This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laughter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sassenach75.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nelcia.maximay.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that this is a very tricky article, but can we do better than this picture? It seems fairly self-evident that this photo was posed and that they aren't, in fact, laughing. 96.50.10.234 ( talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I find two huge holes in this article that an encyclopedic article wouldn't have:
I hope those better at this than I am would find research on this and add it to the article. 94.253.151.47 ( talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is wrong. Titter mean shame on you. Not laugh maybe it means both but the word titter is not mentioned. Which makes me furious. So I say titter to this page and who made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.154.150 ( talk) 13:30, 16 September 2012
The child is very cute but why is it always children in articles like this? -- 212.247.27.49 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's because children laugh a lot, and adults tend to have less 'pure' laughter, they tend to laugh when it would result in personal gain; young children don't fake it. They just laugh their hearts out. Varnis 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Varnis, please don't edit my posts without messaging me. That message was originally mine and was slightly shorter. Varnish1 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many complaints about the overly philisophical nature of this article in this talk page - I totally agree and tried to resort the sections to make this artcile start with the facts and then move, as it does, into the theories. Unfortunatly, the (now) later sections on "congnitive models" appear to me to be original research which has no home in Wikipedia. I remember a time when this was a simple, elegant article on laughter, not a stuffy (and punishably not-funny) tretise about what I should and should not laugh at. PaigePhault 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon further thought - I think this article should dispense with anything related to humor, comedy, jokes etc. and refer to those articles. This article should be quite limited to the description of what laughter is, and, present what is known about how it occurs (physiologically). The fact that laughter is pleasurable, and that societies try to create circumstances that lead to laughter is as far as this article should delve into the philosophical. But... I would like to hear others' opinions in this regard. PaigePhault 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article start out with a quote from Aristotle saying that laughter is confined to the human species, and then end with a paragraph about how other animals laugh too? Guypersonson 05:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This reads like they are both doing the same thing. Removed until clarification. -- Eloquence 13:56 27 May 2003 (UTC)
It is, but if you are that specific, you should name the source. Great article, BTW. It appears that neither Britannica Concise nor encyclopedia.com nor Columbia have an article about laughter. -- Eloquence
Keke redirects to this page without explanation. "Keke" is never mentioned in the article. Could someone explain it?
"keke", or "kekeke" (which also redirects here), are both commonly accepted as how koreans say "hahaha". whether that is true or not, i cant say, but i'd bet money many wikipedians who are online gamers have seen that phrase before.
How come snicker re-directs here but there is no mention of the word snicker in the article?
Laughter Hiffzil Noh ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The article of laughter said it needed sections inserted and I inserted them. Am i supposed to tell someone i did this? The article still says it needs sections inserted and is still on a lsit of articles needing headings. Ifixmanypages
I've read that non-human apes also laugh. I'll try to find sources on this. -- George100 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does the introduction to this article sound like a philosophy term paper?
[personal attack removed per WP:RPA] 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well...First of all, when my friend laughs the others begin softly laughing but I don't? Is it like some laughters are contagious to certain people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.120.0.58 ( talk) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.38.82 ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be left in. It is cited, whereas personal experience is original research. Some people never catch the flu (influenza, not the common cold) in their lifetimes, but that does not mean that the flu is not contagious. ( 124.170.6.214 ( talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
There are some accounts of this in the Fatal hilarity article. Might be worth a mention. -- 130.92.9.58 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Gelotology article is almost identical to parts of this article. I think the Gelotology article should be reduced to a simple explanation that it is the study of the physiology of laughter and any other details can be moved into the Laughter article. Clerks. 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
We have two photos for the lead, one of a baby that could either be laughing or smiling, that appears to have copyright issues due to it being from a stock exchange website, and one with no copyright restrictions of a child laughing uproariously. Some votes on which the page prefers, please? -- David Shankbone 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Young child picture is much better, the other one looks like a sufferer of spasticity.
i don't much like the photo of the "child laughing uproariously". he looks like there might be something really wrong with him, or that he is being forced into the photograph. child abuse? 71.112.142.5 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Both pictures are annoying and demonstrate self-evident emotions. -- nlitement [talk] 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The photo is not very aesthetic and should be removed. It also looks strange and may confuse the viewed on what actually is going on. Point blank: it is not a good photo. If people insist on having the photo in the article, a consensus should be open about it. -- Thus Spake Anittas 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The photo is rather disturbing. I accept that the child is laughing, but a cropped image might be mistaken for someone writhing in pain. It's horrible.
82.40.163.5 ( talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to replace the lead photo of Goldie Hawn. It doesn't particularly capture 'laughter' and it doesn't seem like there was any discussion before its adoption. There doesn't appear to have been much movement here for while, so I thought I'd try pushing forward. Cheers! Bordwall ( talk) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I like this photograph. I must be one of the only people in this discussion that likes it. It symbolises magnificent joy to me. -- Macaroniking ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You must mention stage laughter. The ability to laugh on cue by actors, unlike average people. You must mention it as you have deleted it. Jidanni 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"(though such citations may only lay credit to accounts such as Reefer Madness)"
I removed the above. This has nothing to do with Laughter as a topic, and certainly doesn't belong in the introduction to the article. Harley peters 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This section of the article lacks information about how laughter is depicted in English. Max Sánchez 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Che che che could be added as sneering. Sneering was added to Japanese, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be in Lithuanian, though it's not important. -- 195.22.191.4 ( talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.38.82 ( talk) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In his chief work, The World as Will and Representation, Arthur Schopenhauer describes the phenomenon of laughter. I believe this definition to be superior to any offered by the article. It reads as follows:
"I refer to laughter. On account of the origin of this phenomenon, we cannot refrain from speaking about it here, although once more it interrupts the course of our discussion. In every case, laughter results from nothing but the suddenly perceived incongruity between a concept and the real objects that had been thought through it in some relation; and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity. It often occurs through two or more real objects being thought through one concept, and the identity of the concept being transferred to the objects. But then a complete difference of the objects in other respects makes it strikingly clear that the concept fitted them only from a one-sided point of view. It occurs just as often, however, that the incongruity between a single real object and the concept under which, on the one hand, it has been rightly subsumed, is suddenly felt. Now the more correct the subsumption of such actualities under the concept from one standpoint, and the greater and more glaring their incongruity with it from the other, the more powerful is the effect of the ludicrous which springs from this contrast. All laughter therefore is occasioned by a paradoxical, and hence unexpected, subsumption, it matters not whether this is expressed in words or in deeds. This in brief is the correct explanation of the ludicrous.” (59)
This is merely a suggested addition to whomever it may concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.93.148 ( talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I really think the use of a carton image as the first image is inappropriate on a general article on laughter. Also using an image depicting minstrels begs much deeper commentary on depictions of laughter and race in the entertainment industry that this article doesn't (and I would say probably shouldn't) go into. -- SiobhanHansa 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. IMHO the article misses an important point on laughter that I saw in a program on Discovery channel. The program said that laughing is a social activity not only on promoting bonding but also in establishing social "pecking order". It said that people in a group were more likely to laugh, and laugh harder, on the jokes of a popular or more powerful person than a less popular or (socially) weaker person. Can anyone shed light on this and modify the article accordingly? Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher ( talk) 11:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I found some info here and added chunks of it in the corresponding section. I know the info is not cited but I'll try to find some references in the nearest future. Actually, I was kind of surprised not to find the info not to be already included in this article. Siliconov ( talk) 08:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll figure out a way to add it's delightfulness
Happiness?
what has laughter to do with happiness?
you could say someone who is laughing looks happy, but that doesnot mean he is.
could we please put up some citations to either support the happiness statement or remove it completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.230.125 ( talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an observation: people with Alzheimer's Dementia are unable to laugh. They can no longer experience joy. Laughter seems to require an intact mind. Onejackdaw ( talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I remeber learning the following somewhere. It needs to go into the article, please help cite it:
As you probably know, newborns don't laugh. After some weeks, something happens and they begin to laugh. But what is that something?
As you probably know, very often it happens during a game of peek-a-boo. What happens is, someone the baby has learned to recognize and trust presents her face and startles the baby. The baby may start to shout or cry, but the brain has learned facial recognition well enough that the baby is able to understand that there is nothing to fear fast enough to stop the fear from becoming crying, and the brain is soothed into understanding, it's ok, it's just mommy who startled me, and the reaction morphs from a cry into laughter.
I think it might have been Piaget or someone like that who pointed this out. It's a known thing in the field of childhood development. It's important because it will allow the reader to see what laughter is really all about. It's essential to understanding laughter, so it must go in the article, but I'm afraid to put it in because it's going to look like original reasearch until we can figure out how to cite it properly.
Someone out there knows where this analysis comes from. All I can remember now is that I heard it somewhere, read it somewhere, that it's not just something I make up. It's obviously true though, as anyone who ever had a month or so age baby knows, but not something that people normally think about the significance of, and will improve the article.
Do you think it'd be ok if I did it up nice and encyclopedic and then added a "citation needed" tag onto it in the hopes that someone will come along and add a reference note? Surely it's obviously true enough to add without much danger of it being challenged as possibly false. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that "very often it happens during a game of peek-a-boo". Babies laugh at clapping hands, repetitive, melodious sounds, a happy, smiling and familiar face obviously directing "warm feelings" to the baby while "cooing", being carried in an exaggerated, up and down motion, having their own hands clapped together by someone... the list is all but endless and I doubt that many people could truly remember, or even know, the first time their baby laughed and why. It requires watching the baby constantly to know that it hasn't laughed until the occasion you think was the first. Besides, you are simply providing an example of infant laughter and the specific thoughts that trigger it; you are not actually explaining anything about laughter that is not explained in the section on causes. In the section on causes, what you say is stated generically and applies to all ages; an inconsistency perceived on some level as a threat, but resolved and realized not to be a threat, and the relief generates laughter. You, on the other hand, never explain what the "something" is, and you seem to think it is the ability to perceive an inconsistency. Really, the "something" that you speak about is knowledge about the way the world works, and that knowledge continues to accumulate throughout a lifetime. It is the reason that certain jokes are not understood without certain knowledge; if you don't know that police officers are stereotyped as loving doughnuts, a joke involving that stereotype will not generate laughter. If you are 8 years old, you won't "get" jokes based around sex. If you are a newborn baby, you will fear the sudden disappearance of your mother's face, because you don't realize it still exists. I don't think it is acceptable to add something to an article in the hope that someone will find out where it came from. Your theory of what is going on inside the baby's head is in the section on causes; you have simply applied that theory to a baby laughing at peek-a-boo, and it explains nothing more about laughter than an explanation of what is going on inside an adult's head when he or she laughs. ( 124.170.6.214 ( talk) 14:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
This parenthetical sentence: "(This is also why Doonesbury isn’t that funny.)" under Causes, looks like possible vandalism to me. Or maybe it's just poorly integrated and unsourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.120.110 ( talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What about laughing at someone's fart? Is that "an audible expression of happiness, or an inward feeling of joy"? Fairly, that doesn't sound like a perspicuous definition to me. People don't start laughing when they pass an exam or get a new job, but they do when looking at a mountain that resembles a pair of buttocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.22.18 ( talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else think there should be a section on the history of laughter? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
198.189.194.129 ( talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me this two guys are more like smiling rather than laughing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_and_Berlusconi_share_toast_%282008-10-13%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.151.10 ( talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
questions of voluntary, semi-voluntary or involuntary action
see heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 ( talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Laughter essay Inzamam ul haq bajwa ( talk) 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I am struggling to find a source for the rather surprising claim that children laugh 300 times a day (my own kids are cheerful little people but 300 times? 300??) This site - http://www.laughteryogaamerica.com/read/blog/children-laugh-300400-times-day-true-false-false-4469.php -claims that the 300 figure refers to smiling, not laughing. Neezes ( talk) 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
IMO a "snigger" has a physically distinct mode of execution. The laugh is suppressed - the pressure from the lungs is held on the soft palette, where it leaks through, causing a vibration high up behind the nose. The failure to completely suppress the laugh is what causes the snigger. Anyone agree? Should then Snigger have a separate page(!).
http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/Benign_Violation_Theory.html Is it worth including some reference to this? "humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied: (1) a situation is a violation, (2) the situation is benign, and (3) both perceptions occur simultaneously. For example, play fighting and tickling, which produce laughter in humans (and other primates), are benign violations because they are physically threatening but harmless attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.31.2 ( talk) 09:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Laughter. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laughter. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Kekekekeke. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Kekekekeke until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
🤭 redirects here with no explanation. Could someone please explain this to me? It isn’t even a laughing emoji, it is a shocked emoji with the hand over the mouth. Maybe remove this redirect altogether?— Alex Mitchell of The Goodies ( talk) 16:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
jp×
g
02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
the various Wikipedia articles on various types of laughter could be merged into this overarching topic. seriously. SkidMountTubularFrame ( talk)
"Snicker" is an archaic term for laughter. Most people searching that are looking for the candy brand, not laughter. Lina211 Follow your dreams 01:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
snicker-verb - to laugh at someone or something in a silly and often unkind way.Moxy-
The redirect
Huhuhu has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17 § Huhuhu until a consensus is reached.
Dronebogus (
talk)
07:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
🤭 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § 🤭 until a consensus is reached.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk
16:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Chuckle redirects here but there is no explanation what it actually is. -- 2003:C9:470F:D500:4DAA:3462:50A1:B1F5 ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Penguins can't laugh.. 157.10.248.224 ( talk) 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)