Jump to content

Talk:Self-referential humor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Self-Referential Humor in the Self-Referential Humor Article Debate

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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]

Added example

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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]

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, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The onus is on you to demonstrate how this (misplaced) hatnote helps the project in any way as opposed to being an instance of juvenile humour. 5.151.0.114 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 personal commentary, edit warring, vandalism and 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]

"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:HATNOTE is not only classic 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 Five Pillars of Wikipedia. This addition improves the article as outlined above; that's all there is to it, really. There is no argument that can be put forth to overcome the fact that some content improves the article. None, whatsoever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 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! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 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

[edit]

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 WT:WikiProject Comedy. But if you're just going to keep insisting that you already have a consensus, I'm just going to ignore you here, and use WP:AIV and 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 Christopher Hitchens without error, even as I struggle to remember what the exact wording of 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, I like it. I might try and add a couple more. If an editor were to add a joke of their own invention to the examples list, it would be removed as a violation of WP:Original research, wP:MADEUP and WP:Verifiable. Why is this an exception? And you're right that "occasional exceptions" apply, but that gives you some wiggle room, not an open playing field. In the case of hatnotes, it doesn't provide the pretext to use a hatnote for a completely contrary purpose to the normal one. "Ignore all rules" is also not a get-out-of-argument-free card, if you read 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 you've got no business editing articles about humor. Note, that's not a personal attack either, but a completely rational bit of advice about where you could best contribute to this project based upon literal years of unsubstantiated complaints from you about this issue. I mean, your arguments above speak for themselves: accusing me of vandalism multiple times, despite multiple people correcting you on it, claiming that because you don't find something funny that it's therefore not a joke, claiming that because someone else removed this years ago that you have consensus to remove it now (despite it remaining in the article for years), and now you're just straight lying about me not responding to people. The only person I didn't respond to was Ritchie, and that's because his argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No-one else but he and you have argued with me about this. I see one other editor started this subsection months ago (when I wasn't even editing this project), but they started it by making blatantly false statements about this joke to argue 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:BLUDGEON and 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:UNCHALLENGED. And during those years it was challenged as it was removed multiple times by different editors, and each time restored by the same editor. It takes two to have a war, so you immediately threatening to report me to 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]

Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress and worse

[edit]

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]
Singer about reverted edit
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:IAR is one of the core pillars of this project, specifically intended to address situations where improving an article (by, for instance, having multiple examples of various sorts of self-referential humor in our article about self-referential humor) would nominally run up against another policy goal. I would further ask just what aspect of a joke do you expect you'll need to verify by sourcing it back to an impeccable source? The fact that it's a joke? Or that it's actually self-referential? See 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 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though, it helped me with many an exam. If you're asking where you can learn more about possible resolutions to the liar paradox, in the vein of the self-reference you're on the right website. I'd start with 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]
EEng turning the hose on two editors

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]
I don't think you and I are talking about the same kind of hose.

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

[edit]

Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to 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

[edit]
  • 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 to me. The ideal would be to cite a joke from a reliable source that refers to it as self-referential. Such sources must exist somewhere. In absence of that, obviously (though that word still makes my 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]
    @Arathald: when you supported option A, did you mean to support removal of the following source? We have some confusion here about whether your comment is meant to refer to all of the content in the edit this RfC points to. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is the blog of noted filmmaker, actor and host Nicole Stamp, not some random blog. See WP:SELFPUB for the rationale for using it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 27 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]
  • 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]
    @SMcCandlish: when you supported option A, did you mean to support removal of the following source? We have some confusion here about whether your comment is meant to refer to all of the content in the edit this RfC points to. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is the blog of noted filmmaker, actor and host Nicole Stamp, not some random blog. See WP:SELFPUB for the rationale for using it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:51, 1 June 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 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]
Nicole Stamp is notable entertainer. See WP:SPS. It would really be more helpful for you to actually check the sources than to simply assert things based on the URLs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source in full and checked who claimed to operate the blog before commenting. But you don't expect me to argue against a point you haven't made yet, do you? What I failed to find when I checked the source was evidence that Stamp maintains the blog, rather than simply a claim. The fact that the blog says "Aboot" rather than "About" (a joke about being Canadian) is hardly proof. And we obviously need to know that it's Stamp for the SPS claim to hold water (WP:ABOUTSELF spells this out clearly at point #4, but for SPS I'm afraid we'll have to use our common sense to understand why somebody impersonating someone else won't fly).
To spell it out, the reason that it's not self-evidently Stamp who runs the blog is that this is the internet and I see people impersonating others all the time. In fact, the most recent time was this morning, when this edit inserted a fake news source based on a racist who impersonated Sasha Johnson to discredit her. People impersonate others, sometimes for an astonishingly long time, for many reasons or sometimes (seemingly) for none.
The burden of proof is on you to show that this blog is verifiably Stamp in some way—at minimum, that would look like a Tweet from a verified account owned by Johnson which claims ownership over the blog. If you can do this then I'll withdraw my objection (and won't even haggle over the second objection I had, that there's no claim in the source that the joke is self-referential), and you can pithily dunk on me to your heart's content because you'll have achieved a task I failed to do when I attempted to find such a claim to satisfy SPS 90 minutes ago. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(And I've just realised how apt it is that this content's suitability or lack thereof comes down to the matter of a self-reference e.g. in the form of a Tweet which links your own blog.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long did you spend typing that big ole hunk of text? 2, 3 minutes? Did it ever occur to you to browse the dozens of unique images of Stamp available on that site and use tineye to confirm that's where they were originally posted? Took me all of about 45 seconds, almost certainly less time than you spent typing.
In any case, I just asked her on Twitter. If she sees my tweet, you might well get your explicit confirmation, not that it's really necessary. That "imposter" theory is really bizarre. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pray for a tweet, because you can't be serious about the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your incredulity is not a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed entirely per Arathald - Idealigic (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arathald did not provide a reason to remove a joke sourced to a noted entertainer's blog. Bilorv has repeatedly refused to acknowledge this. Can you provide a rationale for ignoring our normal guidelines at WP:SELFPUB? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure discussion

[edit]
  • I was requested to clarify on my talk page. The RfC closure statement said, "There's consensus to remove the disputed material." MPants was the only editor who thought that that some of the material could be kept without finding a better source for it. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, That is not true. EEng explicitly objected to the removal of this example, above, and only one editor other than Bilorv ever endorsed removing this one. They did so without providing a rationalization, only referring to another editor who never addressed this, which is something that anyone with experience closing RfCs should know to disregard.
    The repeated false claim that this is unsourced, combined with the false implication that the removal of most of these were contested (it was I who removed most of them after EEng reverted Bilorv's initial near-blanking of the page and this RfC was not started until after both EEng and I had explicitly agreed to removing most of the examples), and Bilorv's refusal to engage in any discussion of the reliability of this source beyond the demonstrably false assertion that the blog is run by an imposter renders this entire RfC entirely worthless.
    I'm a little skeptical of this early close, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where EEng objects to the removal of this content. Regardless of the reliability of the source, does it state that the Gage joke is self-referential humor? (t · c) buidhe 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't look very hard, then. Also, it's WP:SKYBLUE that it's referencing a common joke template (try to find me a native english speaker who's never heard a "X walks into a bar.." joke, I dare ya).
    I gotta be honest, the more you repeat the same stuff I've explicitly refuted already, the more suspicious this early close looks to me. Tell me, why didn't your close address the the comments by three editors about the improper opening of this RfC? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SKYBLUE is an essay, whereas WP:NOR is policy. Whether it's a good decision to open an RfC is usually irrelevant to determining consensus in a close unless it's WP:GAMING or WP:FORUMSHOPPING, neither of which apply in this case. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, Essays exist for a reason. Your argument here would ignore all essays and guidelines, as they are all about how to interpret policy. We don't need the source to describe the joke, we need the source to attest the joke, because the nature of the joke is self-evident.
    And if you want to play that game anyways, WP:IAR is a core policy, and I contend without reservation that this example improves this article.
    And WP:GAMING is exactly what's happening here. Bilorv made an edit which was reverted, and was then told that a compromise would be amenable to both editors who opposed his edit. He then opened a WP:DISHONEST RfC question, and attempted to take the answer he got from that question (which was meaningless on its own, as the unsourced and user-sourced material had already been removed from the article, by me) and apply it to a completely different question, and is currently edit warring over that, while telling me directly below this comment that I'm "not permitted" to question his dishonesty in this matter. To say that WP:GAMING does not apply here is shockingly ignorant: this is pretty much the definition of gaming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants at work: as you are involved, you are not permitted to assess the consensus (or lack thereof) established by this RfC. You cannot overrule its result by edit warring. I'll take myself up on my own offer to tell you what you can do here: you can file a formal appeal to overturn the result at AN (see Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Addressing objections). If you do not and you also choose not to self-revert your latest edit then I will raise the matter of your conduct at ANI and we can establish whether or not you are permitted to forcibly prevent the implementation of a formally-closed RfC via edit warring (no prizes for guessing correctly). — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocrisy of this comment is mind-blowing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the matter at ANI, here. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANI? REALLY??? This an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem"? I've been traveling, so unable to really participate, but what was the hurry to close in the first place? As more than one editor (including me) has pointed out, the RfC was ill-framed in the first place, and that ought be have been taken into account in the close (including the decision on when to close). Gotta run, train to catch. EEng 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, I didn't see the request to clarify my comment in the RFC until now. Since the RFC is closed, I'll comment here. My position is not about the inclusion or exclusion of certain jokes, but rather specifically about whether Wikipedia should refer to any given joke as self-referential. If a source doesn't call the joke self-referential, my opinion is that such a source is irrelevant to this article, *regardless of whether the source itself is reliable*. I do understand that some editors consider the assessment of a joke as self-referential or not to fall under WP:Blue, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, in part due to this sentence in the article: "Truly self-referential jokes are quite rare, as they must refer to themselves rather than to larger classes of previous jokes." This makes it clear to me that the boundary that defines a joke as self-referential or not is *not* clear and obvious, since the article simultaneously treats self-referential humor more expansively while saying that "truly self-referential" jokes are much narrower. Is all meta-humor self-referential, even if a meta-joke doesn't refer to itself? Answering that question should be left up to reliable sources, not to editors. All that said, if a self-published source by a notable comedian calls a certain joke self-referential, I have no issue with including that in this article. As it stands, the source in question makes no mention of whether the joke is self-referential or not and thus my opinion is that its inclusion in this article makes an unsupported implicit assertion that this meta-joke is also self-referential (despite it not actually containing a reference to itself), and thus constitutes WP:OR and should not be included in this article without additional sourcing for the fact that the joke is self-referential. Arathald (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UGC v. SPS

[edit]

It looks like the key point of contention is that the RFC specified user-generated content and there's a claim that Stamp's blog is WP:SPS rather than WP:UGC, but what I don't see is how Nicole Stamp can be considered an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (which justifies the use of SPS). What am I overlooking? Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, She's a playwriter, director, host and actress. Short of having a stand-up routine, it doesn't get more qualified to speak on jokes than that, and the suggestion that one must have a notable stand-up routine to be a source for jokes is pretty flimsy.
Also, see her CV: 2 years improvising with the Second City Canadian National Touring Company. Also wrote, directed, and performed a solo comedy show that toured in Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh, and England. So yeah, she actually has a stand-up routine. And it's pretty good, apparently. Unless there's a PhD in comedy out there, she's about as good as it gets. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, MPants at work; I've never heard of her and was just going by her article, which makes no mention of comedy. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, No problem. I hadn't heard of her before this came up, either.
For the record, your question was a good one. It's the sort of actual discussion that's been missing from this discussion for a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any difference then between citing a joke told on Stamper's blog and citing jokes told in Bailey's stand-up on DVD or Hedberg's routine on CD or a comedian's joke quoted in his obituary. Or The Oatmeal ref, for that matter.
OTOH, is identifying a joke as an example of a specific type of humor WP:OR or is it WP:BLUE? This is the point where I realize that I don't have the stomach for a battle over that question and bow out of the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, I agree. I'm generally okay with requiring sourcing for a joke. I don't agree it's necessary, but it doesn't bother me one bit. But the sourcing cannot possibly need to be as airtight as Bilorv has insisted (that the source not only be an expert, it must be nigh-unimpeachable and it must explicitly endorse the use we intend to make of it), because that's literally on par with WP:BLP-level requirements, and we all acknowledge that those are the most stringent standards for sourcing.
I also find the notion that any of the jokes here (including most that I removed) aren't self-evident as to what sort of joke they were pretty ridiculous. I've never heard nor even heard of a joke that wasn't immediately obvious what kind of joke it was. And the notion that a joke could consist entirely of "Phineas Gage walked into a bar," without it being self-evidently a reference to the very class of jokes in which it resides is laughably naive.
Imagine telling the jokes to someone to whom it was not self-evident.

"Phineas Gage walked into a bar."

"Which Phineas Gage? I'm sure multiple people throughout history have had that name."

"The only one we've both heard of."

"Okay. What's the joke?"

"Phineas Gage walked into a bar."

"What's funny about that?"

"He walked into a bar, get it? Have you ever heard "a guy walks into a bar" jokes?"

"Yes, I've heard those jokes before."

"Then why don't you recognize the joke?"

"I need you to explain it to me."

"Then I'm not telling you a joke, I'm giving you the explanation of a joke."

And that's the rub. If the core of the joke (the thing we use to decide what kind of joke it is) is not self-evident, then it's not a joke. It's, at best, the explanation of a joke, at worst, a confusing statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopper Multiple IPs removing humorous self-reference

[edit]

We've got an IP-hopping anon repeatedly removing the article's own longstanding self-reference [5], apparently because he or she thinks articles are required to be devoid of humor. They aren't. Thoughts? EEng 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out that this link violates multiple guidelines, both here and in edit summaries, and the response of the inclusionists has mostly been to ignore it. But wholly apart from that, I'd like to argue again that this isn't actually self-referential. There does seem to be a genuine confusion here as to what actually constitutes self-referential humor, such as when I removed the White quote and MPants restored it with the simple edit summary "more trolling". Um, no. The cited source doesn't identify it as humorous or self-referential. Even if it were intended humorously, it's just a comment on humor in general. To count as true self-referential humor, it has to actually derive its humor from being self-referential; it's not enough for it to just happen to be both. If it somehow applies to itself by virtue of being about humor generally, then it does so indirectly, incidentally and certainly not in a way that is actually the source of the humor.
Similarly with the "three logicians walk into a bar" joke. The general template is "people of a specified demographic walk into a bar and behave in an exaggeratedly stereotypical manner". In this case it happens to be logicians. It's obviously more intellectual than most bar jokes, but how does that make it meta or self-referential?
The argument that the link constitutes self-referential humor seems to confuse the technical sense of linking to a webpage and the semantic sense of designating. They are substantively very different, even if they are both called "refer(encing)". Self-referential jokes need to actually describe, designate or apply to themselves. The page itself defines it as humor that "is self-referential in some way, intentionally alluding to the very person who is expressing the humor in a comedic fashion, or to some specific aspect of that same comedic expression". A prototypical example might be "eschew obfuscation", which refers to its own lack of clarity. However, a mere self-link is completely contentless, so which specific aspect of itself is it supposed to be referring to? It just goes round in circles forever and never actually ends up "referring" to anything. I thought the discussion from 2007 actually explained this quite well, but MPants just ignored all this in favor of asserting that the suggestion it's not self-referential is "ludicrous".
I also agree with the point made by User:Crowsus that given that this is so outside the norm, a likely reaction of the reader is to assume the link is just the remnant of a merge, which indeed seems to be the case with the meta-humor link. There's nothing to indicate otherwise, so it is indeed a violation of WP:RESPONSIBLE. You need to do better than just assert that your opponents' statements about the link are "blatantly false" and ignore them. 82.132.185.124 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR, because you seem to be talking about all kinds of stuff unrelated to the edit I linked. Please address that edit, and note that WP:RESPONSIBLE can't be "violated" because it's merely someone's essay, not guideline. EEng 18:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"IP-hopping anon" I don't deliberately change IP address to avoid scrutiny, it just happens automatically everytime I re-connect. apparently because he or she thinks articles are required to be devoid of humor What are you basing that on? I've given plenty of reasons which have nothing to do with the simple fact that it's humorous. WP:RESPONSIBLE can't be "violated" because it's merely someone's essay, not guideline See WP:ONLYESSAY. 82.132.185.124 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay.
  • It just goes round in circles forever and never actually ends up "referring" to anything – It goes round in circles referring to itself. This is an article about humor, not a philosophy seminar. The distinction between the technical sense of linking to a webpage and the semantic sense of designating doesn't matter.
  • Maybe you don't think it's amusing but others do, including me, and I got an A in "Wit & Humor" so I'm an authority on the subject. You don't have to laugh if you don't want to.
You're at WP:3RR already, so why don't you see if you can get consensus for removal before you get yourself in trouble? EEng 23:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay I'm assuming that's not a serious response. Do you or do you not endorse the principle of the essay that humor should be clearly indicated as such, and if there's a reasonable chance it might be misinterpreted it should just not be included at all?
  • You were asked to explain how it actually refers to itself and your answer is that it does...because it refers to itself? The distinction between the technical sense of linking to a webpage and the semantic sense of designating doesn't matter It does if it makes the difference between it actually qualifying as self-referential humor or not, since the rationale for inclusion was that it "adds to the article by being an example of self-refential [sic] humour". The difference might be subtle, but it's important. If the link doesn't actually refer to itself in the appropriate sense, that pretext evaporates.
  • why don't you see if you can get consensus for removal Given that the link literally adds nothing to the article, no content, no information, and is a clear violation of multiple guidelines, the onus is definitely on the inclusionists to gather consensus. Mere longevity does not a consensus make. Especially when pretty much the only reason for that longevity is the tendency of the inclusionists to react like toddlers when you try and take their toys away every time someone removes it. Such as reverting edits that specifically cite policy with edit summaries like "whatever", "yawn", or "Stop edit warring".
82.132.186.200 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article that refers to itself refers itself; it's that simple No, I pointed out that the article itself specifies that the expression refer to some specific aspect of itself. Unless you can explain what specific aspect of itself the link is descriptively referring to, then the article doesn't count as an instance of self-referential humor on its own terms. You should also be cautious about describing things as "obvious". If I might quote Raymond Smullyan:

When I was a graduate student at Princeton, there was circulating the following explanation of the meaning of the word "obvious" when used by different members of the mathematics department. I shall not use names, but letters. When Professor A. says something is obvious, it means that if you go home and think about it for a couple of weeks, you will realize it is true. When Professor L. says something is obvious, it means that if you go home and think about it for the rest of your life, the day might come when you will see it. When Professor C. says something is obvious, it means that the class has already known it for the last two weeks. When Professor F. says something is obvious, it means that it is probably false.

  • It adds humor, which is well known to aid learning Just as with the distinction between differing senses of "reference", you fail to appreciate the difference between an encylopaedic reference work and a pedagogical teaching aid. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (item 6). These are points I already raised, but of course MPants took his usual course of counterattacking, accusing his interlocutors of being "indocible" when the only response he can render to having it pointed out to him multiple times how this contravenes established policy is to ignore it. Remember WP:IAR only provides for forgoing policy in cases where following it would compromise Wikipedia's integrity as an encylopedia.
82.132.184.8 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjectivity can be objective only in some rational scheme of perception, and given that perception implying imminence is irrational, judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena can exist in any rational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological, contraindiction only as an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself. Thus our necessary ignorance of the conditions means a disjunctive judgement contradicts fettuccine on (as you put it so well) its own terms.
  • Although articles shouldn't be in the style of textbooks, it's still intended that our readers absorb knowledge from them i.e. learn.
EEng 18:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given by WP:NOTTEXTBOOK of things that are discouraged like "leading questions and systematic problem solutions" are exactly that, examples. The general point is that an encyclopedia is meant to be a compendium of knowledge where facts are presented in the most simple and direct style. A supposed example of the subject matter baked into the format itself that relies on surprise and misdirection is a contravention of that.

I'd say that for any policy-defying edit, explicit consensus is required, as policy already represents general consensus. There is none. But actually, as I understand it, local consensus and IAR are actually about edits that violate the letter of one or two guidelines, but still obey the spirit. Those are the "occasional exceptions" referred to at the top of every project page. This does not. It is diametrically opposed to the spirit of MOS:CIRCULAR, WP:ASTONISH, WP:R#ASTONISH, WP:HATNOTE, and WP:SELFRED. If an edit can so flagrantly violate multiple policies and still be acceptable, it can only be because those policies are themselves misguided. So rather than me "get[ting] consensus for removal", you should really work on overturning or significantly revising those policies, and then you can consider re-adding. 82.132.187.55 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Come to think if it, there are some definite self-referential-humor possibilities there. Levivich, get to work.

The joke should stay, per the earlier discussions about it on this page going back to like 2007, and the IP editor should stop edit warring. Levivich[block] 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have anything substantive to offer? Why does that not surprise me? 82.132.187.55 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It only adds confusion to the article. When I first saw it, I thought it was an error, because it isn't explicitly designated as an example of self-referential humor (unless the "Other examples" header is considered such a designation, which it doesn't seem to be in the context of the article). It also is only an example of self-referential humor in the capacity of being a "reference to itself", which is more subtle wordplay than actually self-referential humor. Also, the fact that it continues to be removed (the last instance was in July, and then before that in December) suggests that there isn't actually a consensus to keep it. ForeverStamp (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that it keeps getting removed indicates there's not unanimity to keep it. I've restored it -- sorry I'm only noticing this now. EEng 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to have been a resolution to keep it though, since most reversions have been only citing earlier discussions on the talk page, in which several valid arguments have yet to be refuted (such as in the above discussion from July 2022). --ForeverStamp (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: the consensus vs. unanimity, the past removals of the link appear to have been done by a lot of different users, while the reversions are mostly by the same 2 or 3. --ForeverStamp (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me they've been quite effectively refuted. And drive-by edits are drive-by edits. Christ, the amount of time wasted trying to stamp out a little joke. Unbelievable. EEng 01:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, most of the above conversations end with un-replied-to posts in favor of removing the link. Plus, the same could be said of repeated reversions of the removal. --ForeverStamp (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "appear". Levivich (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, do you mean the anonymous users could have been the same person? --ForeverStamp (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The {main} template is typically used when there's more information about a topic at another article, but some content on the topic is still going to be included below. It's pretty much a flag that "the information below is sufficient per the header it's under, but more information can be found here." In that context, a link to an article with more examples of self-referential humor would be acceptable.

In any case, the old main template doesn't seem disruptive or damaging to me, per arguments above and in the past. I've not seen a convincing policy-based argument to remove it - mostly just various amounts of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Which is what consensus comes down to sometimes. Hanging my hat on the "ILIKEIT" side. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been arguments citing MOS:CIRCULAR. --ForeverStamp (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I'd seen people link to WP:CIRCULAR, which didn't seem to apply, since that one is about citations. MOS:CIRCULAR I hadn't seen, and it is more clear in its applicability here. Though, with all MOS guidelines, they're "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
In this case, I think the {main} link provides a "reasonable navigation opportunity". Which is one of the purposes of links, according to MOS:CIRCULAR. I'm reasonably sure its presence does more good than harm to readers clicking on it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a navigation opportunity if the purpose isn't to link people to the actual page though? Since the reader is already on the page, there won't be any benefit to clicking it, and they will likely realize that because of the page title. If they don't, leading them back to the top of the page isn't much of a benefit. --ForeverStamp (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to link people to the page, though. And the benefit to be gained is mirth. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the main effect is "Wait, why am I back at the page I was already on?" It's not likely to serve as a helpful element of the explanation of what self-referential humor can be. And if it's just because it's funny, then there's WP:ITSFUNNY. --ForeverStamp (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we simply disagree about what the main effect of the link is. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I was pretty confused when I first saw the link and assumed it was a holdover from a page merge or something. --ForeverStamp (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring the argument that a formal encyclopedia should just be describing concepts in a detached way rather than zanily engaging in self-demonstration, it's still a highly unconventional example of the concept. All the other examples listed take the fact that they are self-referential and use it as the basis on which to build a joke. In this case, the punchline just is that the joke is self-referential. There is no substance. It doesn't illustrate or highlight anything useful about the concept. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia really what you'd consider a "formal" encyclopedia? It's an encyclopedia full of user-generated content.
Regarding the consensus for exclusion you mentioned in your edit summary here, I see no such consensus - recently, we have 3 users for, 1 user and 2 IPs against, and no policy-based reason for removal. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A formal encyclopaedia and an encyclopaedia full of user-generated content aren't mutually exclusive. The first rule of WP:Hatnotes is that they should "Link directly to other articles": no redirects, no sections of the same article. MOS:CIRCULAR and WP:SELFRED advise against linking to self-redirects. WP:ASTONISH says don't astonish the reader; only include helpful links and content. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a guideline; a guideline; a non-applicable guideline, since this isn't to a redirect; and a guideline with the conditional "We cannot control all astonishment". And as I mentioned above, "exceptions may apply" to guidelines. For goodness sake, why may this not be an exception? I still can't find this link disruptive. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like astonishment that can be easily controlled though. And that policy also mentions Easter-egg links, which this kind of is - if it wasn't, it would say, "Click here to reload this article" or something. --ForeverStamp (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PhotogenicScientist You said you saw 'no-policy based reason for removal'. Now I've provided several, and so you've shifted to but policies aren't set in stone. And yes, this is a redirect. You can't link a page to itself directly; if you try (as opposed to linking a redirect or subsection) the link just renders as bold type (like so: Talk:Self-referential humor). And invoking the qualification that "We cannot control all astonishment" misses the point since this astonishes the reader deliberately. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You provided several guidelines. These are different from policies. The general rule is that guidelines are bendable, and policies are not - this is clarified in the banners on the top of each P&G page. Check out the guidelines you linked to find similar wording to what I've said.
Also, this link is not to a redirect article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this can be controlled - but I think for most people, this is not an astonishing link to make. Also, this is not an easter-egg link - it's not piped, and the destination of the link is quite clear. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of guidelines is that they are concretisations of policies. The "occasional exceptions" disclaimer is not a licence to use a hatnote for something diametrically opposed to the whole purpose of hatnotes. And the astonishment doesn't come from anything misleading about the link text, but from the presence of the link itself. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the idea of guidelines is that they're explicitly more flexible and open to exception. EEng 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, that doesn't contradict what I said. Guidelines are still rooted in policies. If you're going to ask for an explicit policy-based argument against any and all edits you happen to support and ignore the guidelines wholesale, then I struggle to see why guidelines even exist in the first place. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you base your argument on guidelines, it is a guideline-based argument. Not a policy-based one. Policies and guidelines are different types of rule.
Also, I've not ignored the guidelines wholesale - I've provided my interpretations on MOS:CIRCULAR (explicitly encourages hatnotes that provide a "reasonable navigational opportunity") and WP:ASTONISH (encourages the placement of "useful" hatnotes). Just because you disagree with how a guideline is interpreted or employed in an article, that doesn't mean it's being "ignored wholesale." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are the high-level principles Wikipedia operates on, and are often too vague and general to apply to specific situations. Asking for a policy-based rationale after you've accepted your edit is not in line with guidelines is moving the goalposts. The whole purpose of guidelines is that a user doesn't need any more justification to make an edit other than "it's what the guideline says". And thinking that "reasonable navigational opportunity" and "useful hatnotes" could reasonably apply to a hatnote that just links back to the page the user is already on is so illogical that it's obvious you just want the link included because you find it funny. Everything else is just a rationalisation. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but may I ask you - why do you want the link excluded? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@81.102.123.104 Answering the open question I've posed to you here would be a lot more productive toward improving this article than continuing to revert-war in the article.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why. That's what this whole discussion has been about, and you haven't even attempted to address the main substance of my original comment. It just feels like we've reached a deadlock, in which the guidelines (which represent general consensus) should prevail. Besides, if we're looking for a resolution, why shouldn't the opinion of those who've removed the link but not commented here also count for something? 81.102.123.104 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase - why do you so badly want the link excluded, that you'd be willing to disrupt the encyclopedia to remove it? What's the harm in it being there? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part of WP:ASTONISH that I find most relevant here is: Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place. I've already said above why I believe this hatnote is useful. Others may disagree, but determining what qualifies as "useful" is solidly in the realm of determination by consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 1000%. EEng 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but the way I'm reading that part, this definitely wouldn't fall within the category of a "useful hatnote", since this is contrary to the whole purpose of hatnotes in the first place. And I've explained above why even within the purpose you've outlined, it doesn't work, a point you've yet to respond to. 81.102.123.104 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The link is "self-referential" in the capacity that it refers to itself, but it's not "self-referential humor" since there is no substance in the allusion, it's literally just saying that the article it's on exists. --ForeverStamp (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the section that it is, the link also says "Click here to find more examples of self-referential humor." Which it kinda does. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that would be the same examples, not more. --ForeverStamp (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear this current discussion is heading toward WP:NOCON, with 2 for and 2 against inclusion. So, we should probably consider just trying to "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." But that's a little tough, since this issue is quite miniscule in terms of the number of editors who care about it, and it goes back to at least 2016.

The first real discussion was in 2018, which looks to have ended with fairly weak consensus to include, with 2 users arguing strongly for, an IP strongly against, and 1 user weakly for and 1 user weakly against. In any case, that discussion ended with this version of the article being retained, which lasted 4 months with no further discussion. Since then, there have been scattered removals and re-additions; the Talk page has seen 2 new users comment against and 2 new users comment for, but no discussions big enough to produce a strong consensus. Based on all that, I believe the {main} template should stay. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this back to WP:UNCHALLENGED though? --ForeverStamp (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument for keeping or deleting content - it's a way of determining what to do now that there doesn't appear to be consensus in this discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant in regards to the "it existed from 2016-2018 without discussion" part. --ForeverStamp (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reasonable risk that many readers will find the link confusing, distracting or frustrating rather than helpful. Even those who understand its purpose may still find it distracting or frustrating, or at least not funny. Furthermore, it's not actually illustrative of the concept, or certainly doesn't give the reader a broad or deeper understanding of it, as it's pretty much in a category of its own. Self-referential jokes usually derive their humor from specifically how they are self-referential, not from the mere fact that they are. Looking at the talk and history, it's also obvious that as long as the link is there it will just be a magnet for controversy, wasting a lot of time and energy that would be better invested in improving and maintaining the actual substance of the article. Given all this, I believe we should err on the side of caution and leave it out. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are all points that have been brought up before. And from the article history, the primary cause of any controversy in removing the link comes from IP addresses - and we already know there's one IP editor opposed to this whose IP address changes constantly. It's impossible to determine if these are all really individual objections to the content from new editors, or one person trying their best against arguments to remove it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're points that have been brought up before, but not answered (some, not even attemptedly so). How do you respond to the objection that it doesn't appropriately illustrate the context, and there's no actual substantive or descriptive reference provided? All EEng did was hand-wave it by saying "This is an article about humor, not a philosophy seminar. The distinction between the technical sense of linking to a webpage and the semantic sense of designating doesn't matter." But it's all about context. It's like jokes about things like dyslexia, which fudge the concept for humorous effect. If you said "dyslexics are teople poo!" in a casual conversation with friends and someone said "you know, that's not actually how dyslexia works", then that's just pedantic. But if someone were inserting such jokes into the Wikipedia article on the subject with the pretext that they accurately illustrate the concept, then that objection becomes highly relevant. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not answered - they have. Just, apparently, not to your satisfaction. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider "Well, yes, OK, but you see, the thing is, I like it" a satisfactory response. But IDK, maybe my expectations are too high. 2A00:23C5:4B1B:8F01:44BE:53B0:5CC8:9883 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that a mischaracterization of my position, and a gross misreading of many comments here.
Also, it's rather obvious at this point that you are the owner of each "new" IP trying to remove the link, disrupting the 'pedia with an edit war, so kindly quit doing that. You're making life harder for all the IP editors out there trying to be taken seriously. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close discussion

[edit]
  •  Comment: I have restored my close but kept the subsequent discussion. If you would like to challenge my close, please take it to AN. Reverting a close without discussing it with the closing editor is entirely inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well, I've un-restored it because it's obvious that a LOT of (ahem) experienced editors find it completely inappropriate. And now it's been discussed with you. You really had no idea what you were wading into, and supervoted. EEng 01:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I removed an {{atop}} that was added here in December (as if this was an RfC or something). Levivich (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The atop was added in response to a specific closure request made by PhotogenicScientist. Per WP:CLOSE, if you want to re-open you're supposed to take it to AN. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not an RfC but a talk page back-and-forth discussion which could lead to an eventual RfC. The long-term link, of course, should stay as a perfect 'example' of 'Other examples'. Not actually a joke, as some editors claim, the link serves the purpose of both educating readers who may not have gotten the point and gives them another chance to read the lead and descriptors concerning the concept. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This entire so called "debate" is just one person harassing another person they have a grudge against over a period of years. This page should be indef ECP'd, which will put a stop to this page being used as a vector for harassment. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you mention page protection - I already made a request for that, and was told it wouldn't be done until "the discussion is closed for a stronger consensus," or something. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's disappointing. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What good reason is there for invoking Ignore All Rules? What important aspect of self-referential humor does it highlight that is likely to be unclear otherwise? 149.86.189.197 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was taken to ANI for this, the 149 IP was blocked for block evasion, and I changed the hatnote to a {{further}} that links directly to the subsection, which I think is an improvement but revert me if you disagree (and you're not evading a block). Levivich (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Realistically, if someone has managed to make it that far into the article and still not understood the basic concept of self-referential humor, a link that just sends them back to the same page is probably just gonna confuse them even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlight Explorer (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the joke, as most recently implemented, doesn't actually work anyway. It links back to the main article, not to itself, so it's not really self-referential. It should, at the very least, refer back to the exact paragraph where the link is placed. But in a way, this is an old chestnut that's been used in so many different places that it's a stale joke. It was most notably used by Knuth in his work on algorithms, where in the index, "Circular reference" says "see Reference, circular". The point, in Knuth's implementation, is that the reader can see the mechanism, and is therefore amused by it. In our version (ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually work anyway), the mechanism is hidden, the reader isn't explicitly told they're clicking on a circular link, instead they're obliged to try to work it out, and probably won't. So my !vote is get rid of the joke link. But I'd add that I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the conduct of this debate, which looks like a bunch of people trying to win for winning's sake, by any means, rather than improve an encyclopaedia by decent debate. Elemimele (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I co-sign this in full, except for the spelling "encyclopaedia", which I find an unseemly half-measure between the American and the ligatured. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The joke link could easily confuse readers, and the joke doesn't really work very well. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with keeping it out to reduce confusion. Just because someone understands the concept of self-refential humour doesn't mean they will understand the link is an extremely lame attempt at it. People have talked about intelligence and cultural/linguistic context but IMO this is missing the key point which is that people have different levels of technical understanding. For people who understand hyperlinks reasonably well at a technical level, they may understand the joke if they understand this article. But for someone who doesn't really understand hyperlinks all they may find is they click a link and it doesn't work. Remember that people might not even know what the page title is especially if they visited it from an external bookmark or an alternative title. Ultimately one phone call someone has to answer from their elderly parent or whatever because their computer, tablet or phone is broken and the link doesn't work is one phone call too many. Maybe some will find if funny but I'm guessing the majority of people will be pissed off that someone thought it was funny to confuse a person they care about for absolute no good reason. I'm fairly sure I would have if this had ever happened to my mum. Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the joke link and would support it remaining. It's funny and it doesn't hurt anything. Loki (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my view on it as well, in its current form as a {{further}} hatnote linking back to the same section in the "Other examples" section. There was a time when there were too many of these self-referential jokes in this article, and some of them were more disruptive than funny, but in its current form, as one hatnote, I think it's harmless and funny and should remain. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with including the compromise hatnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only had a glance but I think I would too. EEng 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping the link as a valid example of self-referential humor. I do not believe that it is particularly confusing. This is an article about humor, so a little bit of relevant humor is reasonable and fitting. Nor do I agree with the assertion that this joke is in any way lame. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version seems fine. There's a small difference between "encyclopedic" and "extremely dry tone" or "wet blanket" (Note to self: figure out how a proposal can be dry and wet at the same time), and a little whimsy where appropriate can have a positive effect as long as it is used sparingly. Unlike much of the content from the former WP:BJAODN, the current version isn't vandalism, is unlikely to be a cause of significant confusion, is related to the article content as an illustrative example, and doesn't seem likely to cause any harm. It's been around in some form or another for the vast majority of the article's history, and was first inserted back in 2005. Might as well let it stay in a harmless form. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to first principles - what do the sources say?

[edit]

Obviously the joke should be kept. Fun is serious business: it improves the cohesion of online communities, and it improves retention for readers. I am a little tired of seeing people obsessively go through articles to remove anything that could be considered amusing: frankly, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as an online role-play community where we pretend to be police officers from a dictatorship where jokes are illegal, or a melancholy portrait gallery where we draw frowny faces all day every day. It's an encyclopedia. Sometimes an encyclopedia can have a joke in it. jp×g🗯️ 06:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it's amusing though, it's that it's confusing and doesn't really work as an example. --ForeverStamp (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem may not be that it's amusing, but others in this thread seem to have that concern. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well as long as we're going to argue based purely on opinion, I think that it is amusing and that it does really work as an example, so let's keep it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of bits of wry humor hereabouts that I quite appreciate. "Cetacean needed" is a solid gag, for example. Plenty of DYK hooks have a nice sense of lightheartedness. The Always Look on the Bright Side of Life article has the good line many of the other crucifixion victims ... begin to dance in a very restricted way. And so on. This, on the other hand, is a poor implementation of a joke that would be old if it worked. At best, the reaction is a "Heh", and it's likely to get a "Huh?" instead. It's a comedic misfire. It's tired, lazy, and self-satisfied. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but in your first example, saying that what is needed is a cetacean may be confusing to the reader. What is actually needed in the table is a picture, not an actual cetacean.
Moreover, the word cetacean is not a common word in english - it would be more understandable for the average reader to say "dolphin" or "whale" where appropriate.
Also, those tags pull the reader out of the article content by referencing the backend of wikipedia, reminding readers that this is an editable encyclopedia by noting that something is missing from the table, and that it could be fixed by further editing.
We could do this all day, for any conceivable joke. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, for any given joke, there will always be somebody who just doesn't get it. But when the feedback to a joke is replete with comments like "There is no substance", "stale", "doesn't really work very well", "an extremely lame attempt" ... and when one argument for keeping it is that it's not actually a joke ... something has gone wrong. If the basic idea isn't bad, the implementation is weak. There's a reason why comedy shows have whole rooms of writers who workshop and revise and revise, instead of shrugging off every dud with "eh, funny is subjective". XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as for any joke there will always be those who don't get it, there will also be those who get it and insist that it isn't funny for whatever contrived reason. Of course it's true that some jokes just aren't funny, but this particular thread looks to me like a case of the fun police doing their part to stamp out something simply because it isn't as deathly serious as they think it should be. And that is a complete waste of time and energy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Buffs (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "those tags pull the reader out of the article content by referencing the backend of wikipedia" - so does the "citation needed" template itself. --ForeverStamp (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that there are very few jokes or humorous asides in articles is because they cause self-deputized officers of the fun police (who comprise, charitably, 0.1% of readers) to complain about them for, in this case, seventeen years. And then the argument for deputizing more officers is that the surviving jokes are neutered to the point of triteness -- well, of course they'd be, they've suffered two decades of wailing and gnashing of teeth over their existence. jp×g🗯️ 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. I would like to come out with a firm pro-joke stance, and say that it's fine to have jokes even if they are not that great. Loki (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too endorse Buffs (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like Levivich's idea of having the link introduced as a 'See also' instead of 'Further information'. It ups the joke factor a little (although the joke aspect of the thing isn't that funny to begin with, and giving it a "See also" boost seems better) plus is a more logical way of introducing the circular aspect. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Buffs (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopaedia

[edit]

is to inform the reader, not to entertain editors. Galagalen (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the extensive, recent discussion above regarding this exact point. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can inform while illustrating... Buffs (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self referential humor joke

[edit]

While I agree the joke (including a link to the page within the page itself) doesn't necessarily fit in the introduction paragraph, could we not place a self referencing link in the: see also section? MonkeyEditsTM (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, best to keep it to one joke in the article. There were enough people opposed to even that amount of WP:HUMOR in this humor-related article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PhotogenicScientist You say to keep it too one joke in article. That's great, but I can't seem to find the specific joke you're talking about. could you point it out for me? Thank you! MonkeyEditsTM (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out 'Other examples' PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-referential_humor&oldid=1223189585"