Talk:Sarcasm/Archive 1

message: Anyone speak Danish — they appear to have a bit more than us.--ZayZayEM 14:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be German. ;) Most of the content is copied from us; the remainder focuses on distinguishing sarcasm from cynicism, which I don't think is really an issue in English.  Mark1 02:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Information from foreign-language edition of Wikipedia

message: :Sarcasm is also regularly confused with cynicism, which in common use is seen as a fundamental nihilistic attitude toward other people and life in general
As I understand it, cynicism is a point of view stemming from the belief that all human endeavours are fundamentally selfish. Nihilism is a philosophy where everything is fundamentally meaningless. Can someone explain how the two are linked? Thanks, RishiAggarwal 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cynicism/Nihilism? 

message: "sarcasm can often be seen even as a positive way of thinking about things"
I can't imagine any positive aspect of sarcasm, at least not in definition (certainly one could claim humor was a positive thing, but that would be a different thing).
: I disagree. Example: someone wins a lot of money on the lottery and says, "I think I'll buy that CD I've been wanting - if I can afford it." --Mintie 01:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not sarcasm, it's irony. Mark1 03:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The part "if I can afford it" is ironic. But the first part: "I think I'll buy that CD I've been wanting" sounds to me more like sarcasm. Of all the things you could buy with money to mention only a cd player has certain sneering or mocking quality. Though I don't know if that still can be called positive sarcasm. -- Alatopi 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive? 

message: I'm not buying this:
:Recently, sarcasm has become so heavily used that it has become a self-parody, resulting in the phenomena of double sarcasm.  In double sarcasm, a statement is said sarcasticly, but the individual is actually entirely honest in his or her statement, e.g. "this pizza probably tastes exactly like pizza hut."
It seems like original research to me.  With 127 unique Google hits for "double sarcasm", yeah...  It also seems to apply to some particular culture, without identifying which one.  Is double sarcasm all the rage in, say, China, just now? -GTBacchus 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make it different from irony, not from sarcasm.  The reason it shouldn't be in this article is because it's not a common term. Mark1 21:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Double sarcasm?" 

message: Markalexander, why did you remove my cultural section?
It is common knowledge that the UK & the US have differing appreciations of sarcasm in everyday use, and that European sarcastic humour is usually lost on Americans.
You mention my example is ironic, not sarcastic and that sarcasm is always intended to give offense?
:Because your example is ironic, not sarcastic and sarcasm is always intended to give offense. European ironic humour may be lost on Americans; sarcastic humour would be lost on them only if it is also ironic. Mark1 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "Why won't you come out, the weather is splendid" when there are galeforce winds and rain, is being sarcastic. No, it isn't.  It's ironic.  Look it up in a dictionary. Mark1 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We're being honest, not sarcastic. Daniel A. A. 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural 

message: This article is so good.
::Very clever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.201.83 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow. 

message: General question on sarcasm, does being sarcastic and cynical automatically make you an asshole? I am both and there seems to be a lot of people that think I'm an asshole, so does being sarcastic automatically make you one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lightfight (talk • contribs)  00:34, April 6, 2006 (UTC).
Yes. 24.18.191.215 05:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes 24.211.161.77 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asshole? 

message: Wow, and I always thought those poms were yelling at me!  Appologies to all the Poms I ever retaliated to. Factoid Killer 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the UK, writing has adopted the use of (!) (an exclamation mark in parentheses) following speech in which sarcasm or irony is perceptible via the tone of voice, a punctuation mark which is very reg 

message: I expect they will be reverted :)   Nimur 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it nice to have your expectations fulfilled? HenryFlower 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They will live on for all eternity in the history  ! Nimur 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sarcastic comments 

message: I'd like to see this entry include different cultures' use of sarcasm, or their lack of it. I've always heard that non-Anlgo cultures do not recognize sarcasm the same way native English-speakers do. I'm not sure, but I believe I've heard the Japanese mentioned as  a people who don't incorporate sarcasm in their speech or humor as is common in the English-speaking world. So it's not something I know much about, but I am vaguely aware of. Even if I'm wrong, it might be worth a subhead to explain the misconceptions. Am I wrong to say that sarcasm is not a universal form of humor? --WWB 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, mis dos centavos desde México. At least here we use sarcasm, I like to and know a lot of people who do too. Vicco Lizcano 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that the Japanese don't have sarcasm as a tone-of-voice thing, but they do have it in terms of using the wrong politeness level.  An extreme example is kisama, the worst possible way of addressing someone, which literally translates as "your honorable self", and was used in this polite manner in the (distant) past! Dave-ros 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm and non-Anglo cultures 

message: I would be interested in seeing more information about sarcasm in other languages in this article if anyone has any info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spunkymcpunk (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm in other languages 

message: You're kidding me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.89.73 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocally Goblin? 

message: I'm removing
This has been a recent development and is sign-posted as a dumbing down of literature by many within the British canon.
If anyone wants to unweasel-word it, fine.--Grimboy (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbing down 

message: There are a bunch of problems with this article.  I've corrected one I believe I should do without consultation:  Sarcasm is mostly associated with the technique of substituting an intended meaning with the expression of its opposite; thus I've changed the introductory paragraph to better reflect this.
Secondly, if the article is titled 'Sarcasm,' I don't think the first section should also be titled that – it should present something distinctive.
Regarding the content of the second paragraph:  I think that this is misrepresentative of most well-recognised literature.  Certainly, web-speak and e-mail have presented a need to visually discern sarcasm, but skillful writers haven't traditionally required such a device and consequently the majority of sarcasm in well-known literature doesn't use italics and such because it doesn't need to.  Shakespeare is definitely not a mere exception to the rule (as the article implies).  Even though what I'm critical of in the article isn't sourced, I can't provide a source for my opinion so I won't edit it.  But I reckon I'm right, so it would be good to look into that.  
Anyway, surely there's more interesting things to say about sarcasm (in literary tradition) in addition to a couple of comments about its common employment in internet dialogue.  The article as it is is a little bit trite by wikipedia standards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Et Amiti Gel (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could use some improvement 

message: The link to flippant is directed at pedia, when it's now at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flippant.  No idea how to insert an outside link as a blue word, so if someone could that would be dandy. VonBlade (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flippant 

message: I remember that there used to be an article, or a section in Sarcasm that explained the usage of (!) to denote sarcasm in subtitles, and now that is gone. Is there a reason? I think it is an important piece of history; I think it should be put back in the article.
Zhukant (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the (!) symbol? 

message: The Bible records many uses of sarcasm, including that by God (Judges 10:14 & Job 38:4), and Elijah (1 Kings 18:27).  216.117.194.58 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm in the Bible 

message: The quote represents a reactionary argument against a claim something along of the lines "Sarcasm is the tool of the weak and pathetic".
If a person cannot confront an opposing argument or wishes to falsely accuse someone of something, sarcasm allows them to fake confrontation.  The target of the sarcastic remark is not clear on what is being said because by it's very nature it makes little or no sense to someone that doesn't already agree with it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.158.32 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is non neutral 

message: Sarcasm mark was prodded. Instead, I think it should be merged here. Thoughts? Fences and windows (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This is my new favourite Wikpedia article.
MichaelKeefe 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously people who don't understand Sarcasm really need wikipedia to explain it to them 212.69.61.195 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, really?~ Steneub (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel I should mention 

message: [/sarcasm] is hardly widespread or an Internet norm. I think it should be remove.d  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Failspy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm tags on message boards 

message: Hmm... I dont't yet know if it's Wikipedia-worthy, but some company is trying to redefine sarcasm with the "SarcMark" and selling unlimited print and digital use of it for 1.99 $USD. Soooo... It's really up to the rest of you. I don't mess with this stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo117 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New SarcMark 

message: The article states that Karl Marx used [!] but in the text I've read it is (!).
See examples here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
http:// www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA5.html#Part%20II,%20Chapter%205
http://books.google.com/books?id=TvfrAAAAMAAJ&dq=karl%20marx%20Capital%3A%20a%20critique%20of%20political%20economy&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Is this just a slight translation difference from reprinting the original text? Is there any text examples of Marx using brackets? I think the article should change [!] to (!) in reference to Karl Marx.
75.92.228.61 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Marx sarcasm 

message: The reference No.3 , to http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/neu193288.pdf ,  "The Neuroanatomical Basis of Understanding Sarcasm and Its Relationship to Social Cognition", instead brings up a '404' page
A Google search for that title brings up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910115 as the first result, it's only the abstract but its better than a 404 page...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.176.19 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: The difference between these is not simple. In the Wiki world I read that irony can be sarcasm and that sarcasm uses irony. I have always followed the Usage and Abusage rule:
Irony consists in stating the contrary of what is meant.
 ...
Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner.
Wiki seems to disagree with this, which suggests to me that things are not as cut and dried as we may think. Myrvin (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, the introduction says that sarcasm is the use of irony. It cites the OED in support of this. As the footnote says, the OED has (in part): "A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt. Now usually in generalized sense: Sarcastic language; sarcastic meaning or purpose." It does not mention irony in its definition, and should not be used to bolster the idea that sarcasm is only the use of irony. Please read the discussion pages and article on irony. Myrvin (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm and irony 

message: "Sarcasm [...] was created in America in 2010"
No.  --Melissia (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait what? 

message: sarcasm is a by product of self notice and understanding of who ever you are pointing the finger at. but can back firer if it is misunderstood or my favorite understood and hit with you with another sarcastic comment with ironnic sense, which can be hit back again which has not been done in normal convo unless pre-made a.k.a movies, shows etc. which must end in ironic irony which is bloody hard. which means the irony is that its ironic irony is a by product of self sarcasm at its best and has no meaning what so ever. unless is ironic, which is sad in a sense of undisirable understanding of one self. so my understanding is that sarcasm is a joke without a punch line. or burger without fries :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.56.213 (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sarcasm? 

message: can you make sarcastic sarcasm, with one person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.56.213 (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  can you make sarcastic sarcam 

message: Used mainly by comedians (so noone would be offended) refering to oneself or close family. For example: "Yesterday i went fishing with my brother and father. I don't care what they say about him, he is a good fisherman."--Longisle (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self sarcasm 

message: Many times, the opening tag is omitted, due to the HTML tagging often being an afterthought.
This may be true in some cases, but I believe the general reason for the missing starting block is because many message boards will attempt to interpret the string as HTML. Not recognizing the tag, they simply remove all the text between the start and end tag. Excluding the opening tag prevents this behavior. 63.197.247.13 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I believe this section should either be omitted or elaborated.  I'm not su sure that the use of <sarcasm></sarcasm> is particularly common (More common than, say, <rant/> </rant>.) Rp (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back again! This article is branching out into just being several people's personal views. Myrvin (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm HTML/XML 

message: I am worried that the biblical examples here are not examples of the origin of the term. They may be early examples of what someone nowadays thinks is sarcasm - but the word 'sarcasm' does not appear. There may be a place for early examples, but we would need citations to say that they ARE examples of sarcasm. Just listing early examples does not add to our knowledge of the origins of the term. I think they should be deleted. Myrvin (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there until a vandal mucked it up. I've put it back. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: When sarcasm itself was seen as an inherently funny concept, and used on sitcoms in the late 80s/early 90s in that capacity? Several Simpsons episodes have someone simply saying "I'm being sarcastic" and that's the entire joke.. similar to 'well duh.'
:Or that Kids in the Hall sketch where Dave Foley talks with a sarcastic drawl, sarcastically claiming that he has a 'speech impediment' which prevents him from talking in a 'normal way' leaving the viewer, and straight man Kevin Mcdonald, wondering if he's telling the truth or actually being sarcastic. While interesting to discuss, I can't see how this applies to the article. --Thaddius 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'nooo i was being sincere' - Bart Simpson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcaballooscuro (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sarcasm still is a type of sence of humour. It is not widely  practiced since most people don't understand what it is (it requires kind of counterintuitive thinking) or don't even distinguish it from irony (low IQ). It is practiced among friends and colleagues as sign of closeness and mutual understanding (this is the area where many inside jokes come from). The offencive meaning is only interpreted by people who are not close enough or with no sense of humour (like most authors of this article about sarcasm). It is more recognisable when it is done by comedians (you are expecting a joke in the first place) in sitcoms or standups. In standups there is even special kind of sarcasm - selfpisstake, that makes it even easier to follow and understand. It is mostly taken as offensive remark in online (most people are locked in serious discussions and not expecting any jokes at all) or by strangers in real life (again - not expecting any friendliness or jokes). I say "not widely practiced" but i have done some travelling in my time (in europe) and always meet people who are freindly, humorous and who do get it (who do not offend nor get offended by pisstake).--Longisle (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Yeah hey, a "history of sarcasm" section would be appropriate if there were any sources which could substantiate the idea that it's risen in popularity. Also I have heard that the popularity of sarcasm varies from country to country; again if there were any source of defenitive information on the subject that would be nice to have in there. 207.241.137.116 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone remember 

message: I am surprised that this hasn't been better defined here. Perhaps we use it without noticing it.
A good example of this would be: John is obviously working very, very hard, the obvious sarcasm would be "Hey John, stop slacking" Since this is too obvious a sarcasm to get any laughs or even be interesting, I might say instead "Hey John, Don't work too hard" with a heavy sarcastic tone as if I am using sarcasm to imply he is slacking, but since it is all too obvious that he isn't, this is a sarcasm used sarcastically. This of course only works if we understand the intent of the person using the double sarcasm, otherwise it just becomes confusing. 
Rules for double sarcasm: 1. Single sarcasm very obvious 2. Intent must be obvious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hymie67 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent idea! << (double sarcasm?) Nimur 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Double Sarcasm" or "sarcastic sarcasm" 

message: I am the second to remove the following:
However, suggesting that sarcasm is limited to general hostility and offensive behavior is just not true. Sarcasm is foremost an attention modification tool. People use it either to deliver a message that attempts to trigger an attention response right way or deliver a message that takes complicated associations to make - giving the user time to distance one self from whoever its being used on. For instance if you were preparing and absolutely obvious dish with everything inescapably observable, and somebody came and asked "what are you doing?" in a situation where the person can recognize what you were doing for less time than it takes to ask the question. Then you were to answer "Making the first tomato nuclear bomb, why? Did you think I was making a salad?" It could simply be used to break the cycle of boring or forced conversation. While some people might be insulted, it no way means its intended to be insulting. And your tone of voice can be appropriately playful. It still remains a sarcastic statement. Occasionally regular language norms and typical conversation threads lead people into frustrating verbal exchanges far more volatile than hazardous sarcasm. It certainly can occupy a solo function of linguistic diversity of not anything else. Typical sarcasm however is mostly based on the eye for an eye concept. If in the same salad situation were you irritated by the question and then wanted attempt to invoke irritation in your interlocutor you could respond by saying "I was going to put in some rat poison for flavor but we've seen to have run out." Is certainly going to be a challenging element and is to grab more attention on average than a simple statement of "I don't appreciate being asked questions with inescapably obvious answers, which I don't like to answer." Obviously you bare the risk of seriously insulting people unprepared or unwilling to manage that response without hostility.
Very distinctive characteristics of sarcastic application are : expectation defiance, pattern breaking, indirect challenge, pointing to contradiction/s as a means of attention calling and distraction. These effects are often achieved by insertion of contradictory terms or unacceptable statements, claims or questions. For instance if someone asked you "Is that switchman good for you?" and you responded "No, its going to explode my head off any second now." Its immediately to be recognized as sarcastic under the usual assumption that you do not want your head blown off, and further that the typical sandwich can't do that to you. Result being that it typically invokes increased attention due to notable disbelief in challenge of routine. Either way the applications of sarcasm are mostly limited to imagination. While many people use it to be rude to each other, it has lots of other potential as well. As many other language forms sarcasm also suffers from general deterioration due to societal preconceptions and fashionable beliefs.
Although there are no citations, and the English is poor, I think there may be something in what is being said. Both examples are in fact ironic I suppose, perhaps they are examples of irony being used without sarcasm. Anyway, we need citable sources for the idea. 
PS What is a "switchman"? Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: Sarcasm does not have to be bitter, cutting, caustic or otherwise damaging. Sarcasm is the variance in meaning between what is stated and what is meant. While I'm happy to believe that it can be used in a negative manner, it is not necessary to do so.
I do suspect that many people, including the known to be jocular folks at the Oxford English, have only experienced negative sarcasm. However, is that really a surprise?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.172.68 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not surprised you know the people at the OED. I suggest you read the article on irony. Myrvin (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um, No 

message: Myrvin, I know we've long resolved this debate on both of our talkpages, but I just wanted to note to you that I just looked on the Wiktionary's definition of sarcasm, and coincidentally enough, it coincides exactly with my definition. That is, sarcasm suggests the use of insincerity. Here's the Wiktionary definition which they have some manner of supporting through evidence: . As I thought this was the popular meaning of it too, I wrote it in and then found two sources. You stated you were having a hard time understanding my source, but honestly I did not have a hard time understanding it. And not only that but it seems Wiktionary has had a definition that is similar to mine since forever. I paged back into its history and found that its been there for many years. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look on the Wiktionary Discussion page you will see my ancient criticism of the article. I was particularly concerned with its conflation with irony - a common confusion - but, looking at it now, I should have complained about the insincerity bit as well. I suggest you look at some published dictionaries to see what they say. My problem with your source - and it was only one (the others were about irony) - was that I didn't really understand what "to maintain or enhance the face of the recipient" means. It sounds like psychobabble. On your point about what the Wiktionary article used to say: A long time ago (2005) the Wikipedia page said:Sarcasm is the making of remarks intended to mock the person referred to (who is normally the person addressed), a situation or thing. It is often used in a humorous manner and expressed through particular vocal intonations. This is often done by simply over-emphasizing the actual statement, or particular words of it.  .... The term is often misused as a synonym for irony. Irony refers however to the literal meaning and the intended meaning of the words uttered being different, while sarcasm refers to the mocking intent of the utterance. It is possible to be ironic without being sarcastic, and to be sarcastic without being ironic. It doesn't mention insincerity - perhaps it never has. Maybe few people look at Wiktionary. Myrvin (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

text: By the way, I don't think you could have checked the "evidence" in the Wiktionary article. They cite this site: , which gives 29 different online definitions. None of them mention insincerity. That article certainly needs fixing. Myrvin (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I found another reference to "face" here, . It says "Obviously, sarcasm, in order to be effective, requires something more than mock, or insincere, impoliteness." These "face" ideas seem to come from the field of Pragmatics or sociolinguistics - not areas I know much about. Perhaps you do. Myrvin (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Here's another ref from that field: . It complains that Leech (an originator of this stuff) shouldn't confuse sarcasm with irony. Myrvin (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Insincerity definition

message: Sarcasm often implies you have something to say about a situation or idea, but that you conveniently cannot be bothered to share what it is.  It is often used by people with a poor understanding of the situation or idea to express disagreement without opening their point of view to scrutiny (or even inquiry).  However the purpose of communication is for people to compare ideas and decide which one is the best (ie communicate), so hostile sarcasm is fallacious.  (In addition to being petty and childish)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Do you have a source for this? How should we add this to the article? Fences&Windows 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally anything can be used as a logical fallacy.  That doesn't mean it all needs its own independent category.  Almost every possible fallacy can already be filed in one or more existing categories.  Exceptions exist, but this is not one of them.  Sarcasm in a debate would almost always fall under the red herring fallacy.173.25.251.171 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm as a debate fallacy 

message: The entire first paragraph of the "Understanding" section seems to have been lifted from this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7411#.UilP8TasjlU. 
I do not want to delete it, nor tag it with subst:copyvio template, (& I don't have time for this right now), so hopefully someone more knowledgeable of the subject will re-write. 
Grye (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio in Understanding section 

message: I have reverted several changes by this editor. Most were uncited. However, the one that refers to Talk is Cheap is cited and is worth saying more about. I cannot find the actual quotation cited here , but a page number wasn't given, so I may have missed it. Myrvin (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is US-specific. To what extent is this a matter of incorrect definition, rather than difference in usage?  Wouldn't the author of Talk is cheap agree to qualify many of Winston Churchill's quips as sarcastic, even when they do not state the opposite of what they mean? Rp (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The definitions given by dictionary.com appear pretty good - wouldn't it be better to just quote them in the introduction, rather than the stabs at it that we have right now? Rp (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Facetiousism 

message: This article could use a section on sarcasm's prevalence in various languages.  In English, the sarcastic "oh, great" is ubiquitous, but I've studied two Slavic languages where sarcasm is rarely if ever used. 76.204.92.180 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Notably, it should be mentioned that while sarcasm always has negative connotations in English, this is not the case in other languages. E.g., I witnessed an interaction where a French speaker attempted to congratulate a native English speaker on his witticisms by saying, "Oh, you are being sarcastic!" to which, needless to say, the native English speaker took offence (fortunately a number of us spoke French well enough to be able to identify the confusion and defuse the situation).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.32.224 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other languages 

message: (Add to "understanding" section):
In June 2014, the United States Secret Service requested bids for software that would identify sarcasm in tweets.
192.249.63.59 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be in the Identifying sarcasm section? Myrvin (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free. There is nothing special about an edit done using the  template. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Done it. Didn't want to tread on your toes. Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I enjoy collaborative work enough to be pretty thick-skinned, but thanks for being thoughtful. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: "although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic" should be deleted. The citation states the opposite, that not all irony is sarcasm. However, in the definition below it clearly states sarcasm is a form of irony. 
HyrumBeck (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which citation is that? The one in the article against those words says: "Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner." I suggest you read irony#Verbal irony and sarcasm Myrvin (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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. —  (e • t • c) 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014 

message: I was heavily under the impression that sarcasm was simply a harsh, acidic comment meant to show disdain or give pain (if you're sarcastic towards a situation, it probably won't feel anything).  However, the general concensus is that sarcasm is just saying the opposite of what is meant.  I believe that is actually irony.  While sarcasm is often associated with irony and satire, I contend that it is a very different concept and that this article is extremely misleading and probably furthers the misconceptions that many people have about the concept of sarcasm and its relationship with irony and humor.
I believe it must be derisive
I believe it does not have to be (though it can be) ironic, humorous, or satirical.
Example:
To look a girl straight in the eye and say, "That dress you're wearing is hideous," is a sarcastic comment.  The opposite of the meaning would be that the dress is attractive, which is probably a positive thing, so it's safe to say that the comment is not ironic.  In this example, sarcasm exists where irony does not.  It's also not particularly humorous, but you could make an argument about that, I suppose.
I believe that this should be addressed.  Perhaps a separate section explaining the relationship between irony and sarcasm or humor and sarcasm can be included, but it should be made clear that they are separate concepts.
I think that this should be looked into thoroughly.
-6/4/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.126.68 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to address this some time ago (see archive), postulating about the 'degrees' of sarcasm, from playful to cutting, but no one (including me) seems to have the knowledge or inclination to add to the article in that kind of way. You'll also note a few users commenting on the quality of the article... --Thaddius (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're crazy (you did ask for it...) ;) From one of the citations: '[sarcasm is] a verbal form of irony'. Sarcasm has to be verbal (perhaps written, at a push); on the other hand, irony can be found in situations (for example). I recently read about an anti-gun activist who was stabbed to death. I found that pretty ironic, but it couldn't be sarcastic. Also, the example you gave isn't sarcasm, just an insult. Bridies (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only ironic if he was pro-knife. 198.70.193.2 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I Crazy? 

message: Portrait of kazuma
2601:9:4E80:D13:842B:5DE8:FD1A:8EC0 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2015 (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. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 03:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015 

message: StivyP (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the exact wording you would suggest? Where in the article do you think it should go? Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015 

message: I've been thinking of creating a category (and possibly also a navigation template) that will include Sarcasm, Innuendo, Doublespeak and simlar phenomena where the underlying meaning of a message is very different from the ostensible one. Any thoughts? I'm not sure how to call it though. What is the generic term for these? Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category 

message: I propose that the meaning of Sarcasm be expanded based on recent presidential campaign examples as it seems that a major presidential candidate is using the term to describe outrageous untrue statements stated as a matter of fact, then walked back days later after significant uproar by the public and slip in polling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.53.47 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Meaning of Sarcasm 

message: 41.148.13.91 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017