Talk:Joke/Archive 1

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

Classes of Jokes

In college (1960s) I took a course in the Art of Comedy (also, its companion course the Art of Tragedy). Both were taught by the late Eric Segal [1]. He introduced the Comedy course by stating there were only five (5) jokes. All jokes were variations on one of these five. I regret I cannot remember the entire list, but considering his scholarly credentials and the course content that ensued, I've little doubt he was correct.

The only three I can recall with any confidence are:

1. The jack-in-the-box (unexpected surprise). Examples: The physical jack-in-the-box "Pop Goes the Weasel" and the spoken "I love to eat worms. NOT!"

2. The pun (play on words). Spoken example: "You can tune a guitar but you can't tuna fish."

3. The double entendre (two meanings for one thing). Visual examples: Visual Optical Illusions Spoken example: "What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?" "I don't know and I don't care". The reply has a literal meaning and a figurative one, the latter being the reply actually defines the two words in question.

The other two classes of jokes I simply cannot recall with any certainty. I think the fourth I believe was something like "Reversal." While a fuzzy memory, it might be something like this:

4. ?? Reversal ?? (presenting the opposite of what is "true" (ironic jokes would be variations): Possibly this could simply mean the joke is in understanding the opposite of what is said or done is actually true. Example: "I love to eat worms," said concurrently with a roll of one's eyes.

The distinction from saying "NOT!" as in #1 above is that in #1 it is a sudden surprise to the listener who is led to believe the first part. In the reversal case the listener is in on the joke from the start via the eye roll, clearly indicating the "truth" is the opposite of what is being said. The "worms example" in #1 it might be said to be both a #1 and #4. However the example in #4 is clearly not a #1 (nor #2 or #3).

Visually some optical illusions such as cited in #3 above would be called reversals rather than double entendres. Rows of ducks that can also appear to be rows of, say, women's faces is a double entendre. However an Escher staircase drawing is a reversal in that you see ("know") you are going up and end up going down and vice verse. I've no doubt such illusions were meant as jokes.

Make no mistake, all optical illusions play tricks on your mind. When intended to make you smile or laugh such illusions become jokes. Contrarily camouflaging military equipment is an optical illusion, but is decidedly NOT a joke.

If the missing two classes of jokes (only one if "reversal" is correct) could be filled in this would make a far more intellectually robust and orderly framework for the article.

I expected to find such a classification in the article. Instead it is, as others have noted, random and chaotic in terms of Prof. Segal's far more scholarly classifications of jokes.

As to the relationship with "humor" I would say all jokes are intended to be humorous, but all things humorous are not jokes.

Chuck McGregor

Humor/humour

I have the UK English Oxford English Dictionary in front of me and humour is certainly spelled with a u, but humorous is spelled without two u's.

The correct British English spelling is humour/humorous. Evangeline (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Less Woody Allen

How about some quotes from someone other than Woody Allen, who many people find less than amusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.13.145 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Vic Morrow / Admiral Mountbatten

Can someone check this? Morrow died in 1982, so it's unlikely that a joke about him was subsequently reworked into a joke about someone who died two years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.5.116 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

this page needs some serious work!

the current version shows no information on jokes but merely the mechanics of the brain and humor. Its title should be "the brain and humor" I like some of the earlier versions that didn't have all the woodey allen jokes and abstract references to alleged studies and books by random people. I'm thinking a complete start over from scratch. If no one objects then I will completely rewrite this. </rant>

Needs total rewrite

I'm sorry, but this topic is in need of a rewrite of the highest magnitude. It seems like the phrase about Frued is repeated verbatem forty times, and most of the jokes are "examples from Woody Allen", which is probably false. Seems like the whole article itself is some sort of weird joke. 63.3.0.1 15:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC) It's spelled "verbatim". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.255.189 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Isnt race to do with colour of skin? Where are all the offensive jokes?

i know this is a big touchy issue but under racist jokes we have a list of types of jokes relating to different NATIONALITIES. does anyone else consider 'americans' to be a race? surely the white people in america are racially 'white', not 'american'? same goes for canada, britain etc.

Then at the end there is a little side note, 'some people like to tell black jokes' as if there is no other race that is the butt of jokes?

What about Russian jokes?

There are jokes that black people tell about white people - clasically about white men not being able to dance and having a small penis.

In fact, I think the entire 'subjects' section should be removed or at least renamed or changed a lot because you could go on forever. most jokes are nonsense anyway or formed from conversation or are only funny in context etc.

Some ones got to agree with me here.

If you are going to take the (offensive) plunge, which i think isnt a bad idea, and have a 'subjects of jokes' page then it should be methodical and give examples, not sidestepping huge joke categories (like jewish jokes or sexist jokes or disabled jokes) by not giving examples or even mentioning some. Maybe we could have an 'offensive jokes' section where we can move more explicit or offensive mateial perhaps not even on the 'joke' main page itself so that sensitive types dont have to go there if they dont want to be offended.

I think that if we are going to have a jokes page at all, it should have examples of jokes, and if its going to start listing categories of jokes it should both list all categories people can think of and give examples of each.

I know this is turning in to a bit of a rant but surely all this pussy footing around is just an example of censorship, pandering to the offended minority? I mean how many people here are actually bothered about racist or sexist jokes? They are JOKES after all, we arent inciting racial hatred. It may even be TRUE that black people have big noses and white men cant dance but thats why jokes about the subjects are funny, DUH!

Same goes for disabled jokes, and any jokes about things people are born with. Isnt wikipedia all about having an encyclopedia with no holds barred? Arent we meant to be documenting the world as we see it, not as we pretend to ourselves it is (ie pretending disabled joke dont exist, pretending that people who look different and have a different culture seem weird and therefore funny)

Get it together guys and gimme some feedback.

Acaveinpakistan 10/11/06 16.07 (GMT)

Joke Page?

You know, for a Joke section, this is patently unfunny. Really, some of these jokes seem to be made up for the page, for instance the reese witherspoon joke or what's the difference between a duck.

Much of this has little to do with jokes, but with humor. I don't think the mathmatical "jokes" are jokes at all, and the deprecating humor area has nothing to do with jokes.

Also there are some pretty silly assertions like dead baby jokes are an invention of the 1990's or lawyer jokes have something to do with political jokes.

I started putting in a few somewhat funny jokes (which aren't funny at all) in and they keep getting deleted, as though much of what's being left behind is somehow defensable as accurate, enlightening, or at least somewhat funny

By all means, if you have to parenthetically explain why a joke is funny, don't bother

Sexist jokes

I don't understand the nuns joke ("Where's the soap?" "Yes, it is.") Even when I substitute the homonym, "Wears," in the question, I still don't get the answer. Can someone explain this to me?

"Where's the soap?" "Yes it does.
The implication is that the nuns are masturbating.
I still don't get it, i must be completely retarded or something. "Wear's the soap?". "Yes, it does.", i just don't see what that means
Paul Tracy
I don't understand the nun joke either. I can't see how the dialog "Wears the soap?", "Yes, it does." suggests anyone is masturbating. Perhaps this is a problem with regional slang? In any case, I replaced it with another nun joke that people are more likely to understand. -- bethenco 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
'Wears' as in 'breaks down or diminishes the soap through excessive use!' Slf67 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The joke is really bad, but it means it breaks down or diminishes. The nun is maturbating with the bar of soap and it wears the soap bar down... Get it? User:69.179.88.113 04:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be more interesting if the type of soap were "Pope on a rope", ja? >:) Wahkeenah 05:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

AnthonySteele Yes, I get it, kinda, but it's stupid not funny: All the women that I've asked on the subject keep the soap well away from the sensitive vaginal menbranes. They wouldn't do that. Knowing the score is actually a hinderance to getting this joke.

NPOV - Types of Jokes section

I just did a Google search for "dumb blonde jokes," listed as a subsection of "sexist jokes." It got 35,000 hits [2] - more than "sexist jokes" but still well below what the others got. Deffinately sexist jokes aren't the most notable or funny type of joke, and apparently they're not the most popular type of joke either. I for one think that's a good thing :)

So yeah, the ordering of that section should be changed to reflect this.

--128.206.104.126 03:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's probably because people don't call sexist jokes, sexist jokes while people do call blonde jokes, blonde jokes.


Have you tried looking up "jokes about men" or "jokes about women" ? I would have thought that the differences between the sexes affect us so fundamentally, are so visceral, that these jokes must constitute one of the largest categories. 46.64.255.189 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The placement of "sexist jokes" as first in the "types of jokes" section, seems inappropriate and unduely advancing a point of view by drawing attention to that issue.

A Google search came back with 636,000 hits for "lawyer jokes,"[3] 299,000 hits for "political jokes,"[4] and 85,000 hits for "yo mama jokes,"[5] but only just over 18,000 hits for "sexist jokes."[6] So clearly "sexist jokes" aren't the first thing that most people think about when they think about types of jokes.

--Blackcats 20:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Playin' the Dozens

I didn't realize "playing the dozens" was always about jokes concerning a family member. Is there a source for this? Tuf-Kat 04:19, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

About crackin' on family -- that's just the way it's always been, with jokes about somebody's mama being especially favored. Bet if you surfed the Net for the subject, you'd find lots of references to the fact that the dozens was about family insults. -- deeceevoice, June 24, 2004

---

Being new, I've only just realized I should have preserved the following misinformation:

  • "The object of the game is to tell the best joke, usually after each person has been given twelve tries, or until the competitor fails to reply with a comeback."

This is just patently wrong. See my edit for the true origin of the phrase -- deeceevoice, June 26, 2004

--- Note to self: add reference to signifyin' and oral tradition/ritualized sparring practices in African culture.deeceevoice

Done. With new article on wolf ticket. deeceevoice 15:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I miss the "usually with an unexpected ending, called punchline" stuff in your definition of a joke. Even the short sentence "What's the matter - apart from energy divided by the square of lightspeed?" is only a joke because of the unexpected ending. Since I'm a new user, I don't want to edit it without the consent of the previous editors. Alex Kloss 16:30, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit, you don't need permission. And in some cases the previous editors might not even be around any more. If people don't like your edit they'll discuss it with you and a compromise will be reached. See: Wikipedia:Be bold --bodnotbod 17:54, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Move Playin' the Dozens?

The dozens is not just about telling jokes -- as the passage explains. While I appreciate the attempt at shoehorning the dozens into this category, it still doesn't fit, and "and the like" is clumsy, I think -- sort of like, "and, uh ... whatever."

I'm thinking the dozens should be a completely separate piece, with only a passing reference in "jokes" -- unless someone comes up with something called "ethnic humor" or something. I'm thinking there would be other additions in this category, but they would be general characterizations (like Jewish humor), for example, rather than specific forms. So, maybe not. (But, then, what do I know?) A general category or separate article on "ethnic humor" aside, I don't think this is a terribly effective way of dealing with the problem of placing the dozens in a "joke" category. deeceevoice 06:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverted. You didn't happen to notice that this section is not only about dozens. These are jokes, and rightfully here. Dozens has its article as well, good for it. And it is not "ethnic humor" either. Mikkalai 07:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The difference between ethnic jokes and ethnic humor

Got into a back-and-forth with another person about changing a subhead from "Ethnic Jokes" to "Ethnic Humor." Playing the dozens is included under "ethnic jokes," but it clearly isn't in that genre. It belongs in a category of "ethnic humor," as opposed to "ethnic jokes." How do you want to handle that? The other contributor apparently feels strongly that the subhead should remain the same. If that's the case, the playing the dozens should be removed from that section and placed elsewhere. deeceevoice 07:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Playing dosens" not under; in is "after". Please look into the table of contents. And I am not another person. Me got myself a name, hello. And I agree with you; while playing dozens is exchange of jokes, technically it is not "joke", and should be put into a separate article. And this article must say something along the lines that "special kind of jokes is used in playins the dozens etc.etc." Mikkalai

Hi, Mikkalai. *waving* Yes, I know you have a name! I just couldn't remember it at the time; I was rushed. And rather than misspell it, I simply referred to you indirectly. I suppose there could be a separate article on ethnic humor if people think it warrants that. But someone already had put "playing the dozens" there, so I was simply trying to figure out a way properly to distinguish between ethnic jokes and ethnic humor -- because it doesn't belong in the former category. Whatever other people want to do is fine with me, but the correction definitely should be made. deeceevoice 20:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lists of Jokes

Just a "heads up" for people watching this page and not the lists of jokes pages that it spawned/links to. These pages have been listed (or mooted to be so) on VfD:

Wikipedia_talk:No original research

A group of Wikipedia administrators are working on guidelines that will eliminate pages like this one. --Wetman 08:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are no reputable sources on jokes, and "Joke" is doomed? Mikkalai 21:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm just a regular Internet user, but this article is no where near the quality of the rest of Wikipedia. It's stupid, frankly.

No Religious Jokes?

The recent Ship of Fools contest to find the funniest and most offensive religious (Christian) jokes made me wonder why there's nothing on religious jokes. I suspect that there's a lot of material that could be used, such as the stereotyped St. Peter on the Pearly Gates and various sick jokes about crucifixion, the Life of Brian etc. but I can't find any articles on religious humour/humor or religious jokes. Will have to get around to writing one :) What does anyone else think? --Sweet-indigo 10:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this part is definitely missing. BTW, I don't remember any jokes in the Bible or Quran. there is The Door magazine of religious humor. mikka (t) 15:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I know a great religious joke about the pope and the King of Saudi Arabia, but the king in particular would get rather upset about it (jokes have a way of doing that) and anyway, his followers exhibit rather .. er .. challenging behaviour when they are offended, so maybe here's not the place. 46.64.255.189 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pirate jokes

Hi! There is a page Pirate joke that seemed kinda weak. Is the genre recognized enough to merit an entry on this page? If so, I'm inclined to merge. Otherwise, I'm likely to Transwiki the jokes to the Jokebook and delete. Thanks, --William Pietri 19:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of the Jokebook

Jimbo Wales has announced that he will be deleting the Jokebook from Wikibooks within 24 hours. See Wikibooks:Staff lounge. Uncle G 16:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember that. Twas a sad day. Luckly, I transfered all them to pages in my Buddy Profile before it happened. I just wish I knew why you can't get a knock-knock joke from Wikibooks anymore to save your life. Kevin 06:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Council house?

There is a joke in the "ethnic jokes" section which says: An old Gypsy goes to his local council and says, "My wife has become ill, and we need to come off the road. Can we have a council house?" While the term "council house" is not used in the USA, I understand it means "public housing" (in the UK). So I don't understand why this is supposed to be funny. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The "joke" is just that gyppos are scroungers. Removed. Mark1 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The section I sporked on non-jokes

I sporked a section from a deleted page on 'non-jokes', which I think was legitimate, since it relates to a branch of joke making. Some moron removed it, but its rightful place was here. Can someone give me a rational reason?

Seriously

What do you people have against Hellen Keller? Nevertheless, thanks, I needed a laugh. Pacific Coast Highway|Spam me!

Chelm?

I don't get it. How is "Chelm" another class of joke?

See the second lede paragraph of Chelm. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical jokes - Money = Root of all evil

Isn't it actually the love of money that is the root of all evil? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a ...well...um...joke. Angrynight 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I say type the weirdest things. ~ Ghelæ the Strangetalkcontribs

Offensive joke necessary?=

AnthonySteele "I'm not Jewish but..." Can we lose the Jew/Oven joke? It is strictly necessary? does it add more than it detracts by sheer nastyness? I think definitely not.

I also find the sexist jokes offensive but they're not going to be removed, so either take them all out or leave them all in.
AnthonySteele I suggest that joking about murdering people is far more offensive than joking about them being stupid.

No black jokes

Hey if we don't have black jokes then we should remove the Jewish and Asian jokes.


Everyone finds something offensive, this is an encyclopedia for unbiased research/entertainmet of a scientific nature, so your personal fealings don't mean squat here.

Author of above sentence, have a spine and sign your name. The previous writer (who also needs to sign) has a valid point. IF this page has been kept free of black jokes THEN it should not have other such jokes. I would say that categorically listing every kind of joke is not helping this article in any way. Regarding AnthonySteele's comment: I agree. What gain is there from including it? Is the article here to educate about what jokes are, as is the point of an entry in wikipedia, or to give someone a chance to type something so nasty it is bound to upset people? Should wikipedia only be useful to people who can't be offended by anything? How about seeing simple courtesy towards fellow humans as being important even here, especially here. Sure, the page should make clear what the range of jokes is, but just because a joke exists does not mean it should be included. Wikipedia gets stregth from being selective. You want a full catalogue showing the absolute range of humanity's behavior just surf the rest of the web. Fitzhugh 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone else get to this page by typing, Why did the chicken cross the road?

Well did they?--Greasysteve13 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did. aww 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Disability Jokes

I've removed the examples of disability jokes. Please read the reasons provided there.

I've readded the examples of disability jokes. If you are removing something, just get rid of it, don't put a rationale within the article. It looks bad, and is the reason we have talk pages. Explain why you don't want the information in the article on the talk page. —Seqsea (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--Floandthemash (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)== Joke ==

This is a joke I made up(I hope)

Yesterday, I was looking in my telescope to look for Uranus. But all I got was the Moon!

Get it? Uranus=your,anus. You show someone your anus(butt), your mooning him. Get it?

CHristmas Crackers

Ever had a good joke in a christmas cracker? I haven't. ...

awful intro

the intro has a terrible example. the ouch it was an iron bar is funny because it breaks the mould of the 'walks into a bar' style of joke. you can't use it as an archetypal example 86.129.22.214 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the jokebook

This is, in theory, an encyclopaedia, not a jokebook. So I removed the jokes, leaving what is somewhat closer to being an encyclopaedia article about jokes and the conept of the joke, rather than a list of often lame and sometimes gratuitously offensive jokes. Feel free to link to a list of jokes on some appropriate sister project, but WP:NOT a jokebook. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • And I restored the jokebook, which is not. It is a classification of types of jokes, which is encyclopedic topic. By the way, I share your concern, and I monitor this page not to grow into a jokebook, but I am not as radical as you in this respect. `'mikka (t) 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mikka, it is a cruft magnet. Where are the reliable secondary sources which state that these are considered by experts to be rperesentative of the classes of jokes defined? Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Guy, this is not necessary, is uncited, and is most assuredly a cruft-magnet. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


If you are going to remove the jokes on the page, you will have to remove the jokes in each of the subcategories as well. 63.23.3.195 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but one step at a time. There is no reason in principle not to illustrate an article on knock-knock jokes with a knock-knock joke, but to have dozens of jokes of varying qualities and degrees of offensiveness in this article was really not a good idea, IMO. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


While it is a "cruft-magnet", there are plenty of wikipedia articles that attract idle writers (my favorite ones are Internet phenomenon and List of sexual slurs), this is not the reason to kill it. On the other hand, I kinda begin to like the "second start". Let's see what grows out of it this time. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think if we are going to include examples of offensive jokes in particular they should only be in articles which are specific to the genre of offensive humour, so that people looking at the higher level articles don't get bombarded with bigotry. Also there is practically no way of ensuring that individual jokes here are properly representative of the genre, per WP:NOR. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Jokebook

^ I read above that Mr. Wales was going to delete the Jokebook. How come he didn't do it? 63.23.90.5 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He did. It is gone from Wikibooks. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation for the 200 tropes section?

The idea that there are 200 tropes that can be used to make jokes is interesting, but I can't find any proof of it; it seems not to make much sense. And the additional information regarding Woody Allen is simarly without attribution. I think it should be deleted if there is no evidence for it.

Woody Allen everywhere

Why is the best example of each element of a Joke simply another Woody Allen one-liner? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the explanation of jokes rules and why do we laugh from satirist Daniele Luttazzi. He gave the technical explanation when he was presenting his italian translation of Woody Allen's classic trilogy, and provided those examples. I don't have the theoric knowledge to provide alternative examples, but If you have it you're of course more than welcome to provide some.--BMF81 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"X" group jokes

It appears that "many cultures" have groups of jokes based around a subgroup/neighbouring group being "stupid"/"scroungers"/other stereotype etc. Why? How many of these jokes are common to all/several cultures (ie with replacement by local preference term)? If they were "rebranded" as eg Vogon or ogre or "this dimwit walked into a bar" equivalent jokes would they be considered less offensive? Jackiespeel 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone fix this page

This page has a lot of good information but it's really random in the way it's presented. Could someone reorganize it?

"not" joke

An article on the Borat movie on the CNN website they say he talked to a guy who told him about "not" jokes. --Gbleem 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do we laugh section -- should be deleted

Other than for its first sentence, this section offers nothing substantive to the theory of why we laugh, and is mostly a rehash of a 100+-year-old essay by Freud peppered with examples (some ill-chosen, and mostly not illustrative) from Woody Allen. Moreoever, it is written in an extremely obtuse manner -- what does "the profound meaning of X" mean? -- that resists cleanup.

This surely does not represent the latest in psychological and or neural research into why humans laugh, and until someone adds that here, this section should be removed.Fmanjoo 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a cleanup tag, because the article needs some major structural fixes. For one thing, info from the Why We Laugh section should be merged with the Psychology section. 69.106.225.92 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire section should be deleted. Freud should NEVER be consulted on articles relating to current psychology and only be used to provide historical context. There is no evidence for the existence of the subconscious and no compelling evidence for any of his theories. He should be relegated to a philosopher/literary critic, never a credible scientist. --Wolfrider (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

History

Why is there nothing about the history of jokes? Isn't that an important part of the Joke article? Was it previously decided that this would be put elsewhere, and I can't find it?KevinPuj 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian Jokes

I've never heard an Australian joke about Aborigines or Greek! I think those statements are incorrect and should be removed.

Jokes and Brain deleted

I've deleted this section as it was essentially incoherent, badly written and factually incorrect. It talked about an "inconsistency" between two parts of the brain, without ever spelling out what caused it or what it meant. It cited the wrong parts of the brain as being responsible for the comprehension of jokes (should be the cerebral cortex - the prefrontal cortex only creates the laughter impulse). There are 4 kinds of brainwaves - beta, alpha, theta and delta. I don't know where "positive" and "negative" waves come from. And it was unsourced. I'm no brain surgeon, but its better to have nothing than sheer wrong info - at least for the now.Xandercoon 12:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Transmission of jokes

I think there should be a section on the transmission of jokes, how they spread, and how fast. A lot of sociological research has been published on the subject.Xandercoon 12:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic joke

Removed a good piece of original research. Such things must be properly referenced.

Whoever "adopted" this article, watch out: it shows dangerous signs of uncontrolled creeping of well-meaning but inadmissible unreferenced chaotic chat. `'mikka 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


dead baby

since i dont know how to formaly rekwest a page mill just say it here. i want a page on dead baby jokesI am Paranoid 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold text?

What's this "Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'Borhhthghgfhtrghtrghtrtrhtrhtrhghgfhgfhgf text'Bold text'Bold text'Boegr egfld er]]gfat" nonsense? I am not sure what it is so I'm uneasy about deleting it. Could somebody figure it out?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.1 (talk • contribs)

Polish jokes

Polish jokes redirects here, but the article doesn't inform about Polish jokes. Xx236 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


it informs about all jokes. 207.162.58.3 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Joke: External links

THIS IS AN ADVERTISMENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.109.194 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

JibJab's JokeBox is the largest database of unique joke instances on the internet. I respectfully maintain that this is a distinguishing/notable attribute that qualifies it for its own (standalone) link within this section.

  • I move for the following to be published:

JibJab's JokeBox is the largest database of unique joke instances on the internet.

Jinf22 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)jinf22

folklore of the United States

This Wikipedia isn't about the USA only. Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sample jokes - external links

I would like to suggest the joke sites of Jokes About ... the Jokes About network for inclusion in the external links. I see lots of comments on the talk page here for different kinds of jokes, whether they be religious, etc. There are many different categories there. But, I'll leave that decision up to more knowledgeable editors.
I would like to suggest the joke site of Joke the way you want..

Unparseble, but not therefore funny :-)

Sorry, I can't figure out what the clause "When a technically good joke is referred changing it with paraphrasing, it is not laughable any more" means. "Referred" is transitive. Is the intended meaning something like "When an effective joke is paraphrased, it ceases to be humorous"?

Joshua McGee (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

--External links--


Cheers, Rob Ross (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke book reviews and bibliography

I agree with the anonymous poster above who wrote that "Much of this has little to do with jokes, but with humor" and I am delighted that you like such analysis, but what I was seeking and expected to find here are the titles and authors of books of jokes published in the last fifty or so years in the English speaking world, together with book reviews of these titles.

For example, I was delighted to learn that Bennet Cerf's Vest Pocket Book of Jokes was the basis of the NBC Tonight Show monologue before host Jack Parr was hired. This then was a successful joke book, and I should like to know which of the many other joke books are valuable. Surely, there should be a section of this article on joke books, which is, I believe, what most users coming to this page will be seeking. Thanks, Rumjal --rumjal 09:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)


Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#footer

Polish Number Plate

I assume the joke ("The frogman can deeper") is related to sex, but as it stands it just seems nonsensical as opposed to humourus. Can someone who is able to translate add in square brackets so it does make sense (as in "The frogman [does it] deeper", for example), but remains fairly accurate? I don't speak Polish myself. Otherwise there doesn't really seem to be much point keeping it. BulbaThor (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Apart from the uncertainty about the translation, I don't really see why it was there. As far as visual representations of jokes go it is a pretty poor example, and had no relevance to the section either. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joke/Archive_1&oldid=1142349140"