Talk:Irony/Archive 4

The whole introduction is a mess!
Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions.


 * This is so vague, it is almost meaningless. Should be "....an incongruity between the actual and expected.

Verbal and situational irony is often intentionally used as emphasis in an assertion of a truth.


 * No. Situational irony is used as emphasis in an assertion? That makes no sense. And verbal irony being used as emphasis is also grammatically weird and nonsensical.

The ironic form of simile, irony used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes may involve the emphasis of one's meaning by deliberate use of language that states the direct opposite of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.


 * This needs to modified and rewritten - in particular, the idea that irony necessarily involves direct opposites.

'''In fictional dramatic irony, the artist causes a character, acting as a mouthpiece, to speak or act in a way intentionally contrary to the truth. This again is a method that highlights the literal facts by giving the example of a fictional persona who is strikingly ignorant of them.'''


 * This is just weird, and doesn't belong in the introduction in any case.

In certain kinds of situational or historical irony, that occur outside works of fiction, a certain factual truth is highlighted by some person's complete ignorance of it, or belief in the opposite of it—however, this contrast does not occur by human design.


 * This is also bizarre. How is a certain factual truth highlighted by a person's ignorance? That makes no sense either.

'''In some religious contexts, such situations have been seen as the deliberate work of divine providence to emphasize facts, and taunt or toy with humans for not being aware of them in situations where they could easily have been enlightened (this is similar to human use of irony). Such ironies are often more evident, or more striking, when viewed retrospectively in the light of later developments that make the truth of past situations obvious to all.'''


 * Yet more bizarre, quite peripheral observations that relate only weakly to the concept of irony.

Almost all irony involves commentary that heightens tension naturally involved in the state and fate of a person (in the present, or the past) who badly needs to know a given fact they could easily know but does not.


 * What?? Come on, I think this entry was written by a terribly confused person.

Proposed change to first paragraph - I think that's all is needed. It then goes to definitions. All this other stuff is confused and unnecessary:

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity between the actual and expected. There are different manifestations, including situational irony in events, dramatic irony in literature, and verbal irony in human communication.

Jcrabb (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But that's not quite right. Dramatic irony is not simply a difference between actual and expected. Dramatic irony has to do with differences in knowledge. Where is the actual and expected when Romeo decides to commit suicide because he thinks that Juliet has poisoned herself and he can't live without her? You (or anyone) might expect him to do this, thinking what he thinks. So what? That's not the interest-- the interest is that he is acting under false assumptions, and is under an illusion. Dramatic irony occurs when the audience knows something the character does not, and it is heightened the more the audience WISHES the character knew what the audience knows but the character does not. You must stretch the meaning of "expected" very far (too far) to get anything out of it that describes dramatic irony. Dramatic irony can come when the audience is given a "god's eye view." Nobody can possibly expect any character they are watching to have such a view. The same is true of situational irony. Nobody expects the historical person to be able to see the future. But their actions are ironic just the same. However, not at the time. Only under the light of time. But that would again require a god's eye view for the person doing the ironic thing. Who expects them to have that? It's ironic that anybody thought dynamite might end all war, because it would be too terrible to use as a weapon. But who can expect anybody to know better? It's very ironic to learn of the man who hears of the invention of the telephone and says "Ah, every town will want their own." But can you expect people then to have envisioned the world of today? Of course not. It remains ironic anyway. S B Harris 02:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * True, I was considering what would be a more appropriate general summary of the concept - the actual/expected approach is a bit insufficient. The introduction really only needs a sentence or two, and the particulars of the different forms of irony can be described. Jcrabb (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But the unifying concept is the one that the lede describes already: Almost all irony involves commentary that heightens tension naturally involved in the state and fate of a person (in the present, or the past) who badly needs to know a given fact ... but do not. If you need a concept which does bind up all the different kinds of irony, it's that one: they all involve a tension between a bit of knowledge that the person who is conscious of the "irony" has, and the (lack of) knowledge characterizing somebody else, who the feeler of the irony is accutely conscious of NOT having it, but needing it. In historical irony, the two "persons" can be the same-- one is the future (wiser) version of the other (and it is the future version who feels the irony, not the past one). So the feeling or perception of "irony" is a sort tension between reality and idealism, that involves a disparity in knowledge. "Expectation" is a wrong direction, since you can't expect anything about people coming to omniscience. You can only be accutely aware of how far they are away from it, and would wish not to be, if they knew what you do. Personally, I think that "irony" has its ultimate source in the same feelings we have about humor, which is why so much irony is humorous. It is (like so much humor) a tension involved in teaching and dealing with children. They're ignorant. You know they are. You'd like to set them straight, but in the meanwhile you see their situation and their outlook is... ironic. In fact, defines ironic. And of course is also often humorous. Sarcasm (humorous or not) is when you deliver information in a way which makes adults feel as though they are children, or (at the very least) are being looked down on as children. Black, humorless, irony is when adults feel as though God (or the universe) has been punishing them as ignorant children. Or course, that only happens in hindsight, and with later knowledge. Irony is the sense you get when you look at your own history and feel the tension between what you know now, and didn't know THEN. You're the audience for yourself, and the irony is the same as dramatic irony, except that there's no author except you. S B Harris 03:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I, at least, have been concentrating on verbal irony, but the rest of the article, including the intro, needs looking at. Most of it seems to be original research, rather than from reliable sources. When sources are used, this is often for examples of what has already been stated without a source.

So, for Situational irony, the text says: "This is a relatively modern use of the term, and describes a discrepancy between the expected result and actual results when enlivened by perverse appropriateness", without any citation. And is then followed by some citations which are purported to be examples of that assertion. We need sources to quote when stating what situational irony is and how it is used or recognized. Myrvin (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironic art
This section is poorly written and cited. The latest addition makes it worse. I don't see why comparisons with other works makes art ironic. I think there may be irony in paintings: particularly in surrealism. But this section does not make it clear. I can't see where the Guardian article mentions "ironic art". Myrvin (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Irony in popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.171.2 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Example of verbal irony
I found the example given for verbal irony to serve adequately as an example for sarcasm. This may cause some confusion. An example should (in my opinion) be exclusively ironic, for example:

Certain that he had not given the gift for which Sam was thanking him, George responded by saying "It was nothing".

Then again, I do not presume to know better than those who placed the original example there. --I, Englishman (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The example you provided has been restored to the original text (which wasn't written by me). In your example, George is merely taking advantage of a situation in which he can seem to be generous at no cost to himself. Therefore George is being deceitful, not ironic. Wahrmund (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As Irony is not explicitly intended to convey its actual meaning to the recipient, I repudiate the notion that the example can be dismissed because of its deceitful nature. George's statement is ironic in that it's obvious meaning can be interpreted on two levels; "It was nothing" is a common response, but in this case it actually was nothing. However, this is your site, and I will abide by your wishes.
 * Regards
 * I, Englishman (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Knowledge

In all irony there are two degrees of knowledge or belief or understanding - the greater and the lesser. In all cases, the more the two messages or situations or beliefs or understandings contradict one another the stronger is the irony. In verbal irony, there are two meanings, M(A) and M(B), present at the same time. Which meaning is understood depends on which code the listener is aware of, A or B. The person aware only of code A (e.g. the words taken alone - "literally") understands it to mean one thing, M(A). The person detecting code B (= code A + (e.g.) the extra inflection that undermines the literal meaning) understands the message to means something else, M(B). The person insensitive to the inflection picks up less information than the more sensitive listener who typically understands both messages.(Irony depends on someone being conscious of the discrepancy between the two meanings.) The extra inflection could be many things (e.g. a wink, a tone of voice, the implausibility of a literal meaning); it can function as extra substantive information or be an indication that the information given is to be decoded in a different way. In dramatic irony, the character understands a situation, A, to mean one thing, M(A), the audience knowing more (situation A + extra knowledge) understands things differently M(B). In cosmic irony, the extra knowledge ("the true fate") is gained later (by the character and/or the audience), even though it could be seen in retrospect that it was "fated to be so all along". In situational irony, a belief ("that A is the case"), based on a certain set of assumptions, is shown to be wrong (indeed generally "the opposite of right") in the light of a set of circumstances not previously contemplated (the world is more complicated than we think).Tsinfandel (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Give an example of Irony:
Oil caused global warming is raising hopes of Greenlanders who see the ice retreating from their shores as a chance for financial betterment by creating opportunities to drill for offshore oil. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is ironic about this situation? I would think it would only be ironic if the Greenlanders worked hard to stop global warming, thinking it would harm them, only to find in the end that it benefited them.70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo illustrations
The first photo and its caption don't seem appropriate. The caption mentions a 'caustic protest' sign. I don't see how it is either caustic or a protest. Here is the OED 2d ed on the relevant sense intended here:
 * fig. That makes the mind to smart: said of language, wit, humour, and, by extension, of persons; sharp, bitter, cutting, biting, sarcastic.

How does 'I can't afford an actual sign' 'make the mind smart'? It doesn't seem to satisfy any aspect of the definition. As for the sign itself, how is that ironic? It seems more like something out of Magritte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedy (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. The picture should be removed. But I can't think of anything that would serve as a replacement.  The article is about an abstract concept. How would you illustrate that with a picture?  Wahrmund (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.141.76 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sneedy: I don't know what you were looking at for that quotation, but it's not the OED. Where does it say "makes the mind to smart" or anything like it? Myrvin (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "I can't afford an actual sign" sign is lacking in irony. One reason is: The sign looks hand-made, so it is quite possible that the sign-carrier really cannot afford an "actual" (professionally produced) sign. A more ironic sign might be "Down with Signs," or maybe "Nobody Ever Reads Signs," or "I am not carrying a sign."70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-Irony -- Where did it go?
Looking at the history I didn't see where this was removed. I think it's especially important now to have the ACTUAL definition of what post-irony is here on wikipedia, as there are a lot of completely incorrect definitions running around. People are getting the wrong idea, being led to believe that post-irony refers to a timeline of sorts, a state of mind without irony intead of what post-irony actually is.

This used to be on the page:

“a technique that uses the juxtaposition of empty symbolism and loaded evocations to create humor whose roots lie not so much in the mocking of any one ideology proper so much as in mocking the stupidity that lies at the roots of the propagation of modern ideologies.”

I have no edit history nor am I an expert so I'm not going to make the change, but I'm surprised it's been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.67.204 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Me too, though it seems to be so intellectually powerful and post-modern that I cannot understand it. Doubtless other smarter people will be able, to, though, so I have no objection if you'd like to create another article about it, perhaps a stub which can later be expanded to full article length, employing just this kind of language. As a modern concept, it needs propagation, and you appear just the person to do it. Best, S  B Harris 04:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Too Broad?
Does anyone agree that the opening paragraph defines irony too broadly, and might be generally off the mark? To define irony as (any) "discordance or incongruity" seems to be going too far. Also, what is to be made of the sentence "This sentence is not ironic."? Where is the discordance or incongruity (or irony) in that sentence? I'm thinking the sentence would only be ironic if it meant something contrary to what the words would indicate, but it doesn't.70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence has been deleted as I agree with you. However, it can always be salvaged in our planned article on Post irony, where we can always say: "This sentence is not post-ironic." As for the rest of the paragraph, I think that irony is about communication where the sharpening of truth is via constructing or pointing out a naturally occuring contrast between reality and ideality. I think it either has to be done deliberately, or else some "found irony" has to be pointed out deliberately. Things aren't ironic in and of themselves. Irony is like art: there's something about the presentation to somebody else in an attempt to make them understand something, that is critical. Or course, I don't have an immediate reference for this. But it fits everything else that is in the article, so perhaps our editors will agree that it's an improvment. Otherwise, feel free to change it back, and try something else. Irony is not easy to define. And post irony is even worse, but (thankfully) THAT task has been taken up by others who are eager to make sure we all understand it. I have modified that page in the meantime to inform readers that post irony is irony that has to do with the mail. WP:SOFIXIT. S  B Harris 04:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this is an improvement.  I'm going to try to elaborate on it a bit further.70.179.92.117 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better Definitions and Examples
I think we need better definitions for cosmic and historical irony, and better examples all around. I propose:

Cosmic irony: A form of situational irony wherein the situation is created by “fate” rather than by other specific actors. Example: A fireman retires after 35 years to a peaceful mountain community, but lightning starts a forest fire that threatens the community and involves the fireman in the greatest firefighting challenges of his life.

Historical irony: A form of situational irony wherein intentions in the past are the opposite of the later realities. Historical ironies play out over long periods of time, so that the particular individuals involved in the beginning are not necessarily involved at the end. Historical ironies focus not on individual actors, but institutional or national actors over an extended period of time.

I think the New York Times example is a good example of historical irony. The World War I example is OK, but would be better if it were emphasized that World War I (most specifically in its terms for peace) has come to be seen as hardly the War to End All Wars, but as actually a major cause of World War II. The Vietnam War example is also OK, but should be worded to emphasize that attempts to thwart imperialism (via the Viet Minh) are now seen to have led to imperialism (by the Viet Minh).

The examples:

•	"Stay Awake" sung by Mary Poppins to magically put children to sleep.

•	Fat Joe saying "it's amazing that you need a license to drive a car, but anyone (you) can procreate."

should be labeled to indicate what they are supposed to be illustrating, presumably an irony that is not sarcastic, and a sarcasm that is not ironic.

O. Henry’s Gifts of the Magi is a situational irony, but not a cosmic irony, because the irony is created by the specific actions of the main characters, not by an external “fate.”

The story of Krishna is not an irony at all. Kamsa’s attempt to thwart the prophecy, though the attempt failed, did not cause the prophecy to be fulfilled. Every failed attempt is not an irony. It’s also not a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” but more an example of “inexorable fate.” Same goes for Kronos and Perseus. They attempted to avoid their fate and failed, but it was not their attempt that caused them to fail, so their stories are not ironic (and the prophecies were not self-fulfilling). The story of Oedipus has irony, but not in the way expressed in the article. Oedipus, hearing the prophesy he would kill his father and marry his mother, deliberately leaves home (thinking his adoptive parents are his real parents) in order to thwart the prophecy, and only because of this does he meet (and kill/marry) his real parents, fulfilling the prophecy. So his situation is ironic (and his prophecy is self-fulfilling, in that if he hadn’t heard the prophecy, it (probably) would not have come true).

The “In History” examples of Irony of Fate (Dangerous “toy safety” buttons, cane toads to Australia, kudzu) are (imho) not good examples of “cosmic” irony. I don’t see in any of them an overriding stroke of “fate.”  They are all examples of people making simple mistakes, but not the intercession of any highly-improbable “fate.”   These could all be considered situational ironies, but I don’t think they rise to the level of “cosmic.”70.179.92.117 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking up examples is all very well; but you need someone to cite who says that such and such IS an example of x-irony. Otherwise it's just your own opinion. This article suffers quite a lot from that. Myrvin (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Irony as infinite, absolute negativity
I don't think that this section has its argument right. According to this book:

Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009: Kierkegaard's Concept of Irony By Niels Jorgen Cappelorn, Hermann Deuser, K. Brian Söderquist Found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=InItJiOvaJ8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=infinite%20absolute&f=false

It is Schlegel's Romantic irony that K and de Mann say is "infinite absolute negativity" - whatever that means. Is there a quote that says that Schlegel agreed? We need a citation for Kierkegaard - perhaps the one I have here (because the wording is similar to the text in the section); or his "The Concept of Irony". And we need a correct formation of the argument. I do not know that this refers to all literary irony or only Schlegel's. Myrvin (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase itself would appear to be originally from Hegel Lectures on Fine Art - but he only used it once. Myrvin (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic Irony
As a point of discussion, would it be fair to understand "Dramatic Irony" as a situation in which the reader knows that a character is doing or saying something ironic, but the character him or herself does not?--MonkeyPundit (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to "Human Torch" illustration of concept of Irony; now includes dramatic irony
Good point, Myrvin; I'll add that below:


 * An example of a dramatic irony (involving The Human Torch) might be if he asserts that he will never have to worry about freezing, but doesn't know (unlike the reader/audience) that a villain with an ice-gun that can overpower his flames is en route to shoot him.

Such a situation might actually be dually ironic, not only because the aforementioned possible fate is the opposite of what a reader expects (for reasons mentioned above), but also because it's the opposite of what The Human Torch himself expects.

Such a situation is similar to The Cask of Amontillado because Fortunato's fate is the opposite of what he expects, and his name implies the opposite of the ideas that readers would unexpectedly attribute to him. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Irony and the semantics of the word "opposite"
While I agree that some understandings of irony doesn't necessarily involve something that's universally agreed to be a direct opposite, I think this boils down to a semantic discussion of the word "opposite".

For example, Steve Irwin's death would probably be considered ironic if your understanding of "opposite" allowed you to think of a Stingray (being comparatively small and diminutive) as being the opposite of a Crocodile (large and imposing).

If, however, your understanding of the word "opposite" doesn't allow you to think of a fish being the opposite of a reptile, then Steve Irwin's death is simply unfortunate.--MonkeyPundit (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"The fox trotted into the urn."
Is this a good example of irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.190 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Infinite absolute negativity
I have edited this section and moved it to after Socratic irony. Kierkegaard's work was about Socratic irony. However, I don't pretend to understand what he was going on about. Myrvin (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Better Definitions and Examples
I'm an English teacher, and this is the definition of irony that I give to my students:

"A situation or a choice of words in which the truth is the opposite of what you expect".

Dramatic irony, in this case, I define as:

"A situation or a choice of words in which the truth is the opposite of what a character expects".

The example I use to illustrate irony is a hypothetical situation in which The Human Torch freezes to death.

I also use hypothetical situations involving The Human Torch to illustrate common misconceptions of what irony is:
 * If The Human Torch burns to death, that's not ironic; its coincidental. The Human Torch is a flame. You expect him to be aflame.
 * If The Human Torch gets killed by a stray asteroid, that's not ironic; its improbable. As much as you don't expect The Human Torch to get hit by a stray asteroid, you don't inherently expect him not to, either.
 * If The Human Torch gets killed by a stray asteroid, that's not ironic; its improbable. As much as you don't expect The Human Torch to get hit by a stray asteroid, you don't inherently expect him not to, either.
 * If The Human Torch gets killed by a stray bullet while flying over a war zone, that's not ironic; its unfortunate. As much as you don't expect The Human Torch to be killed by a stray bullet, such an event isn't entirely improbable given that he's in a war zone, and you don't inherently expect him not to, either.
 * If The Human Torch scolds Hollywood stuntmen for being on fire in movies, that's not ironic; its hypocritical.\

--MonkeyPundit (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have come late to this, but some of us have spent many happy hours arguing about it. The discussion has now been archived. I was an advocate of your definition of irony, but I came to the view that it is perhaps too narrow. There are versions of irony that are not exactly the opposite of what is meant. I think it is the most common though. I like your counter examples for what some think of as dramatic irony; it's a pity you do not give a few examples of what you consider to be actual dramatic irony for poor old Torchy. Myrvin (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In all irony there are two degrees of knowledge or belief or understanding - the greater and the lesser. In all cases, the more the two messages or situations or beliefs or understandings contradict one another the stronger is the irony. In verbal irony, there are two meanings, M(A) and M(B), present at the same time. Which meaning is understood depends on which code the listener is aware of, A or B. The person aware only of code A (e.g. the words taken alone - "literally") understands it to mean one thing, M(A). The person detecting code B (= code A + (e.g.) the extra inflection that undermines the literal meaning) understands the message to means something else, M(B). The person insensitive to the inflection picks up less information than the more sensitive listener who typically understands both messages.(Irony depends on someone being conscious of the discrepancy between the two meanings.) The extra inflection could be many things (e.g. a wink, a tone of voice, the implausibility of a literal meaning); it can function as extra substantive information or be an indication that the information given is to be decoded in a different way. In dramatic irony, the character understands a situation, A, to mean one thing, M(A), the audience knowing more (situation A + extra knowledge) understands things differently M(B). In cosmic irony, the extra knowledge ("the true fate") is gained later (by the character and/or the audience), even though it could be seen in retrospect that it was "fated to be so all along". In situational irony, a belief ("that A is the case"), based on a certain set of assumptions, is shown to be wrong (indeed generally "the opposite of right") in the light of a set of circumstances not previously contemplated (the world is more complicated than we think). Tsinfandel (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two degrees
 * I think your understanding of irony is already in the article. For your situational irony: If I think the day will be fine and yet it rains so I get wet, that is surely not irony. I was simply wrong. There has to be much more to it than that. Myrvin (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

MonkeyPundit, I have to disagree with your first example of what is not ironic. If The Human Torch burned to death, that would indeed be ironic. One would expect that a man who can set himself aflame would be impervious to heat and unable to burn to death. Oppositely, one would expect that one way to defeat a man who can set himself aflame would be to expose him to extreme cold (perhaps at near-absolute zero temperatures to slow his molecules). Reducing temperature is one of the three ways to stop a fire (lower the temperature, remove the fuel, remove the oxygen). Thus, freezing to death would not be ironic. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Forrest Gump ?
I don't think Forrest Gump is a good example of dramatic irony. It is true that Forrest is unaware of the historical significance of the events in which he participates. But lack of knowledge alone is not enough to produce dramatic irony. The character must, because of that lack of knowledge, make some mistake that he would not otherwise make. It is not clear this is the case in Forrest Gump. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know Gump well enough, but do you have a citation for this assumption of 'some mistake' - which you have also introduced in to the article? Otherwise it's looking like your opinion. The OED has: "spec. in Theatr. (freq. as dramatic or tragic irony), the incongruity created when the (tragic) significance of a character's speech or actions is revealed to the audience but unknown to the character concerned; the literary device so used, orig. in Greek tragedy" This suggests that the consequences may have to be tragic, but not necessarily that the ignorant one has to make a mistake. Myrvin (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Britannica has:"in literature, a plot device in which the audience's or reader's knowledge of events or individuals surpasses that of the characters. The words and actions of the characters therefore take on a different meaning for the audience or reader than they have for the play's characters. This may happen when, for example, a character reacts in an inappropriate or foolish way or when a character lacks self-awareness and thus acts under false assumptions." Myrvin (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical examples
WWI wasn't referred to as the war to end all wars until Woodrow Wilson called it that - by which time the war was nearly over. So referring to it as being 'originally' called that is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've removed that whole paragraph. There are probably quotes that say similar things; if so, let someone produce them - and for the Vietnam stuff too. Myrvin (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After this was put back (without references) I did some digging. I found that HG Wells may have invented the phrase. So that has gone in. However, I can't find the assertion that the Viet Minh were supported by the US. The Vietnam War article says so, but the citation there is dodgy - and I've given it a tag there. It worries me that people put down what they think is the case without any citable sources. Also, there must me millions of possible examples of irony in history. Myrvin (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "war to end war" definitely predated Woodrow Wilson - it was a truism long before he quoted it. Not sure if it was anything to do with H.G.Wells to be honest - it might even have already been a truism when HE said it! but the main thing is we now have a source.


 * To be honest I'm not so sure the other one is such a good example - but somehow it does ring true. Sorry, but I don't have a reference ready to hand - nor the time to hunt one up. Remember we're back in the period immediately after the end of WWII in the Pacific. The Americans were initially sympathetic to the Viet Minh (and other anti-Japanese resistance groups who had very recently been their allies) rather than the French (not to mention the British and the Dutch) regaining their "Far-Eastern" colonies (this was not seen, in itself, as entirely in the American interest). After the Russians turned nasty in Europe and the Communists won the civil war in China everything changed of course - and "Communism" became the big bad bogey. For example, during the long war the Russians fought in Afghanistan militant fundamentalist Islamists were brave anti-communist freedom fighters! If that's not ironical... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I think the VC example might be a good example - it it were true - while the WWI one may not be. Predicting that a war will be the last war, and then history showing it isn't, is not ironic, it is just a failed prediction. You need something more for it to be ironic. Had Wells (or Wilson) been killed as a result of a subsequent war (which he wasn't), it might be ironic. If it was true, then the USA eventually fighting the very people they set up to do fighting is ironic. Examples also include Sadam and maybe the Taleban. I'm sure the British did it all the time. The irony of WWI was that the war to end war actually caused (to some extent) WWI. If I can find citiations I'll put that in. Certain scientists predicted that heavier than air flight would be impossible. When it became true, it was not ironic. Having an aeroplane drop on your house, or save your life, after such a prediction might be ironic. Myrvin (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Every one (well, a lot of people) thought that WWI would be the last war - or at least the last big one. This is not JUST a wrong prediction, it is about the most hyper super collosal enormous wrong prediction imaginable. The phrase doesn't "belong" to H.G. Wells or Woodrow Wilson, or any other individual. Thousands, if not millions of the very people who used the expression (it really was a very widespread cliche) died more or less prematurely and horribly just twenty years down the track. I think, in fact, that this is just about the perfect example of historical irony, and now it is referenced it should definitely remain part of the article. As for the Vietnam one - it is also a good example (if not so mind-blowingly extreme), but DOES need a reference or two for its basic facts. Failing this, you could probably cut it out without too much loss, I suppose. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comic irony
Where does this concept come from? The short entry in the lead is surely contentious without a citation, the section in the article looks not all that funny at all, and the two don't quite tie together anyway. Myrvin (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * bump, but i think the author(s) are just trying to give some potentially ironic examples here, to aid understanding. 203.206.42.213 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting 'often'.
Someone (203.206.42.213) thinks it is clever to remove the word 'often' from everywhere, because "it is or it is not". A rather black and white view of the world. I have reverted the edits. The word 'often' is used because it is not always the case. Myrvin (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yo, i'm someone. isn't saying that something defined as ironic ("situational irony") is 'often ironic' nonsensical? the word 'often' is perhaps not the word you're looking for, as it (to me) indicates the regularity of different definite states. as a compromise i will substitute 'may' and 'A situation can be said to be ironic (situational irony) if the actions taken have an effect exactly opposite from what was intended.'203.206.42.213 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello someone - or should I call you Perth? There have been a great number of arguments here about whether or not irony, in any sense, has always to refer to the exact opposite. If you read the article you will find cited opinion and examples where this is not exactly so. It is hard sometimes to say that an ironical outcome is exactly the opposite of what was intended. This is why often has been used. For verbal irony, you now have the word may which is even weaker that often. Myrvin (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS If you are interested in irony, you might like to look here. Myrvin (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * my original postulation, that something should only be said to be ironic if it is actually ironic, regardless what the actual definition of irony is, alongside my understanding of the word 'often', was the basis of my edit. by using the weaker as you say form it allows that verbiage or situations can (or may also) be ironic in a different sense, but to suggest that an ironic situation may not be ironic at all seemed contradictory. if, according to some definition, it cannot be said that an outcome which is exactly the opposite of what was intended (how about 'expected' - i think that would include more possibilities for situational irony while still implying intention where appropriate) is ironic, then some idea of what would make a situation ironic would perhaps be called for (perhaps from your book, some more cite notes in the overview would be great), or else the sentence removed entirely. i agree it is vague, but that is what i meant by compromise, i guess.203.206.42.213 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * an example/version which retains the word 'often' in regard to the prevalence of that particular usage could be, 'Verbal irony is often said to (or held to etc) include statements which convey a meaning exactly opposite from their literal meaning.' (based on the existing text; i'm not sure i would necessarily include the word 'exactly') ...seems more appropriate, making an edit (though to the line about 'situational irony')203.206.10.133 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * me again. it occurs to me that I could have been clearer beforehand, and also that you were right to say that the word 'may' is a weaker form, as it may be either too ambiguous or not ambiguous enough in regard to such a 'nebulous' topic. Since may is not needed, indeed another verb may be, that may not be may, may not be maybe, can not be can, may be can not, but may not be not as may be required for 'clarity'. Being 'clever' aside, ‘often’ means ‘can be’ or ‘can be said to be’ in this context, whereas the simple definition referred to is controversial, according to the remainder of the page.124.150.56.235 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has Perth moved to Melbourne then? The word may suggests that it most likely isn't; while often means it frequently is. The word usually might do as well. Irony usually/often refers to saying the opposite of what you mean; but, sometimes, it doesn't. Sometimes it means something very different, but not exactly the opposite. Myrvin (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

…I wrote a long response, but I have decided not to publish it for reasons I will not specify. I will say that a conclusion of it was that we, or at least I and the person who used the word ‘often’, were in fact working at logical cross-purposes - I was trying to define the word irony, or make a definitive statement regarding irony (without reference to what that definition was, ie what ‘’is’’ irony with regard to what ‘is or may be held to be' ironic, the ‘quality of irony’), whereas the original sense was trying to define how irony is ‘’used’’, and to what degree irony may be construed as ironic in a given sense (as analogous to how often the given sense ‘is’ ironic); and that it therefore seems to me to be qualitative vs quantitative interpretations, in this case definitions or being definitive vs how things are said to be defined or being derivative, and it cannot be both. If I’m not completely mistaken, that distinction revolved around the/our use of Modal verbs as epistemic or (vs) deontic (my impression of the duality being it 'is' vs it 'equals'), and perhaps may have wound up as ambiguous (by 'compromise'). Whether either is ‘encyclopedic’ is not for me to say (here), but I will make the personal observation that one suggests (to me) a reference (eg reference book), whereas the other suggests a (potentially extremely detailed) documentary account. While I am not going to argue this distinction further (it is interesting but time-consuming), nevertheless I would be interested in any further comments or contentions... probably too interested, what freaking time is it? I’m off to write about irony some more.

PS I’m still in Perth, Professor؟ (not to be mean, just 'pointing out' irony)

PPS So much for finishing and/or moving on, but I found something relevant that may be appropriate to the irony page: It should be understood that the terminology described is not always used in the ways set out, and it is introduced solely for the purposes of discussion in this article. Taken from the ‘truthbearer’ page.

That quote refers to the disputed meaning of words in the context that they are (or may be) used in in that article, but a slightly modified version - It should be understood that the meanings described are not universally accepted as being definitive, and are introduced solely for the purposes of discussion in this article. - seems to me to be a good disclaimer regarding qualitative construal, or may better if ‘meanings’ is changed to ‘definitions’ (or may not be). Hopefully in closing, let me add this last snippet - "It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy". Someone signing off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.56.235 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you kept the long answer back. There would be a real danger that I couldn't understand it. I'm going to change may to usually and see what happens. Myrvin (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the scientific method. Good luck with that, Professor. 124.150.56.235 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

America
In Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, in one dossier of a particular historical figure durring Rennassaince Italy, she is trying to help an intelligent but dead-beat cousin get a job by exagerating his credentials to an influential Shipping-Merchant. Quote: "... you will regret hiring my cousin, Amercia... Soon you will be naming your ships after him!" Does this count as Historcial Irony, in addition as the biggest understatment of the mellenium? 96.240.34.47 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a huge deal but...
Truman wasn't breaking the forth wall. Realizing your the subject of a secret reality show is not the same as a character acknowledging the fact that they are a fictional character in a story or show or movie or whatever. I also don't see how the situation is ironic, i could be wrong about that one though (so many definitions) I can accept that irony is changed because a bunch of hipsters didn't feel like looking it up, but I'm not letting them take "forth wall" too. Maybe I'll let it slide if we can all agree to return "literally" to meaning...you know...literally. No more "He literally bit his head off for it"


 * date this thread (with which I had no other involvement). Lycurgus (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You said it yourself: Truman wasn't breaking the fourth wall. It's dramatic irony (as per the definition in this article) in that the audience is aware of an important truth that the character is not. 90.205.174.239 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Postmodern irony
There should be some mention here of postmodern irony, the pleasure and humor that comes from noting all the fictions that dominate our lives. Richard Rorty wrote at length on this and deserves some attention.Bdubay (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"(it would, however, be * irony)"
This is basically an extended edit comment referring to the following passage: "... if a man exclaims, “I’m not upset!” but reveals an upset emotional state through his voice while truly trying to claim he's not upset, it would not be verbal irony by virtue of its verbal manifestation (it would, however, be situational irony)." This is situational irony since the actions of the man (saying "I'm not upset!") produce the opposite effect (by revealing that he is, in fact, upset). This is not dramatic irony, which is when a fictional character is strikingly unaware of something the audience knows. The man in this scenario is not unaware that he is upset; he merely wishes to conceal it. Augurar (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical characterizations
Doubtless has been formulated via sitcalc, NLU, oder. Quick check of archives indicates nothing related, changed archiving to 120 days, not that much activity. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Socrates
>(Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, was a master of this technique.)

Considering that the Socrates from the Dialogues is heavily fictionalised, we cannot really say this. It's easy for a writer to supply his hero with some cannon fodder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.238 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We can very well say it. It doesn't matter whether he was a master in real life or not. The sentence includes the qualifier "in Platos's dialogues" [the literary works] where he clearly is.   Dainamo (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxymorons
Some of your examples for 'Verbal irony' seem more oxymoronic than ironic. Perhaps an oxymoron is a form of irony? There definitely seems to be some connection. Classic examples: "jumbo shrimp", "military intelligence". I don't have any sources, but this seems to be common sense (which is rare these days -- sorry, couldn't help myself). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Oxy" means "sharp." "Moron" means "a dull thing." "Oxymoron" is merely a contradiction between two adjectives [sharp dull]. On the other hand, "irony" means "saying the opposite of what is thought or meant." If I am cold and I say, "I'm hot," then I'm being ironic. Irony always involves an opposite. It is an opposition between false words and true thoughts. By the way, in your so-called oxymoron "military intelligence," the word "intelligence" simply means "the gathering of information," not "smartness." Therefore, military intelligence" is not an oxymoron. Also, "shrimp" does not mean "small." It means "ten-footed crustacean." So "jumbo shrimp" is also not an oxymoron.Lestrade (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Mike091020 (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure why you say that. Both of those examples use alternative meanings for the words (intelligence and shrimp) and it is in that alternative usage that the irony is to be found. I'm not sure that an overly restrictive definition of irony serves. The joke about jumbo shrimp is well understood as a form of irony and gives a good laugh for that reason. I'm sure someone somewhere discusses the idea that much humor turns on irony.


 * I agree. To fully comprehend the humorous wordplay and oxymoronic nature of the terms "military intelligence" and "jumbo shrimp", we must open our minds up to the alternative meanings of words.  Otherwise, we risk being hoist by our own pedant.Twistlethrop (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t feel as though I am being hoist [blown up] by my own petard [bomb] when I say that tolerating alternative meanings to words renders words unusable for communication. Without conventional definitions, words are private, subjective, and no better than secret codes. “Irony” has a conventional definition: "a word’s literal meaning is the opposite of its intended meaning."Lestrade (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Lestrade


 * "Tolerating alternative meanings to words renders (them) unusable for communication" (??!!). Come now - you know better than that! All English words worth their salt have at least three meanings, for goodness' sake! Anyway almost all irony fails your definition - as very little of it is exactly "opposite". A better word here would be "(more or less) contradictory" or even bearing a sharply distinct meaning. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Lestrade; I did mean pedant, certainly not petard. My play on the phrase was deliberate, especially with an eye to the beauty of the English language: its already enormous, but constantly evolving, lexicon.  That beauty prevents anybody from being a true authority upon it.Twistlethrop (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Use of Irony
The last time I looked at this article several years ago, there was a section on incorrect use of the word, including an amusing analysis of Alanis Morissette's 1995 hit song "Ironic", which featured a fly in her chardonnay. Sorry to see that section removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.181.210 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the world is collectively tired of her terrible song being used as an example of what irony is not, which is pretty ironic, really. Or is it? etc. 99.146.121.1 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The main WP article is excellent. However, I would also like to have seen reference to Alanis's song and its lyrics. Why? Because some people genuinely think that "a traffic jam, when you're already late" is irony. It's not, unless you were on your way to a meeting about traffic congestion and how to fix it, etc. I vote for its re-inclusion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.162.156 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony has to do with opposites. Where is the opposition?Lestrade (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Cowbell Photo
What the hell is that about? Should it be removed? 86.10.244.90 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole caption it explains "The combination of a peaceful, pastoral use and a militant detail gives this item an ironic character, symbolizing the tragic daily reality of the Middle East conflict.", although if this is a single editor's observation (it doesn't appear to be mentioned and/or sourced in the body of the article) we should remove it as WP:OR/WP:OI. --McGeddon (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More definitions required
If we are including all possible definitions of irony, should we not inlcude "of, resembling, or containing iron"? Dainamo (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is clearly about "irony" the noun; the device used in language.
 * The most appropriate place in this article for the adjective "irony" would be the disambiguation section. You could create an article to explain its usage etc, but this is not a dictionary and I'm unsure how it would fit into the encyclopedia.Twistlethrop (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This article on irony should mention more ferrous objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.98.130 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition to lead
I am the second to revert the following dreadful addition by editor User:LiamPiasecki to the lead:

It is commonly falsely used to describe something that you werent expecting, but actually means the opposite or near opposite of something. Ex. When I said that i liked it, I was speaking ironically. Irony is one of those things that is so commonly misused, that somebody that uses it correctly can be accused of misusing it.

It was reverted back by user:Jehochman without comment after an earlier deletion. Myrvin (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cultural differences to ironic humour
It's often noted anecdotally that comedy in some cultures (eg America) employs irony less than in others (eg the UK). This is attributed to different populations not "getting" irony, possibly for reasons of educational history. Example: the UK satirical news comedy Have I Got News For You employs a great deal of irony in its scripts; its Australian counterpart Good News Week often descends to fart gags. Would be interesting to have this expanded upon. Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.176.153 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

File:TypographicalError1-v.PNG
For me this conforms with the present definition of Situational irony - the disparity of intention and result: when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect. I did not expect to find a typographical error in the very page of typographical error. I wonder whether other WP editors agree/disagree with the deletion by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myrvin... humbly - Etan J. Tal(talk) 15:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good effort, but IMO it's not particularly ironic, because the misspelling was introduced by a vandal, most likely with the intent to create a forced simulation of genuine irony ("ha ha, the article on typos begins with a typo, how ironic—ha ha, get it?"), but it was quickly reverted 32 seconds later. The vandal's intent, paraphrased above, is actually not even very ironic, because s/he had to force it to happen. The presence of the misspelling on the page was intentionally introduced, so it wasn't truly ironic. Now, one could posit that it might have been truly ironic if it were an actual typo, that is, an innocent slip of the typing fingers, and if it had persisted on the page for any substantial length of time. But even there, you would have trouble getting it to stick in this article on irony, with other editors wanting to delete it, for a couple reasons given further below. Strangely, the greatest irony involved with the event shown in the edit-differential screenshot is that the vandal probably thought s/he was being clever, but in reality it was a pretty lame, predictable joke. This shows irony in the sense of exposing human vanity and folly, contrasting with the intent. The vandal fancied his/her joke as clever, but that fancy turned out to be both vain and foolish (mildly). Now, to give the vandal credit, it is also possible that s/he knew that it was a lame stunt, but s/he did it anyway just for the lulz, fully aware of the lameness but also not giving a fizzuck—"it's only one mere vandal edit on Wikipedia—happens a million times a day—don't try to analyze it, bitch" (Joker-like chaos, kind of meta in a way). One last observation on why the mention was likely to be deleted from the irony article: even if there were a mild bit of irony in the event captured in the screenshot, the Wikipedia article on irony ends up excluding such mild examples, for a couple of reasons. One, it has to be chronically purged of "example bloat"—the article's quality is highest when it contains a limited number of great examples, and simply forgoes the lukewarm ones. Two, one of the problems with analyzing irony is that people end up doing a two-step debate about the milder forms of it. One person asserts, "hey, notice that X is ironic", and then others counter with either "no it isn't really" (depending on which precise definition of irony they're advocating) or "well maybe a tiny bit, but it cheapens the concept of irony to celebrate such weak examples. Pretty soon you've got pop songs claiming that rain on your wedding day is ironic, when its real irony quotient is small to zero (depending on definition). So let's not go down the road of dwelling on weak examples ..." The latter also spawns certain hypercorrective types of "irony purists" who base their egos on a drive to deconstruct every single assertion of irony under the sun and prove that the person who asserted it is inferior and doesn't truly understand the nature of Real/Pure irony, and that the purist is superior for knowing better than they did and duly dressing them down about it. These are the people who pride themselves on damning the pop song to hell for being so (in their minds) egregiously, unbearably, horribly, injuriously wrong. (Woah, chill out, crusaders, you've just built it up into more of a Scary Monster than it could ever really be.) Such folks are themselves ironic, since they display an unknowing exposure of their own vanity and folly ... Welcome to the hall of mirrors, where people ironically try to debunk all assertions of irony ... Cheers, — ¾-10 18:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point(s). Thanks for your analysis! Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh! I'm impressed. Myrvin (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Diffuse dramatic irony
I think this new section should be allowed to stand. It needs a citation, but, apart from that,it seems a sensible addition. Myrvin (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source showing WP:WEIGHT, it isn't relevant enough to include in the article. - SudoGhost 11:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case, we should delete Metafiction, Comic irony, and maybe even Historic irony. They are all deficient in sources. Myrvin (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Metafiction...the summary style section that links to the actual sourced article? No, that's not the same.  Even if those were comparable, why would adding to that problem improve the article?  The fact that other parts of the article may have issues isn't cause to add to that problem; that's not a very compelling reason. - SudoGhost 13:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see 8 results for "Diffuse dramatic irony" when searching Google. Giving an entire section to an idea that someone made up, but apparently hasn't really caught on yet, seems a bit much. --Onorem♠Dil 12:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess someone made all of the categories up at some time. I also refer you to Metafiction and Comic irony. By the way - if you search for "diffuse irony", you'll find more references. Most of these would be dramatic too. Myrvin (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I see that Huxley refers, of Jane Austin's works, to: "the dilute irony in which the characters are bathed". I think that's a similar idea. Myrvin (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course someone made them up at some point...and probably a bunch of others were made up that never caught on and also don't appear in the article. Whether we have references that show how much weight they deserve is what I consider the issue here. I don't understand what "dilute irony" has to do with anything? --Onorem♠Dil 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be on my own here. A pity the original editor had nothing to say. I therefore withdraw my suggestion. Maybe the idea will arise later. Myrvin (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In art
There is a section, within Historical irony, called "In art". It seems to me that the three examples here are not particularly to do with "art", and not Historical irony at all. I thin they are situational irony proper, and so I have moved them. It would be interesting to find actual examples of irony in pictorial art - Magritte?? Myrvin (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Metafiction
I intend rewriting this section using citations, and renaming it "Romantic irony and metafiction". That's assuming I can find references that say metafiction is related to irony or romantic irony. Myrvin (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done this now. I have removed the following examples pending citations that say tey are metafiction. I also removed my rather terse addition about "irony of fictionality".

Examples include Henry Fielding's interruptions of the storyline to comment on what has happened, or J.M. Barrie's similar interjections in his book, Peter Pan. The concept is also explored in a philosophical context in Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. A notable children's book that uses this is the series "Captain Underpants" by Dav Pilkey. The characters continue to allude to the fact that "This sort of thing only happens in poorly-written children's books!".

Notable attempts to sustain metafiction throughout a whole novel are Christie Malry's Own Double Entry by B.S. Johnson, in which none of the characters are real and exist only within the author's imagination, and In The Night Room by Peter Straub, in which the narrator is an author, whose fictional character comes to life and accompanies him through the book.

Metafiction replaced the term "irony of fictionality". Myrvin (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Situational Irony
Given that situational irony is a thing, Alanis Morissettes song "Ironic" is indeed ironic. The common misconception that is isn't is based on a pitiful understanding of context.

Rain on your wedding day isn't ironic as a literal statement. However a disaster on the day that's meant to be perfect IS situational irony.

10,000 spoons available when you require a knife can only be unrelated if we completely ignore that in that situation you need lack the ONE needed type of specific type of USEFUL cutlery yet have available an ABUNDANCE of USELESS cutlery.

Given the context of the situations in her song, they are indeed ironic as all comply to situational irony. Can we include such an example (being her song) into the Situational Irony section of this article? 58.7.53.90 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane
 * It seems to me that all the examples in the article should be accompanied by citations that SAY they are ironic. Otherwise, any situation that an editor happens to think of as ironic will go in. That goes for the Morissette song, The Wizard of Oz, and many others. The question is, who, apart from the editor, has written that the example is an example of irony. Anything else is OR. Myrvin (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a start by finding sources that suggests that the Reagan incident has an ironic car. and that the WofOz is ironic - but I'm not sure that's situational irony. Myrvin (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source I found for the above also mentions Morissette's song - but to say that the situations there are NOT ironic. see page 135 onwards. Myrvin (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the article for the song Ironic (song) has nobody saying that the song contains ironies - even Morissette herself. We could have a section on things that people say are ironic but are not. It could go in there. Myrvin (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be worthwhile to have a section on misuse of irony if refs could be found for such a thing. It seems to me that people are now even confused not just about what irony is but also confused about how it's been misused. Today I stumbled across the website isitironic.com, which appears to have the definition of situational/cosmic irony wrong. Isitironic.com says that situational irony is the name for the misuse and that what is in the Alanis Morissette song is what situational irony is and that's wrong. It also says situational/cosmic irony is akin to Murphy's Law which is also wrong. I find this misinformation alarming since the site appears to be somewhat popular. Situational irony is a modern kind of irony but it's not the same thing as when it's been misused.


 * I have heard people use irony for when they really have just a plain coincidence, as in "it was ironic, I ran in to so-and-so the other day". That's a misuse and Alanis Morissette's song is a misuse. Situational irony is different. Personally, I think the WP article's section on it is quite good and the examples are generally good.


 * IP, the situations in Ironic are not situationally ironic because there is no discrepancy between intent and result. One hopes for clear skies on their wedding day but it's only ironic if one picks their day entirely based on weather reports that said it would be clear. Then it would be ironic because the act of preventing rain is what caused the rain in the first place. Irony is even then still debatable because we all know weather reports can be wrong. Radiodef (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be ironic if a (self-proclaimed) soothsayer prediced that it would not rain and he drowned in the flood? Myrvin (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a new section. Myrvin (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On that note, I also saw a post above that was talking about The Oatmeal's comic which, while it shouldn't belong in the article by itself at the moment, makes me wonder if there ought to be an "...in popular culture" section like some articles have. I am sure there is plenty to fill a section like that although of course those kinds of sections are dangerous. The Oatmeal's comic, for example, I would personally still probably not put in the article if it had such a section, but it's certainly another spot the song could go in. Radiodef (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Because of WP:NAD I'm a little surprised that the article doesn't cover more stuff like this, although I suppose I shouldn't be since lots of articles don't cover much more than a lengthy definition. The article also does cover the differing definitions which is a plus and I know the article for sarcasm also does this which is great. Radiodef (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stressing the emphasis.
I have just reverted an edit seemingly done with a thesaurus and "Ctrl F" that basically pulled up all the instances of "emphasize" and replaced them with "stress". (I'm being unkind here, sorry, it also introduced a number of spelling mistakes, and inadvertently changed the meaning of a few unexceptional sentences). Most things I revert are deliberate vandalism, and it pains me to revert or edit anything that looks sincere, and indeed, may well be so.

Assuming "good faith", or in this case a sincere intent to improve an article's prose - edits aimed at improving style are hard to do well, and best left alone otherwise. You have to be very careful that you're neither making the style worse than ever, nor changing the meaning in subtle ways by (for example) substituting NEAR synonyms for key words. "Stress", for instance, often means "emphasize" - but it has other important meanings too, and these are very often in the background even when we do use it to mean emphasis. The connections with "strain" and "pressure" make it quite forceful, too forceful for some contexts in fact. Just one example.

By all means have another shot at it if you like, but be aware it can't be done mechanically, or by following a definable set of rules (even mine). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Simplify
This page and definition are excessively wordy. A plain English definition is padded and could be shortened to, "Verbal Irony: A figure of speech in which what is said is is the opposite of what is meant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvg (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would life were simple. If you read the definitions section, you'll see that there have been several attempts at this by cleverer people than us. I was of your view until I researched it a lot more. Irony may never have been used in such a simple manner. Besides, your def only covers verbal irony. Myrvin (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014
A modest proposal: in the subsection on Dramatic Irony, in the last example (Romeo and Juliet), there is a grammar error. For the sentence, "In Romeo and Juliet, the audience knows that Juliet is already married to Romeo, but her family do not," the last clause should be changed to "but her family does not." Family is in the singular--the verb should be too.

Karneades (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, of course. Based on my experience with articles on sports teams, I suspect some would argue otherwise, but I'm with you on this. I have changed the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of introductory sentence needed
Somebody *please* rewrite the first sentence. It is incomprehensible. I would do it, but I have no idea what the person was trying to say. 130.225.98.201 (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Twist of Fate
This phrase has been added by User:Sbharris to the first mention of situational irony. It reads now as if Lars Elleström says it is commonly known as this, but there is no citation.
 * Lars Elleström is also cited further down under situational irony. I can't access the cited page, but does that mention "twist of fate"?
 * "Twist of fate" has also been added under Historical irony. Is this meant to be the same thing? Does the citation mention it?
 * I think the phrase just means an unexpected and surprising event. I have seen the phrase "ironic twist of fate", which suggests "twist of fate" is not necessarily ironic.
 * We need a citation that says situational irony is also called a "twist of fate". Myrvin (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015
Bold text ₵Ḣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.250.205 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Great example as a link of Irony
Fire extinguisher factory destroyed in massive blaze  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.244.173 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Oatmeal's take
This Oatmeal comic theoatmeal.com/comics/irony, and especially the final point, ought to find mention somewhere.


 * Support. The themes of the comic are so valuable. Stop treating pedantry, or trying to make yourself look smart, as the main point of a given conversation that happens to mention irony. It's not the main point, it's only your insecurely obsessive misplaced focus. — ¾-10 16:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Actual Definition of Irony
Person 1 implies A. Person 2 infers B. Observation C contradicts B. Irony is tragic when C also contradicts A.
 * Example: Bob says to Jim, "Nice day, huh?". Jim replies, "It's raining, ain't nothing nice about it.".  Bob was not talking about the weather, he was talking about the attractive woman who just walked by.
 * Example + Tragic: Bob later notices that, because of the bad weather, attractive women rarely walk around outside.
 * Irony is dramatic irony when the true audience is privy to the knowledge that person 2 is wrong.

This definition satisfies the need for a double audience, explains the confusion around the contradiction, and shows how sarcasm can be a useful component of irony. It also explains that there is a marked and objectively observable difference between sarcasm, contradiction, coincidence, tragedy, and irony. Epigeios (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the actual definition of ironic is a unique relationship between two entirely different events. Lightbodyslady (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Oedipus Rex
I didn't see anything on Oedipus Rex, which was an ironic masterpiece written by the Greek playwright Sophocles. This should be in there somewhere, as it is a perfect example of irony in literature. --Danny Starman (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irony. 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/20020803230701/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html

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) 20:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017
A current example of irony is the ideology of preventing free speech and freedom of expression while claiming to be anti-fascist. WritefulChange (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:SOAP. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018
ADD to the list of historical irony

First Lady Melania Trump promoting "Be Best," an anti-bullying campaign to combat the harmful effects of social media, while her husband, President Donald Trump, is considered by many to use social media to insult and discredit people who are perceived as his political enemies (references 1 and 2).

References:



Canoelover (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Canoelover (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The list already has several examples of historical irony. I don't think it is a good idea to add this; it is controversial and may violate Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Self-irony listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Self-irony. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 October 2019
ADD to the external links:
 * User talk:65.196.107.215 16:03, 3 October 2019
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 16:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation style
I think the citations should be styled more consistently. I just cleaned out a couple of things that are definitely discouraged, but I wonder if we should shift most of the footnote citations to uses of Sfn. Also, a good few of the citations need page numbers. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 17:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)