Talk:Ethnic joke/Archive 1

Incorrect and no citation
This section is incorrect and not cited:

In other ethnic jokes, the targeted ethnic group is one that has historically been associated with the privileged ruling class, as in the "Jan van der Merwe" jokes of South Africa, which make fun of Afrikaners (Jan van der Merwe being a stereotypical Dutch name).

Jan van der Merwe jokes are usually told by viewing Jan as an uncomplicated rural person. And there is a huge distinction between Dutch and Afrikaans. Van der Merwe jokes are often told in the format of "Jan van der Merwe, the Scott and the Englishman".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.33.61 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

muslims
i see we're taking the colbert report approach on them. making fun of them by not making fun of them. classic.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Certain sections of this article are not written in compliance with Wikipedia NPOV policies. While I don't personally disagree for the most part with the point of view expressed, I can see it is not NPOV. The following quoted section is a is one example of the NPOV problems in the article:

"It is a common theme in complaints that, when a person who does feel uncomfortable about racist jokes objects or challenges the jokers, the usual response is that it is their problem. It is usual for the person who objects to be told they 'can't take a joke' or that 'it's not meant seriously'. It is also likely that should that person approach management or a person in authority to complain, they are assured that it is the way of the workplace and that no harm is meant by such jokes. Racist jokes are harmful to those targets who find them offensive. The targets are reported to have felt alienated from others in whatever environment the jokes happen, of feeling humiliated and diminished and, because of the fact that it is easier to laugh along than to be considered a bad sport, of putting up with their discomfort without speaking out."

The article should not be written from the point of view of "why Wikipedia thinks ethnics jokes are wrong" as that is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cab88 (talk • contribs) 01:03, October 7, 2009

Jews
There needs to be a "List of Racist Jokes" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChowakeePsycho (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish jokes
The article text: "for example, Polish jokes, which were common in the United States were unique in that sadly for Polish people there were powerful anti-Polish Bigots in Hollywood and the US TV media who introduced hateful Polish jokes to the American public in the 1960's in the hope that the American people would eventually have the same anti-Polish prejudice that Hollywood and media elites had. Hollywood, NBC-TV & CBS-TV for example did not tell the American public that so called "Polish jokes" aka subhuman intelligence jokes about Polish people, were hypocritically taken from Nazi propaganda despite the fact Hollywood and NBC-TV and CBS-TV claimed to be anti-Nazi (this is discussed on the Polish American Journal website)" points to the Polish American Journal website, but nothing specifically.

The Polish American Journal website ( http://www.polamjournal.com/ ) does have a link to an interview with an author of a book called Hollywood's War with Poland, 1939-1945 but the interview doesn't seem to mention Polish jokes in the 60's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentock (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That Polish American Journal website lists All in the Family as one of the worst offenders on American TV, despite the obvious point that the Polish-American character Mike "Meathead" Stivic is almost invariably shown to be smarter than Anglo-Saxon Archie, and clearly has a better education. Apparently some dumb Polacks don't understand irony! (See what I just did there?) Throbert McGee (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The entire section about Polish jokes is riddled with subjective and emotive words and phrases: "sadly", "powerful anti-Polish Bigots", "hateful", "hypocritically", "tremendous", "Hollywood's hate campaign against Polish people". Come on, who wrote this?? It is also completely unreferenced and against WP:SOAP. Needs rewriting and referecning, or removal. 7ofclubs (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol
The article mentions that jokes about alcohol aren't found within the Jewish or Muslim communities. This is understandable for Muslims (and also Mormons) but I was under the impression that Judaism doesn't forbid alcohol, any more than mainstream Christianity does. In Fiddler on the Roof, for example, several characters get very drunk. So I removed the reference to the Jewish community. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, Stonemason89, you're totally correct that Judaism has no general prohibition on drinking alcoholic beverages -- but just as a point of trivia, specific types of booze may be considered non-kosher under Jewish dietary laws. This is more likely to be the case for booze derived from fermented grapes, as opposed to fermented barley or potatoes or rice or whatever. Thus, an 80-proof brandy that's ultimately based on grapes may be off-limits to Jews, while an 80-proof vodka that's ultimately based on potatoes may be totally okay for them to drink (although they're both 40% alcohol and would get you equally intoxicated -- so the prohibition is not based on avoidance of drunkenness, but has to do with the source material used to produce the alcohol). Throbert McGee (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Term Insult is removed from UK legislation as of February 1st 2014
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (UK) is amended as of the 1st February to remove the term Insult - UK Parliament:

Harassment, alarm or distress. (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove— (a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or (b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or (c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— (a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and (b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.170.22 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)