Talk:American humor

As it stands now, this "article" is merely a few anonymous opinions about general concepts in American humor.

In reality, America is an enormous country with tastes in humor ranging from Dave Chappelle to reruns of The Dick van Dyke Show.

1. This article needs to be rewritten with facts about American comedians, sit-coms, personalities, etc. from history to the present.
2. References to certain types of humor (e.g. scatalogical, absurdist, etc.) should be restricted to facts about their use.

There is room for a lot more than I'm thinking of, but these are just guidelines.--Bantosh 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

We tend to use the word "comedy" more than humor. I see that "American comedy" would come out red though. I was tempted to put in a great deal about American comedy, but I assumed this article wanted to mostly revolve around humorists so I focussed on writers or old-time comedians. If comedy in general can be dealt with in this article it indeed needs a great deal of improvement. One thing is that America is a very large nation of numerous regions and cultures. Trying to find an overarching/distinctive "American comedy" I think is difficult. There are satirists, see Category:American satirists, in the US and fairly intelligent comedy too. You just might not be getting them because there's a tendency to think that stuff won't make sense outside the US. (Just like a great deal of British humour is completely obscure to Americans and mostly watched by nerdy USers who know the House of Lords as well as they know their own families)--T. Anthony 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. This article remains a bunch of unsourced opinions, and many of them seem to be mad at American humor for targeting Americans.
2. Many weasle words of such ilk as: "Many people think this..."(unsourced)
3. Original research and POV: "Like most things American, the attempt to make decisive claims about the origins of American humor is often compromised by the fact of America's separation from England."--Bantosh 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the other humor articles and noticing there is no "American comedy" article I've decided to just redo the whole thing after all. This is goig to be a fairly extensive rewrite which I hope will be expanded on by others.--T. Anthony 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most of these sections need expansion, but I'm not sure I'm up to the job. I'll work some on observational humor though.--T. Anthony 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know it's still full of unsourced opinions, but have my changes improved the article at all?--T. Anthony 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just passing by but I can't help thinking it a bit odd that Laurel and Hardy should be considered American humourists but Charlie Chaplin is not. After all, Stan Laurel and Chaplin were both British and both travelled to America in Fred Karno's Army and, arguably, Chaplin is the greater figure in the development of Hollywood film comedy.217.154.66.11 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You almost had me. Oliver Hardy was American, Chaplin was not. Chaplin is also associated with Europe about as strongly as the US as he spent the majority of his life there. He retained British citizenship in his 38 years in the US.--T. Anthony 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All true but Laurel was the creative force in their partnership so really it was his humour rather than Hardy's that was on display. However, my main point was, despite the fact Chaplin was British his global superstardom was the result of the films he made in Hollywood. Surely the films of Charlie Chaplin are among the most iconic images of American cinema. Nobody ever talks of Chaplin's films as European. Anyway, if people who weren't born in the USA are omitted, doesn't that potentially exclude rather a lot of 'American' entertainers of the early 20th century?217.154.66.11 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily enough to be meaningful. See the US is a nation of 300 million people or something so it's able to produce humorists and comedians on its own without British imports. (I'm just being snarky there because the original version of this article was in effect "American humor is British humour's poor relation.") I'm mostly hesitant to put Chaplin in as America rejected him and he rejected America. Plus he was often, possibly always, dealing with themes that are as or even more European than anything. Still if you want to add him add him, the film section needs expansion.--T. Anthony 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Chaplin's mentioned, but where's Will Rogers? He was considered the greatest living American humorist at the time of his death in 1935. Wikipedia has an extensive article on him, so there is no shortage of material. 66.245.59.147 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this seriously all there is about American humor? There are huge articles about British, New Zealand, and who-knows-where-else humor... Could somone either put a 'stub' tag on it or bring it up to the level of the British Humour article? Polyhymnia

I concur. The British Humour article is quite comprehensive, this is vague and in a different format. American humour isn't really well understood in most other parts of the world, or at least not very well liked, because it makes a lot of self-references.Someone Stateside who actually understands the foundations of modern US comedy should re-write this, though the existing history stuff should definitely be retained.

Most of the world doesn't understand British humor. And most of the world doesn't understand Canadian humor because most of the world doesn't know it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.211.166 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I moved your post down to make it clearer it's more recent. Anyway I tried to rewrite going roughly by the format of Canadian humour rather than the British humour article. That might have been an error, but I think there was a logic to doing so in that Canada is our nearest neighbor. Still I knew it was a patch up job and I'd hoped someone would improve it in the last two weeks.--T. Anthony 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also out of realization that many British editors have seen this article I tried to name American comedians that were placed in the British The Comedian's Comedian show and so may have cross-over appeal at least for the UK. Still I am getting a bit tired of the "most of the world doesn't like your humour" thing and I don't even like most modern American comedies. Most of the world doesn't like humor from any particular nation so the statement is not very meaninful. Humor is one of the more culturally specific things out there. Even within America comedy of one sub-culture sometimes fares poorly with another. Most Americans don't like much of the "Ivy League" humor that had been the focus of NBC comedies or the "blue collar" humor of parts of the South. I think it's unlikely that most of the world likes British humor or Canadian humor or what have you. Britain has some advantage in being dominant over more cultures for a longer period of history, but I'd presume that for most of Latin America or Central Asia British humour is no more likeable than any other nations outside their own.--T. Anthony 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this article is better than the British humour article in that it is more than just a list of examples from BBC tv shows. You have at least tried to show that there are different mediums as well as different styles. One thing I see missing is mention of vaudeville and details about the slapstick humour mentioned in the lead. Many of the early comedians started in vaudeville. I also agree that it is difficult to distinguish "humor" from "comedy." But, if I have time I will try to get some references and additional info to add. -- --Tinned Elk 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

okay, I added some. I am confused on the cultural "confusions" part of the article. I think the point in the lead that there are lots of culturally different types of american humor is probably enough. Not sure why the article is referencing a book about why people hate america. does the book discuss american humor or is this just in response to the comment here? I don't think the article can analyze any further why people from other countries don't "get" a country's humor. As said above that is just the way it is. I don't get Benny Hill (intellectual humor??). Oh well. --Tinned Elk 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you and neat improvements. As for some specific points when I came here the article was largely about how American humor compares to British humour, with the comparison generally being unflattering to Americans. In addition to that so many at the talk pages were like "we don't get American humor, this should deal with that." So I tried to look for American humorists who are also popular outside the US and mention cultural issues. In fairness the British humour article also does this a bit.--T. Anthony 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added a section on vaudeville (included Theater in heading needs expansion); added magazines - Mad, National Lampoon to the section on Cartoons, not sure if it should be a new section or not. Added some to radio, variety TV. --Tinned Elk 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This section:

... not to mention the radically different profile of the two African-rooted communities: the American is predominantly descended from slaves who generally arrived two hundred years or more ago and is also less-educated...

may be statistically true, but I'm not certain. Can we get some citations to back this up, or would it be considered POV? Carinemily 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It should probably be removed unless supported with a cite.--Tinned Elk 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've re-written and simplified this section to reflect what I think is a neutral point of view. If anyone would like to make improvements, please do! Carinemily 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. --Tinned Elk 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the cultural confusions section, this link is cited as saying that American comedies are BETTER accepted in German speaking coutries. However, while the score for that cross-over is higher than some of the others, it was not statistically significant. You guys might want to think about looking that one over next time you have a chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ranting Martian (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC). --Ranting Martian 10:46am, 6 May 2007Reply

This section in British humour was extremely helpful in defining what British Humor was. It would be very useful in American Humor. I am unfortunately too busy to do this so I ask you, the reader to help out in making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. Klichka 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually such a paragraph did exist but was deleted without discussion as "opinion" (maybe because it was not sourced? but then neither is the section in British humour). The previous material was:

Unlike British humour, American humor has historically tended a little more towards slapstick. There is less emphasis on understatement, and so the humor tends to be a little more open; rather than satirizing the social system through exaggeration, American humor prefers more observational techniques. As the United States not have a history of a nobility, the humor tends not to focus on class systems as much as British humour; where it does it tends to make fun of stereotypes based on race and social standing.

--Tinned Elk 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That should bring in the rule of 'violate all rules if it helps wikipedia' then, since the 'opinion' should be deleted if it's false rather than if it's an 'opinion' due to the nebulous and possibly understudied nature of the topic. Klichka 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I tried to rewrite this to reinstate the deleted information and perhaps a bit of source information, reorganized a bit, etc. I am not an expert or even a scholar in this area, so I am just relying on what I found and what the other contributors have left for us. It is funny, but this is obviously an area where everyone thinks that they "know" something because we all experience humor. Thanks for the support. --Tinned Elk 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very nice, if you could get the source where you got the information of Comedy movies overseas that would be great to cite too. Klichka 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There is a source for that statement from a NYU newsletter (footnote 3 on my screen), although it is not something that I added. --Tinned Elk 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may want to check the examples section and add more. I am not spaming with the link.--Arceus fan 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quote: Humor began to emerge in the United States soon after the American Revolution in written and spoken form unquote how stupid is this, are we saying colonial America was devoid of anything funny before this emergence REWORD it! Dainamo 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That would be an example of British humour :-) [I can't find the sentence to remove it, so I assume it's already gone] 78.86.151.120 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I too, visited this discussion page due to that quote. I guess that's why we fought the Revolutionary War, we were completely without humor and we were getting sick of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.242.137 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thesis: American humor refers collectively to the conventions and common threads that tie together humor in America.

The citation from a 1931 book on humor does not represent contemporary American humor or the themes of American humor. It may be a good critical view of American humor from a cultural perspective, but it is not a representative look at the themes that comprise American humor.

American humor is quite diverse, and this article should represent that. It does a good job of this in the development of American humor tab, but there is no real summary of what defines American humor.

American humor ranges from dry to over the top and almost cliqueish to very broad. Think Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development compared to Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and a Half Men. American humor, at its best, is very biting and critical and at its worst, it can be nothing more than silly, mindless drivel. Here is a brief list of the best of what makes up American humor.

Types of American Humor:

   * Hyperbole
   * Irony
   * Irreverence
   * Dark humor
   * Chaos and Dysfunction
   * Satire and sarcasm
   * Self-deprecation
   * Physical Comedy
   * Absurdity  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.93.236 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply 

Is slapstick really the predominant type of humour in America? I know there is a strong tradition of it, but it seems like American Humour has moved beyond that, especially on television. The past 30 years, at least, slapstick comedy doesn't really seem overly represented in the American scene. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

American humor is the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.98.46 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American humor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621194341/http://www.bookhelpweb.com:80/awards/thurber/thurber.htm to http://www.bookhelpweb.com/awards/thurber/thurber.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American humor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113103340/http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113103340/http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bookhelpweb.com/awards/thurber/thurber.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113103340/http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply