Talk:Sarcasm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarcasm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

I highly suggest we make a section in the article listing some of the most sarcastic people that are famous. Or, per se, characters in movies/books that are famous for their witty sarcasm. House, from House MD, would be an example. NOTE: I don't necessarily want this melodramatic title to be used. 173.80.233.191 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sarcasm 2603:900A:2300:590D:85A9:E3B:2470:F0DF (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I think that this article should have contemporary examples of sarcasm that can be found in movies and books. One example that comes to mind is Chandler Bing, from Friends. Srouse18 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been through this article and most of it does not stand inspection - the sources are mostly dead or poor and much of the content has been tagged as OR. I shall therefore rewrite, retaining the good bits and discarding the rest. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's done now. The biggest issue seems to be the "lowest form of wit" crack. This was attributed to Wilde in the previous version but this attribution doesn't stand up. Any definite attribution will require an excellent source because the phrase has been passed around so much that its true source now seems obscure. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is Gulliver's Travels considered Sarcasm, or merely Satire and Parody? Do the defintions and usage provide an answer to such a question? Perhaps there are scholars who have asked answered such a question. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No doubt there's some sarcasm in there but I know it more for its satire on the current affairs of the time. We must be careful in starting to list examples as they may become a laundry list of modern examples such as Blackadder. To maintain a scholarly tone, I would prefer classical examples such as Socrates and the biblical examples mentioned above. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it appropriate to "maintain a scholarly tone"? Would it not be an achievement to create a explanation of Sarcasm that is itself an example of the subject it is explaining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.61.195 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you give a criticism of the quote by Wilde, but you keep it in your own edit anyway. I don't understand why you would do this. Are you questioning the remark on the full quote being "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence"? Also, what was wrong with the examples of sarcasm that were included in the previous version? As long the examples can be considered sarcastic, they can be used without a reference. I need a clarification regarding their removal.Dburak (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I have kept that which can be supported by good sources. I looked hard for sources for the quote you give but could not find one which seemed adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I removed the alleged Wilde quote. I was going to change it to: "A phrase apocryphally attributed to Oscar Wilde is that "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", although a variant is that "Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, but the highest form of wit"." but I really couldn't find good sources for this. Fences&Windows 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Within the Mormon community of Salt Lake City it has become common to reference sarcasm as a Rick Walton. Johntofva (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Apathy 2601:199:4300:CCD0:297D:53F:DC40:4756 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ActuallyTheFakeJTP ^{(talk • contribs)}_{(April Fools!)} 17:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following text to the Vocal Indication section: "In Amharic, rising intonation is used."^[1]

Future wishes: Also, I propose that as more language data becomes available, that the Vocal Indication section (which seems to be the only method of indicating sarcasm listed on this page) be expanded into other sections. There are many ways to indicate sarcasm, including facial expressions (in spoken and sign languages), violation of the Cooperative Principle (usually Quality), and morphological indicators (Amharic does this as well^[1] via a prefix on the verb, but as there is no relevant section for this it should be omitted for now).

Since this page is grouped under "WikiProject Comedy", perhaps there should be a page for Sarcasm (general) and Sarcasm (linguistics) once more data is available. Blipsnchitz (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Betam exeryistalegn!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just removed an extra sentence in the intro section. It mentioned the difficulty of interpreting sarcasm in online-chats, and was un-cited. I really dislike the usage of the term "Online chat" here, because it applies to any textual media, a book, newspaper, or email. I feel there could be a section about the difficulty of interpretation, and misinterpretation, of sarcasm via text. Also, I looked around a bit and found: Why It’s So Hard To Detect Emotion In Emails And Texts EDIT: This was also mentioned: Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?

- VeryGoodDog 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

What even is this? The first sentence is supposed to provide a meaningful definition of the topic at hand, not a quote from a dictionary entry — much less one that is ambigious, arguably outdated, and poorly integrated to the rest of the lead section. Other sections of the article are also littered with dictionary entries and quotes; considering that this isn’t an extremely technical issue, I don’t see why that should be the case. Yaguzi (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yaguzi, explicitly agree. I'll try masking the sourced definition with their own words. It's pure laziness. GeraldWL 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

"Sarcasm is the use of words usually used to either mock or annoy someone, or for humorous purposes."

This reads as either:

"Sarcasm is the use of words [and is] usually used to mock or annoy someone, or for humorous purposes," which doesn't make sense, or...

"Sarcasm is the use of words usually used to mock or annoy someone, or for humorous purposes," which is just 'mockery', not 'sarcasm'.

Alternatively, the latter could mean that sarcasm is "the use of words that are usually used to mock or annoy someone for humorous purposes", which isn't what sarcasm is.

I understand that there is some dispute and many misconceptions about what sarcasm actually is but I don't understand what this article is currently stating.

Shouldn't this be clarified?

Thanks. :-) SeparateTitan92 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree with this. The lede is terrible as is. Porphyro (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Issues:

• It takes the leading phrase from the Merriam-Webster lemma ("the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny") and omits the crucial part ("that mean the opposite of what you really want to say").
• Even if we put that back in, it's still wrong: it describes irony, rather than sarcasm. Irony is often called sarcasm, and sarcasm often uses irony, but they aren't the same thing. In the Merriam-Webster lemma, the pointwise elaboration actually describes sarcasm (2a: "a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual"; our lede should contain these elements. Rp (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Just using that definition would probably be copyright infringement, so it needs to be reworded. Rp (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Google's definition (I don't know the source): "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt". Contempt should probably be part of the definition, provided that it doesn't exclude self-deprecating sarcasm. Rp (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

There should be sentences for Sarcasm so that it can be easily understood. Kohcohf (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The end of the Usage section doesn't make any sense to me. 2A01:E0A:1F1:9D00:A1F4:ECE2:E34B:4BD4 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most noticeable in spoken word, sarcasm is mainly distinguished by the inflection with which it is spoken or, with an undercurrent of irony, by the extreme disproportion of the comment to the situation, and is largely context-dependent.

I added the bold in mind of the Black Knight (Monty Python):

When Arthur points out the Black Knight's injuries, the Knight insists, "It's just a flesh wound." In response to the continued kicks and insults, Arthur chops off the Black Knight's right leg.

At this point, the Knight still will not admit defeat, saying, "Right, I'll do you for that", and attempts to ram his body into Arthur's by hopping on his left leg. Arthur is annoyed at the Black Knight's persistence and sarcastically asks the Black Knight if he is going to bleed on him to win.

(Actual use of the word "sarcastically" in the related page was a pleasant surprise.)

"What are you going to do, bleed on me?" does not strike me as ironic (it's actually a plausible outcome), nor does it strike me as dependent on tone of voice; it mainly functions through disproportion: bleeding is annoying, and it could actually kill—if you have Ebola—but it's not a suitably proportional response to a man with a sharp sword poised to promptly severe limbs, and this is evident to anyone with half a brain. — MaxEnt 23:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is definitely a sarcastic remark. I would also consider it ironic: it says the opposite of what is meant. Rp (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply