Talk:Laughter

message: 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)
thread_title: Bush and Burlusconi

message: I find two huge holes in this article that an encyclopedic article wouldn't have:
*Physiology of Laughter: The physiological process is complicated enough to make it an actual instinct, one that humans have relatively few of. For instance, the sex act is not instinctual.
*Laughter is so pervasive that it obviously provides some evolutionary advantage far more that some psychological release.
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)
thread_title: Rather Lame Article

message: 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)
thread_title: The Child

message: 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.
:Is that, like, that sound you make when you're cracking up and you make carbonation sounds with air escaping over the tongue pressed against the palate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I find funny is that "kekekeke" redirects to Laughter, but "kekekekeke" redirects to Korean language. (Myscrnnm 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keke 

message: How come snicker re-directs here but there is no mention of the word snicker in the article?
*Does it need to have such? It basically has the same meaning, if it was necesarry, we'd probably be forced to crack open a thesauras ever time an artical was made. -FallingSkies 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snicker? 

message: 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
: You need to remove the template at the top of the page that says it needs sections after adding the sections. Anyway the template was removed a while back.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I've read that non-human apes also laugh. I'll try to find sources on this.  --George100 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Humans?

message: 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)
thread_title: Introduction?

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds right... Maybe it should be taken out of the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.71.97 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contagious? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death by Laughter 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge with [[Gelotology]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Uh, how is that an ability? Fake laughter is very easy, most of us probably do it at least once or twice a day to move the conversation past a crappy pun --lucid 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then mention the dynamics of fake laughter, and that actors train on how to do it especially well. Jidanni 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have citations you can provide here of this phenomenon?  And, if so, why does this belong on the laughter page and not the Acting page?  --David Shankbone 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK all laughter is real and none is faked or staged and therefore that is all irrelevant and should not be mentioned and I give up. Jidanni 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it comes down to that this is unnotable.  If we began listing on every page that actors "fake" whatever it is they are doing, we'll have an acting section for every emotion and action on Wikipedia.  I don't see why Laughter is more notable than Crying or Dying.  --David Shankbone 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage laughter 

message: "(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)
thread_title:  Come now people 

message: This section of the article lacks information about how laughter is depicted in English. Max Sánchez 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I just noticed that myself. Someone should definitely add it. Calgary (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depiction of laughter 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lithuanian depictions of laughter

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Suggested Addition to the Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lede image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Social order 

message: 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)
thread_title: Therapeutic benefit

message: *cry* -208.126.51.56 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LOL" isn't mentioned at all! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it was either piaget or desmond morris.  This article should cite more famous experts on the subject.  It's especially enlightening to what kinds of things make the very tiny babies laugh at the same time.  I'll see if I can find the proper citations.  Have you seen any research on the origin of laughter in babies? As I recall it's a reaction to a trusted or safe thing that does something scary, such as peek-a-boo.  Very often it's peek-a-boo, or being hoisted in the air, swung around or down in a way that feels like falling but the baby is still being held or just tossed slightly.  So it seems that, at it's simplest, laughter is a combination of fear and the realization that there's nothing to fear.  Very interesting topic.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Origin of Laughter in Individual People 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yup. Added earlier today. I've removed it. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. The definition is too narrow. Laughter isn't just an expression of happiness or joy. Some people laugh when they're nervous, confused, uncomfortable or surprised. Metrowestjp (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading definition 

message: Anyone else think there should be a section on the history of laughter? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new section: History of laughter 

message: 198.189.194.129 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction is a lot of pretentious gobbledygook

message: *Rats Laugh, but Not Like Humans.  Do animals other than humans have a sense of humor? Maybe so  by Jesse Bering Scientific American June 22, 2012  (currently in Preview but will be a full non-paid article in less than a month).  108.73.114.104 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add non-human animals? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  laughing Berlusconni and George Bush 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questions of voluntary, semi-voluntary or involuntary action  see heading. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  300 times a day? 

message: 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(!).
:I agree --Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snigger - different, distinct physical rendition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Benign Violation Theory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Laughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061129005110/http://www.sciencenews.org:80/articles/20010728/fob9.asp to http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010728/fob9.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928222941/http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/papers/ref3/kawakami2006.pdf to http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/papers/ref3/kawakami2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928222941/http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/papers/ref3/kawakami2006.pdf to http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/papers/ref3/kawakami2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Kekekekeke" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 🤭 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)
thread_title:  [[🤭]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "Snicker" is an archaic term for laughter. Most people searching that are looking for the candy brand, not laughter. Lina211Follow your dreams 01:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: why redirect away from the meaning to a chocolate bar?  Moxy- 02:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Redirects on Wikipedia is to allow an article to be searched under multiple terms. Someone searching for "Snicker" is most likely looking for the candy bar. A Google Search for "Snicker" gives you results for the candy bar. Wikipedia titles follow common usage, so should Redirects. I'm sorry you don't like that common usage deviates from the actual meaning. Like I stated before, here on Wikipedia we follow common usage not correct usage. Lina211Follow your dreams 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source for this POV...perhaps this is what a teenager is looking for but anyone with any academic experience understands there's a meaning to the word.... it has zero meaning to some sort of American chocolate bar. We should be trying to educate our readers not perpetuates stupidity. Moxy- 03:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Maybe add one of those thingies that say "Snicker redirects here, for the candy see Snickers"? Amogus girl (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snicker should redirect to Snickers and not here 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Huhuhu]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:🤭]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chuckle 

message: Penguins can't laugh.. 157.10.248.224 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024