On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:36:15 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy with that, as long as we can cite reliable sources for the jokes in question being widely considered representative of their type. As it is we don't even have cites for the listed types of joke being considered as such.
Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better.
Policy means nothing here, then? We can allow OR and subjective judgments as to which jokes do or don't represent the genre?
*an* eaxmple.
Or even a couple, if they illustrate different types of jokes, different forms etc.
And a couple becomes three becomes four and before you know it we are back where we were before, with a long list of jokes of variable (generally poor) quality added mainly by drive-by anons.
Not twenty examples, mainly added by drive-by anons who just heard this great joke. And definitely not the
Definitely not. [[Jumping the shark]] is the definitive example of that problem (or at least was, the last time I checked).
Exactly. So: one example, with a good source for it being widely considered representative, is the way to go :-)
lets-see-who-can-find-the-most-offensive-joke cruft.
Definitely, definitely not. But I don't believe in including offensive material in general, except for the most mitigating circumstances. Eg, if a politician's career was ended by telling a short, racist joke, then it might be appropriate to repeat that joke. Maybe.
In the article on offensive jokes, we can include examples of offensive jokes. But in high level articles we should be a bit more considerate.
Mind you, I would also have used :Image: in the Jyllands-Posten article, so I am a notorious censor and suppressor of information :-)
Guy (JzG)