improve the article is also completely spurious, as demonstrated by my links to two peer-reviewed psychological studies, both demonstrating that humor improves cognition, with one of them even using a situation almost identical to this one and recording it producing one of the larger improvements in cognition. Humor in an article can literally help a reader better absorb and process the information contained therein. Additionally, it provides an actual example, as implied by Eeng, above. An example, I must note, which is a direct presentation of self-referential humor, instead of a description or link to it, as in the rest.
• The assertion that it's a violation of
  WP:WIKILAWYERING
  , but it ignores the large explanatory box at the top advising editors to treat the guideline with common sense, and allowing for occasional exceptions. As this isn't a proposed edit to a widely used template, or across a large swathe of articles, and indeed, is a single instance that has stood uncontested for months until now, I think that qualifies as "occasional". Feel free to try to argue with that: I'm always down for a good laugh, as you might imagine.
• WP:IAR is a policy. Not only that, it's one of the
  Tell me all about it. 13:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This discussion has gotten way too serious. EEng 16:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take my humor very seriously.

Tell me all about it. 16:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• You have simply asserted that it is a case of self-referential humor. It isn't, as explained in the previous discussion. Wikipedia links do not refer to anything, they simply direct the reader elsewhere (or are supposed to). A self-linking page is not a self-referencing page. A self-reference would be something of the form "This sentence contains five words". This seems to be the same sort of misunderstanding that leads people to claim coincidence as examples of irony (isn't is ironic that John Adams died on July 4?)
• Vandalism is determined by intention, but in your original edit you said it was not a serious contribution. Intentional or otherwise, it disrupts the project as it slows the reader down by distracting them with a superfluous link, and is irrelevant as it is a non-example of self-reference.
• You assert that it is irrelevant whether it is funny or not, but then argue that it should be included precisely because it is funny. You can't have it both ways.
• Does common sense recommend ignoring the usual guidelines in this case? It is common sense that articles should not pointlessly link to themselves. Your entire argument for the contrary is based solely on the basis of its humorous effect, but it is only subjectively funny, and objectively not a case of self-reference. And the fact it has "stood uncontested for months" is not a good argument; even if there had been an explicit consensus reached,
  consensus can be challenged and changed. 5.151.0.101 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, for fuck's sake! EEng 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have simply asserted that it is a case of self-referential humor. It isn't, as explained in the previous discussion. I have simply asserted it because it is self-evident. Hence why I keep calling the assertion that it's not stupid. Perhaps the convolutions of logic used to try to claim it's not are creative and complicated, but that doesn't change the fundamentally willful ignorance of ignoring the self-evident. And of course, there's no assertion on my part that the convolutions of logic used actually are creative or complicated, as the argument you give is predicated on the notion that a hyperlink is not a reference, and that's even more fundamentally ignorant. What exactly do you think a "reference" is? I wonder. It must not have anything to do with the philosophical usage of the term, nor the jargon usage of the term in computer science, nor even the common usage, as a link is a sort of reference in all three of those.

Vandalism is determined by intention, but in your original edit you said it was not a serious contribution. I said it wasn't serious; i.e. "it's funny". If you think "not serious" is equivalent to vandalism, then you don't have any business saying anything about vandalism.

You assert that it is irrelevant whether it is funny or not, but then argue that it should be included precisely because it is funny. You can't have it both ways. Yes I can. I didn't say it was irrelevant whether it was funny or not, I explicitly said your assertion that it's not funny is irrelevant.

Does common sense recommend ignoring the usual guidelines in this case? Yes. Consider how much time and energy you've wasted trying to prevent a little trafficked Wikipedia article from containing a joke simply because you don't like it. Common sense also recommends you

drop the stick

. Even if this ends up removed, you haven't improved the page in any measurable way, and you've hurt it in a measurable way (unless you think you can find better sourcing than I've done for claiming that laughter does not improve cognition: which I strongly encourage you to try, as I do love to laugh).

...but it is only subjectively funny, and objectively not a case of self-reference. There's no such thing as "objectively funny", and it is self-evidently an instance of self-reference. You keep asserting that it's not self-referential humor, and by doing so you're accomplishing nothing except making it also self-evident that your position is argued backwards from the conclusion, instead of forwards from the a mutual acceptance of reality and the self-evident. Either that, or you're incapable of recognizing that which is self-evident, but I doubt that, seeing as how you're capable of using a computer.

tl;dr: Oh, for fuck's sake!

Tell me all about it. 18:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are referring to the first link under #Examples, I would assume that a humorous link that references the article it appears on is a form of humour that is self-referential. That would then be an example of self-referential humour. As an example of self referential humour I would then assert that a section on examples of self-referential humour would be the ideal place for it. I wouldn’t recommend this being added to the #Examples of Martyrs, but in context here it serves its purpose.

Re: “But it’s vandalism” argument: The initial argument hinges upon “…adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page…”. This would then state that this fits into one of these stated examples. This is patently not irrelevant, obscene, nonsensical or blanking. This then leaves “…crude humour…” as the only potential category this fits into. Note that this specifically includes a level of crudity, and coming in context after the obscenities would then indicate that it refers to more juvenile or crass humour.

While crudity can be a subjective judgement, I would argue this is not crass or juvenile. The only definition of “crude” it could be stretched to fit would be “simplistic”, which this is intelligently crafted, as the context is ideal, and the tagging is clever.

In short, it fits in context, does not fit within the definition(s) of “vandalism” cited, adds to the article by being an example of self-refential humour, and as such it adds encyclopaedic merit.

There is no valid justification for its removal, and there is valid justification for its inclusion. PuppyOnTheRadio talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

Cute, but no. I like the joke myself, but it runs counter to Wikipedia. I have deleted. In particular, this is a violation of Wikipedia's suggestions for responsible humour. There are no indicators, the joke itself pretty much depends on surprise. It runs counter to our encyclopædic aims, and thus damages our credibility. Wikipedia is not a joke wiki, on something like TV Tropes this'd be fine, but we need to keep an informative style. - Andrewaskew (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fuck's sake! EEng 06:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only really funny thing here is how so many editors have gone to such great lengths to keep the joke in when it's not even that clever or inventive. The rationale for inclusion was that "humor improves cognition". No doubt true, but we're here to present information, not teach it. See

Wikipedia:NOT TEXTBOOK. Furthermore, there's no reason the listed examples won't have the same effect, and without telling them we expect them to laugh. Just present the reader with examples of self-referential jokes in an encyclopedic style and let them decide for themselves whether they're funny or not. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Personally, I find the lengths to which editors opposed to jokes in articles will go to to make their point, particularly about this one far funnier than the fact that, by your own admission, "so many editors" strongly disagree with your sense of humor. For example: responding to a 3 month old thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, "so many editors" was careless of me. I count no more than three in favor, and it's been removed more times than that since the last discussion wrapped. But sure, writing five sentences in contrast to the several paragraphs above is going to great lengths to make a point, just because the last comment was made three months ago, and never mind that the previous discussion was three years ago. Even if we discount the editors who instinctively removed and may not have been aware of that discussion or the prior consensus, that easily tips the consensus in favor of removal. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See? This is what I'm talking about. The snark and sarcasm in your efforts to attack the very concept of humor is downright hilarious. And the way you then transition directly into mental gymnastics to try and proclaim a consensus in a one-on-one discussion... My god, it's better than a showing of

Manos: Hands of Fate for the New England Sarcasm Society, and for much the same reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not anti-humor, but there's a time and a place, and this isn't it. And it's hardly a one-on-one discussion when it wasn't even me who started it. Why in your book does the OP's opinion automatically become invalid after 3 months? Do you have any response to any of the points raised? 109.175.155.100 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to all of your objections back in 2018, and you couldn't work up a consensus then, either. That you're back now, trying to invent a consensus doesn't change anything. Oh, and the insistence that an article about a form of humor is not the place for humor is so utterly ridiculous that there's no rational responsible possible other than pointing out how ridiculous it is.

If you want to know what the community consensus is, start an RfC and link to it over at

WP:3RRN if you insist upon trying to force your preferred version in article space. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

rational responsible possible has a kind of poetry to it. EEng 17:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only rational response possible,

to a claim from one so indocible,

Is to point out with haste,

the complete lack of taste,

And the fact that it's indecomposible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indocible – I'll have to remember that one. EEng 17:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find limericks are good for remembering things. I can recite almost all of those delivered by

Hitchens' razor is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The normal presumption would be that an encyclopaedic entry about humor would merely be describing humor, not engaging in humor itself. So no, it's not ridiculous to assert that this isn't the appropriate context for that kind of joke. It wasn't even me who revived the discussion, yet you accuse me of being "indocible". Please try to avoid venturing into

wP:PA

territory.

You made your argument, but multiple editors have now given reasons why they think it's invalid, which you've failed to respond to, other than what amounts to oh ffs, where's your sense of humor,

WP:WIARM. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, why are you threatening to report me to AIV? The appropriate venue for tendentious editing, if you could call it that, is ANI. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The limerick wasn't a personal attack, but a function of the relative scarcity of words that rhyme with "possible" as one could confirm with a google search every bit as quick as the one needed to look of the definition of "indocible". However, the fact that you read it that way despite it being an incredibly obvious joke makes for some compelling evidence that

WP:RESPONSIBLE

contraindicates it, so I don't see why any response other than EEng's was necessary, or even appropriate.

This is the last thing I'm going to type in response to you here, because you've literally ignored everything anyone who doesn't agree with you has said on this page for years, so I'm going to make sure I leave you with some solid advice.

Please read

WP:STICK. Have a nice day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You realize that adding "just kidding" doesn't make it OK to insult someone? And given that you don't have a great track record on civility, it was hardly an unreasonable assumption. How does a couple hours of intense discussion, followed by several years with no new edits to this section, then someone looking to re-open the discussion by coming at the issue from a new angle, amount to "literal years of unsubstantiated complaints"? Why are you mentioning defunct arguments from the previous discussion rather than the ones I just made? It seems like an evasive manoeuvre.

There you go again arguing for an implicit consensus based on longevity. Read

WP:AN3 before I'd even made any edits to the article is a declaration of a willingness on your part to go to war over this. That's really not a good look if you're hoping to enlist support from administrators. Rather than forcing your opinion into the article, why not try building a rational case and a proper consensus? 109.175.155.100 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"Joke Template" section title potentially misleading (and also unsourced)

The Wikipedia search, along with automate internal links for

Joke cycle

As a side-note, the section

Joke template is backed by only one source which is a dead link I couldn't find on the Wayback Machine, so I'm unable to find any standard name for this type of self-referential humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StereoFolic (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

NO TALK PAGES!

• • angrily affixes comment to talk page** Heckena (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress and worse

Sorry, EEng, am I reading this right? In this edit, you're reverting to enforce the inclusion of content sourced by: Reddit; nothing; "factinator.com"; Wordpress; Reddit; WordPress; Tumblr; factinator.com. I'm hoping you skim-read my edit and thought I was removing the self-referential joke again. If not, I think an RfC might be the best next move because I don't see how we can resolve this dispute otherwise. — Bilorv (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are way too many examples, many of them not very good, but how about if we wait until the current contretemps settles down before we start trimming. And the Phineas Gage joke stays. Not negotiable. EEng 20:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse every clause in this comment, especially the Phineas Gage one. It may be my favorite example; it really strikes deep, and I find it constantly running through my head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't not love its penetrating insights. EEng 01:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The self-referential footnote has nothing to do with this content, the removal of which is uncontroversial. If you want the Phineas Gage joke to stay then find a reliable source for it. I'm surprised that you seem to think this is an exercise in us picking out our favourite jokes—has that worked out well for you on other articles? You don't need me to point you to

WP:V. It looks like an RfC is the right next step. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for getting into the spirit of things with that singer about your reverted edit being "uncontroversial".

I would like to say that there are no claims of fact in that section, which means the requirements for sourcing are far less stringent than they would otherwise be. I would also point out that

WP:BLUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that it's self-referential is non-trivial. The Gage joke, for instance, plays on the fact that walks into a bar is being used to mean a different thing to what jokes normally use it to mean. What's self-referential about that? The fact that it references different jokes? File:Paradox.jpg is self-reference because it's apologising for its own existence, but if it subverted your expectations of what graffiti normally says by saying "ALL COPS ARE BRILLIANT, LOVE AND RESPECT THE POLICE" then that wouldn't be self-referential.

I'm not arguing that the joke isn't self-referential, just that it's a non-trivial argument that it is. And a non-trivial argument needs (all together now)... a reliable source.

But if you think that no source is needed then why would unreliable sources (Reddit and such) need to be cited? Wouldn't no source be better? — Bilorv (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, a "non-trivial" statement would be one that's not apparently true based on the context, so by definition, any example given here would be trivial. Also by definition, any self-referential joke is trivial. And congrats on figuring out the hook of the Phineas Gage joke, but you seemed to intentionally duck under the point that yes, a joke which refers to common joke structures is, by definition, both trivial and self-referential. I mean, it's a well known fact that the tropes of jokes are part of the context of jokes. In fact, it too, is self-evident, meaning it too, is a trivial statement.

Just because it's not immediately obvious to you doesn't change that fact. The fact that some people can't puzzle out that a joke which references joke tropes is self-referential is immaterial: it's trivial to state that " 'This sentence is a lie,' is self-contradictory", but I guarantee you that you could find someone to argue to point in a sample size of less than 100 people. Just as some people will insist that axiomatic statements aren't true, some people can't register that a self-referential joke is self-referential without serious self-reflection. That's not our problem, and if it's one you feel needs addressing, the Simple English Wikipedia would likely greatly appreciate your help.

And yeah, I'd have no problem with someone stripping the sources. By

WP:BLUE standards, it might be an improvement. Again, these are examples, not statements of fact. If you wanted to write one and add it to the list, the only criteria for excluding it that makes any sense with respect to improving this project is a discussion about the sheer number of examples. And I'm willing to have that discussion, because I think there might just be too many examples. If the worst sourced and unsourced examples are the ones you want to trim, I could see myself being okay with that. But not Phineas. That one must stay pinned to this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you mean by "axiom"? It doesn't align with how I understand it in maths, philosophy and logic. For instance, if you have a logic system in which the statement "This sentence is a lie" can be represented within the system by a

Gödel encoding, then it's inconsistent, and as such has no model. But an "axiom" is a thing you have to assume, so "insist that axiomatic statements aren't true" doesn't match how I understand it. For instance, I studied some intuitionistic logic in which we reject the (seemingly obvious) axiom "every statement is either true or false", the law of excluded middle. There's compelling impetus to do so in some scenarios. But no intuitionists would accept the axiom and then reject its consequences. The long and short of it is that some logicians would deny that "'This sentence is a lie' is self-contradictory" by virtue of it not being a well-constructed statement (a rejection of the premise). It's like asking, "is the sentence 'blue can under running' true, yes or no?" — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you mean by "axiom"? Axiom.

Since you spent the rest of your comment basically arguing around admitting that "this statement is a lie" is self-contradictory, I don't believe it merits any response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rest of my comment is a nuanced explanation of why the liar paradox is not definitively "a self-contradictory statement", and how some specialist fields would reject such a claim. — Bilorv (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and how some specialist fields would reject such a claim. So let me get this straight: I pointed out that there are people who would argue against a self-evident statement, and your response is to assert that I'm wrong, because there are people who would argue against a self-evident statement? lol Again, thank you for getting into the spirit of things, here. It's nice to see that me and EEng aren't the only one telling jokes on this page.

You may also consider providing a source the next time you claim that some "specialists" disagree with a logically inescapable statement.

Finally, let me offer you some advice: you may want to look up the definition of a paradox before the next time you argue something isn't self-contradictory in the same sentence in which you assert it's a paradox. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the vein of self-reference, it's good to see the faith you place in looking up a definition on Wikipedia, but your understanding of what I wrote is incorrect. — Bilorv (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a far more convincing argument if the first two sentences weren't supported by multiple reliable sources including one that explicitly refers to this situation, which is rather amusing. Presumably, the reason those sentences are sourced is due to the exact phenomenon I described; people who insist upon interpreting well-accepted logic in unconventional ways, usually to make themselves feel smart. I have to admit that I'm curious how well that works.

The remainder of your comment is blatant dishonesty that doesn't merit any response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no earthly idea what piece of information you're trying to point me to that you think will be news to someone with a background in formal logic (a subject which teaches us that we're stupid, not that we are smart). Kudos for citing the

ternary logic as the most elementary solution, since you didn't seem to like my Gödel's incompleteness-like argument. — Bilorv (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it's quite clear for some time now that you haven't been following me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? Look, let's start here: we all agree the pile should be cut down, perhaps radically so. Yes? EEng 22:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, yes. We agree on that. Although the hose sounds fun, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me with a good time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on jokes sourced to user-generated content

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Language and linguistics When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the content re-added in

user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article? — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option A: no, removed entirely.
• Option B: remain per
  WP:BLUE
  , but with the unreliable sources removed.
• Option C: remain with the sources given.

Comments

• Option A: it's non-trivial that these are self-referential jokes (the logician one particularly—what's the self-reference? That's just a joke about logic), and there's no reason they satisfy
  due weight if some nobody on the internet just made them up. Likely most of these are established jokes—I've heard at least three before—but you need a source to show that. You also need a source to show that the categories ("meta-bar jokes") are significant branches of self-referential humour, and that the jokes given full into those subcategories. Otherwise we can all make up our own jokes and there's no reason any of them are better or worse than any others. I'll go first:

  A Wikipedian types "Two men walk into a bar", and the bartender says "citation needed".^[12]

  Two men walk into a bar.^{[citation needed]}

  No doubt someone can construct something much funnier. — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A: Claiming any particular joke is self-referential humor independently of a reliable source is pretty clearly
  WP:OR sense tingle) self-referential jokes should at least have due weight per User:Bilory. Arathald (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment On my top 10 list of project timewasters is people who start RfCs out of the blue without consulting others already involved in the conversation. Other than the OP, there are two other editors actively discussing: one (me) who said there are way too many examples, many of them not very good, but how about if we wait until the current contretemps settles down before we start trimming -- in short, "yeah, it should be cut way down" -- and another (Mr. Pants) who agreed. So why the fuck do you feel an RfC is needed, particularly one that falsely makes it sound like there's someone advocating keeping the whole pile? EEng 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After two clear announcements of intention means "out of the blue", now? If you think that's bad, you'd hate to see my list. — Bilorv (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A. And I concur with EEng. Don't start RfCs about trivia when there's not even serious dispute that is long-running and not resolving itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If one were to take a read through the section preceding this one, it would become quite clear that this RfC is pointless, ridiculous, and a shining example of refusing to take "Yes" for an answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I've gone through and removed all the unsourced and user-generated jokes, as well as jokes sourced to blogs of non-notable people. This RfC is pointless unless Bilorv intends to revert me and do an about-face on their stance thus far.
  Tell me all about it. 14:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nice try, but you left in the WordPress nonsense about Phineas Gage, which is under the scope of the edit I made and hence this RfC. Remove that and we can end the RfC. Otherwise, its removal will be a corollary of Option A, if it achieves consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me all about it. 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]