Talk:Self-referential humor#rfc 6D7BF5D

We've got an IP-hopping anon repeatedly removing the article's own longstanding self-reference [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=next&oldid=1096915740], 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)

: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)

::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)

::: {{tq|"IP-hopping anon"}} I don't deliberately change IP address to avoid scrutiny, it just happens automatically everytime I re-connect. {{tq|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. {{tq|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)

::::*WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay.

::::*{{tq|It just goes round in circles forever and never actually ends up "referring" to anything}}{{snd}}It goes round in circles referring to itself. This is an article about humor, not a [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-philosophy-the-most-practical-major/246763/#:~:text=the%20systematic%20abuse%20of%20a%20terminology%20specially%20invented%20for%20that%20purpose philosophy seminar]. The distinction between {{tq|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 "[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/08/what-are-you-laughing-at/ 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)

:::::*{{tq|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? {{tq|The distinction between {{tq|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.

:::::*{{tq|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)

::::::*I'm utterly serious:

::::::**WP:ONLYESSAY is indeed only an essay.{{refn|Come to think if it, there are some definite self-referential-humor possibilities there. {{U|Levivich}}, get to work.}}

::::::**WP:RESPONSIBLE is indeed only an essay.

::::::**I do not endorse the principle that humor should be clearly indicated as such (at least not always).

::::::**I do endorse the principle that humor should not be included if there's a reasonable chance humor it might be misinterpreted. (In this case, no one not mentally defective could fail to grasp the joke, whether or not they allow themselves to enjoy it.)

::::::*An article that refers to itself refers itself; it's that simple. My uncle was a phenomenologist so I'm quite aware of how much time that can be wasted dissecting the obvious. You go ahead and do that; the rest of us would rather share a little chuckle.

::::::*{{tq|the link literally adds nothing to the article}}{{snd}}It adds humor, which is well known to aid learning. Take a look at my last encounter with someone who couldn't grasp that point: Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment. And to quote the great Leander Hamilton McCormick: {{tq|1=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9R4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA353 One should beware of those who cannot or will not laugh when others are merry, for if not mentally defective they are spiteful, selfish or abnormally conceited ... Great men of all nations and of all times have possessed a keen appreciation of the ridiculous, as wisdom and wit are closely allied.]}}

::::::EEng 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::*{{tq|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:

::::::::{{quote|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.}}

::::::::*{{tq|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)

::::::::::*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)

{{outdent}} 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)

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::The key word there is "appear". Levivich (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

::::Wait, do you mean the anonymous users could have been the same person? --ForeverStamp (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

:There have been arguments citing MOS:CIRCULAR. --ForeverStamp (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::Then I think we simply disagree about what the main effect of the link is. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::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)

: 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)

::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-referential_humor&diff=prev&oldid=1186511132 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)

:::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)

::::So that's a guideline; a guideline; a non-applicable guideline, since this isn't to a redirect; and a guideline with the conditional {{tq|"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)

:::::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)

::::::@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 {{tq|"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)

:::::::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)

::::::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)

::::::::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)

::::::::::No, the idea of guidelines is that they're explicitly more flexible and open to exception. EEng 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::: 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)

::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::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)

::::::::::::::Perhaps, but may I ask you - why do you want the link excluded? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-referential_humor&curid=858507&diff=1187169799&oldid=1187164357 revert-war in the article.]PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::::::::::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)

:::::::::The part of WP:ASTONISH that I find most relevant here is: {{tq|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)

::::::::::Agree 1000%. EEng 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::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)

:::::::::::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)

::::::::::::I mean, that would be the same examples, not more. --ForeverStamp (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

{{od}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-referential_humor&oldid=749644120 at least 2016].

The first real discussion was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Self-referential_humor#see_also_link 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-referential_humor&oldid=832690269 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)

:Isn't this back to WP:UNCHALLENGED though? --ForeverStamp (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

::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)

:::Well, I meant in regards to the "it existed from 2016-2018 without discussion" part. --ForeverStamp (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Self-referential_humor#IP_hopper_Multiple_IPs_removing_humorous_self-reference 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)

::::::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)

:::::::{{tq|not answered}} - they have. Just, apparently, not to your satisfaction. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

• {{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)
• :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)

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

:: 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)

: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)

::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)

:::Funny that you mention page protection - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190947343 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)

::::That's disappointing. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

::::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)

:Update: I was taken to ANI for this, the 149 IP was blocked for block evasion, and I changed the hatnote to a {{t|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)

@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)

• 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)
• :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)
• :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)
• :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)

: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)

::This is my view on it as well, in its current form as a {{t|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)

:::I would be fine with including the compromise hatnote. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

::::I've only had a glance but I think I would too. EEng 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

: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)

: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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• How about this for a compromise? It would appear to me the solution would be to not to include the joke link until there is verification in reliable, third-party sources that the English language Wikipedia article on self-referential humor itself contains self-referential humor. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• :A line saying, with proper attribution, "The Wikipedia article on self-referential humor contains self-referential humor" would at least be committing to the bit. I'd respect that. As it stands, there is something half-hearted and "excuse me, 1983 called and they want their joke back" about it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::One reliable source for Wikipedia's use of self-referential humor is [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-008-9135-5]/[https://wiki.computationalthinkingfoundation.org/wiki/images/3/32/Eisenberg_2.pdf] but unfortunately it's about {{slink|Recursion|Recursive humor}} rather than this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::Saying that "Wikipedia has used self-referential humor" and mentioning an article that is not self-referential humor seems funnier than linking self-referential humor back to self-referential humor. Ha ha, you thought we were going for the obvious joke, but we threw in a twist! XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :Er, sounds a bit like a self-defeating argument, no? Don't include it until sources say it's included? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::As God is my witness I thought turkeys could fly. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::It's not "self-defeating". One could include it on the basis that a source says that it has been included, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::So, we wait for a source to come along that says "The Wikipedia article on self-referential humor at one point contained a jolly little link back to itself. That link has since been destroyed and no longer exists" before we can include the link? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Yes, that is what WP:V and WP:NOR would imply. Sometimes a joke that is worth telling takes effort. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :In this context, I think we can forego the reliable third-party sources and just reference ourselves instead. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::You mean like <ref>See WP:SELFREF</ref> ? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'm not sure that is humor, which is the problem. We are trying to insert what some editor or editors subjectively think is humor; it's editorializing and not WP:NPOV, and is WP:OR I guess. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::No, it's not humor. It's a neutral example of self-referentialization(ism). As an example in the section "Other examples" it fits and augments the page topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::Like self-deprecating humor redirects to a subtopic of self-deprecation, what you are talking about would be a meta or super topic of this article, i.e. self-reference. Wouldn't an example in this article need to be an example of self-referential humor? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::It can be seen or described as both humor or a facutal example, and either way the page-related hatnote adds, not detracts, from the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::What if a user thinks the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-referential_humor&diff=prev&oldid=1192516195 link] is broken and tries to figure out where it is supposed to go, wasting their time at best? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::Why would a user think the link at Self-referential humor#Other examples is broken? The link is not broken, it works fine. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::That's not what I linked above, but whatever you say, clearly nobody could be confused by a link that just refreshes what they are looking at. Why is it so important to have a "joke" - is it even funny? What's funny, that someone is doing something not-serious on Wikipedia, i.e. kinda abusing their editing privileges? It's only an illustration of humor if it actually is humor and who is saying it is?
• :::::::::I don't really care, I'm gonna unsubscribe from this. This is a huge waste of time. Have fun. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I don't know why you linked to an old version instead of the current one. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::Clicking on something that says "Further information" and not getting any "further information" sure sounds like a broken link. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::You don't click on "further information" you click on "Self-referential humor (s) Other examples" and the link takes you there. It's not an WP:EASTEREGG. A broken link is a link that doesn't work. This link works and takes you to where it says it will take you. Someone might wonder why it's there (if they don't get the joke) but they're not going to think it's broken or try to "fix" it. Fixing it would involve the person thinking the link should go somewhere else, which they might if it was an Easter egg, but here there is no reason anyone would think the link should go somewhere else. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::::The link only "works" in the sense that it doesn't break a web browser. It's still not right to say that it provides "further" information, because that's factually untrue. Using a "Further information" hatnote for this purpose ignores the plain meaning of words in the English language in order to stretch mightily for, at best, a momentary sliver of whimsy. That's a recipe for how to make a joke not land. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::I'm glad we agree the link works and is not broken :-) I would be fine with {{t|see also}} instead of {{t|further}}. The point is that one of the "other examples" is self-referencing instead of another example... that's an example of self-referencing humor. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Is it self-referential, or just self-referencing? A list which just contains itself isn't really self-referential humor. --ForeverStamp (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::{{tq|>tfw the sliver of whimsy is momentary}}
• ::::::::::::What is this even supposed to mean? Is this poetry? What has this got to do with writing an encyclopedia? jp×g🗯️ 06:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Obviously the joke should be kept. Fun is serious business: it [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S8755461503000367 improves] [https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=974831 the] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40711-017-0067-0 cohesion] of online communities, and it [https://www.edutopia.org/blog/laughter-learning-humor-boosts-retention-sarah-henderson improves] [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ956757.pdf 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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

: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 {{tq|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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::agreed Buffs (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

:::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)

::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)

:::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)

::::I too endorse Buffs (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

::I rather like {{u|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)

:::agreed Buffs (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

:Please see the extensive, recent discussion above regarding this exact point. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

:You can inform while illustrating... Buffs (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::@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)

:::Check out 'Other examples' PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• should the article about French language be written in French?
• should the article about Italic type be displayed in italics?
• should the article about racism be written in a racist way?
• should the article about self-referential humour include a Wikipedia editor's attempt at a self-referential joke?

One answer applies to all these questions: really obviously not. One writes about the topic of the article; one does not, as some kind of joke, add text that is supposedly in the style of the topic of the article. 131.251.8.212 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Should the article about French language avoid the use of French words?

:* Should the article about Italic type exclude the use of italics?

:* Should the article about racism exclude all examples of it?

:* Should the article about self-referential humor fail to include a perfect illustration of it because of one humorless editor's upset over it?

:One answer applies to all of these questions: really obviously not. One writes about the topic of an article and illustrates it with examples, as doing so is bonne forme; one does not, as some rejection of the topic, exclude any illustrations which is objected to by a single IP editor, no matter how many years they've been engaged in this irrational campaign to get it excluded. (Pardon me for not including any examples of racism in my retort: we all have our limits, after all.)

:P.S. Please try for better grammar next time, satirizing that run-on sentence at the end of your complaint was a bit of a chore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::The article includes plenty of examples other than that one, though. --ForeverStamp (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Making the monomania for removing this one, in particular, even more inexplicable. EEng 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed. The unquenchable drive to remove a very subtle joke from a minor article that does actually bring very good publicity to the whole project remains a mystery to me. Seems irrational and monomaniacal indeed.

::::And then, be it or not that established rules do either permit or discourage this completely insignificant joke, do we not still have a brain? When did we become unable of recognizing exceptions? Xandru4 (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just to add that IP addresses all coming from the same area and from the same ISP have been engaged in this for years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)