Talk:Schadenfreude/Archive 1

Lulz
I'm not sure if someone's making a conscious effort to keep it out of the article, but the concept of Schadenfreude is very similar to the actual concept of "Lulz", and thus I believe a mention in the "In Popular Culture" section should be appropriate. Esper rant  01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Audiofile
Being a German native speaker, I have trouble with the pronounciation audiofile. The speaker leaves out the distinctive 'sh' phone (like in 'shell') at the beginning, making it sound like "adenfreude". Maybe I have a crappy audioplayer (should not think so, Mplayer), or the audiofile is just broken. Apart from that, the pronounciation is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.226.137 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed references
When looking at the "in pop culture" section, I saw a lot of lines like this: "On July 30, 2007, the Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi used the word."

Do we really have to write down ever time someone uses the word Schadenfreude on tv? I removed several items from the pop culture section that I thought were trivial or irrelevant to the article. I wanted to remove the simpsons reference, but I later saw that there was a discussion about that and someone decided to leave it, so I put it back. --Nlm1515 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Gaming Culture
How does this relate to the act of griefing in online games? I expect that eventually it will become a real English word.capnmidnight 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All Crap
And I quote... In the comic strip Ziggy, Ziggy is watching a television commercial that says, "Offended by something somebody said?...Call Lenny Shadenfroid, Attorney-at-Law." Honestly would this make it into Britannica? I don't think so. It's this kind of dross that makes Wikipedia less legitimate on the whole.
 * Wikipedia is not Britannica. If we did everything Britannica did we wouldn't be so popular, or so successful. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * was there a ziggy thing in the article? why did he even mention that?

English equivalent
...I don't know where to put this... What's wrong with good old-fashioned 'gloating' as an approximation of the German meaning? - Jasper (28 feb 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 32.106.199.193 (talk • contribs).
 * Good point. It is pretty much the same. Malick78 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a good point, but the two words aren't really equivalent. To gloat is "to feel or express great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction." That is, the self-satisfaction it the primary symptom, with malice is a common but optional extra.   betsythedevine (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a good observation but not quite right. Merriam-Webster's definition of "gloat": to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight .  So notice they give an example that could be correctly labeled schadenfreude, but gloat is much more general.  For example, one could gloat over one's success, e.g. a promotion or winning a contest, etc.  There is also a matter of degree, in my opinion (which is justified by the MW and other definition above) gloat has a connotation of "great" or "triumphant" pleasure.  I don't think schadenfreude has this connotation of this high degree of pleasure.  --C S (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete request
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Is there anything encyclopedic to say about schadenfreude? --FOo

Keep. :-) Evercat 02:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I say keep, but lose the simpsons. Billranton 10:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree - this should be in Wiktionary, if necessary with the simpsons bit as an example. It *is* quite a good example, that I concede.


 * Schadenfreude is an intellectual term used in higher education these days with a certain amount of panache. Like self-actualization or supply side economics.  More than a dictionary word.

"is only known in German"
This quote:

"Das Wort Schadenfreude kennt man nur im Deutschen. The word "Schadenfreude" is only known in German. (unknown author)" -- is not only unattributed, but also false. For example, Swedish has "skadeglädje", which means the same thing (skade = harm, gläjde = joy). I'm hesitant to delete it though, since I'm not sure if it's actually something that people actually say. If so, the truth should be illuminated.


 * there is a frech term that is similar that i was looking for and found Schadenfreude. The french term means to do something terrible for no reason.  like randomly pushing a stranger into an oncoming train. the word isnt ennui and im going crazy looking for it.

The Simpsons
Is an obscure reference from The Simpsons really that influential towards the popularity of the word "Schadenfreude". I think Anglophones have been using the German word long before The Simpsons.

I'd delete it. It seems to be there just to keep this an encyclopedia article instead of a dictionary article. Sometimes the two are synonymous, sometimes they aren't.


 * I would go so far as to put a factual accuracy dispute tag on the page if this remains. English-speakers were familiar with the word schadenfreude long before The Simpsons came along. Dbiv 20:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * From what I have read of this discussion the only thing that is disputed is the comment about the Simpsons, this does not warrant putting a factual accuracy tag on the whole page (Wikipedia guidelines suggest doing this only for a page that has 5 or more 'dubious statements). Have removed this and added a 'dubious' tag at the end of the sentence in question. 11:30, 1/3/2005 (PHS)

I agree. Toss the Simpsons. cution 00:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It'd make more sense to toss the Simpsons if there would be anything left after the tossing. I'm soliciting a psych grad student I know who's doing specific work on schadenfreude. Perhaps she'll contribute. grendel|khan 22:55, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

I say: Keep it. It's a good explanation what Schadenfreude is. Either somebody comes up with some better explanation or we just continue to use what's already there. MikeZ 10:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just came to the talk page to query this: it might be OK to include the Simpsons as an illustration (although I think it would be better without), it's very suspect to imply that the Simpsons is responsible for the increased popularity of the word: is there a source for this? Anyway, I've removed the offending section, hopefully that will provoke discussion ;-) &mdash; Matt Crypto 03:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the Simpsons material should be recovered, but modified. The article would benefit from cultural context. Yes, that single episode of the Simpsons either caused or was coincident with a resurgence of the use of the term in the US. Yes, I had used it for a couple decades prior, as had a lot of others (especially Brits and anglophilic Colonials like me). Further, if you look at the post dates for pages or alt posts including the word schadenfreude, you'll find an increase in 1992 (following Simpsons 7F23) and in 2003/2004, when the soundtrack for the Broadway production of Avenue Q was released. Perhaps a section called "Schadenfreude in pop culture" with both Simpsons material and Avenue Q lyrics from the song, "Schadenfreude" would be appropriate? Kevin Wells 02:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * :slaps self: I really should have read the talk page before editing the article. :makes note to self: Well, I feel that it's an excellent example of Schadenfreude. If it were just a reference I would say toss but it does a good job of illustrating the meaning of the term. Crovax 3 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)


 * The Simpsons passage is unduely long and, if kept, should be limited to its first two sentences. The last sentence is highly dubious. In response to Kevin Wells above, I'd point out that usage of the term was increasing before the Simpsons episode, and continued to increase at much the same rate in the years since then. There was no particular acceleration of the rate of growth immediately after the episode. wordcrafter Jan 4 2006

Personal Opinion
I hope you don't mind my edit. It is my first. Quixcab 30 Dec 2004

My Opinion
I was searching the web for pages helping me to compose a new word meaning "ease of harming others," for use in sustainability engineering. The word "schadenfreude" has a prefix that will do it, if I can find a suitable suffix.

Meanwhile, I found the bit about the Simpsons very useful for the history of the word. Please keep it.

Jack

Statement from Germany
... it's fun to hear the we (the germans) are not only famous for "Blitzkrieg" & "Sauerkraut" but also for Schadenfreude!

And the article is right! Even the Simpsons thing is right! You should keep it. You have Schopenhauer and as a counterpart the Simpsons ...

We have another saying in germany: Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude! Which means: Schadenfreude is the best of all joys!

En-joy!

Capitalization
The article mentions that capitalization in English is not necessary but common. However, the article uses both capitalized and non-capitalized versions in the text. Consistency is best in any article. Which is going to be? Opinions? --Christophernicus 23:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have a mild preference for the non-capitalised version, but I don't mind either way. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote small caps throughout; it's a loanword, subject to English capitalization rather than German. I also think it better matches common use. Papayoung 16:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed a standard form yet. Anecdotally, some German-speaking Americans conducted a quiet campaign to adopt this word into English.  I first met such a person in 1980, about eight years before I saw it in print in a New York periodical.  The proverbs are hilarious.  Yes, Schadenfreude (or schadenfreude) deserves an encyclopedia entry. Durova 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In the article it sounds as if the capitalization of this word were sth special. Is is not. It's only capitalized because it's a noun, and in German, the first letter of all nouns is capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.48.190 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Would be helpful.
 * Shay-den-froy-duh. Greatest accent on the first syllable, second-greatest accent on the third syllable.


 * Davidkevin 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's "shahd-n-froy-duh", actually. --Jemiller226 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, my mistake. Thank you for the correction.
 * I haven't looked at this Talk Page in months, so my apology for the lateness in acknowledging this. -- Davidkevin 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Shameful joy"

 * meaning "pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune" or "shameful joy."

I see in the history that the add-on "or shameful joy" has been inserted, removed and inserted again. First of all, the above is ambiguous: does it mean that (1) schadenfreude can stand for "shameful joy", or does it mean that (2) schadenfreude can stand for "shameful joy taken from someone else's misfortune"? I claim that both (1) and (2) are incorrect.

(1) Every definition of schadenfreude in any dictionary whatsoever always refers to someone else's misfortune. If I sit in my office and enjoy the shameful joy of playing video games, then there is no schadenfreude involved whatsoever.

(2) While schadenfreude can be experienced as shameful, often it is not. The saying "Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude" (schadenfreude is the best joy) is quite common and people often use it amusedly when they show or observe an instance of schadenfreude. So conclusion: it may be shameful, but it needn't be, and being shameful is not part of the definition.

One could however make a case that a word like "spiteful" or "malicious" should be added to the definition. On the other hand, that is basically implied, and also mentioned later in the article, so I won't fight for it. AxelBoldt 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Avenue Q
the avenue Q example is in there twice, so I'm removing the second, terser version. TorenC 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mental Disorder?
Keep this article, it's all too damned descriptive of a real problem. I think someday schadenfreude will be in the DSM as a disorder. Davidkevin 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

malice?
One could however make a case that a word like "spiteful" or "malicious" should be added to the definition. On the other hand, that is basically implied, and also mentioned later in the article, so I won't fight for it. AxelBoldt 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NO? Ok..then I will ;>)


 * Many definitions qualify delight with malice. This distinction seems denotatively relevant. Malice requires a desire to harm others, or even a desire or intent without just cause or reason.  I think malice is required to differentiate Schadenfreude from more typical and perhaps cultural sense of ‘justice’.  Without malice Schadenfreude describes what the audience feels when Empire’s Death Star explodes; or when the burglar, murderer, or rapist gets caught; or when the ‘hero’ prevails at the expense and ‘misfortune’ of the antagonist.


 * Is not malice required to separate Schadenfreude from justice, just rewards, and just cause? Does a person run the risk of Schadenfreude when he or she does not sympathize, or even express condolences when the card cheat loses or gets caught?


 * Agreed. You've hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head.  Schadenfreude is malicious by its very nature, maliciousness is intrinsic to it.


 * Davidkevin 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MattyG 20:10, 21 January 2009 (CST) In my limited exposure to the word, malice does not seem intrinsic to the word, since malice implies an active voice or subject.  Schadenfreude seems to imply more of a passive subject observing an unfortunate occurrence to an object person.  Wishing something bad would happen to another person and experiencing "an Evil thing (leading) onto Joy" sound slightly different.  The latter sounds more like enjoying without consideration or sympathy/empathy of the pain experience by the other suffering.  So not necessarily malicious, or negative, but lacking in the higher virtue of charity.  The examples above differentiate between joy out of justice or joy out of malice, but it seems Schadenfreude implies neither, but instead as valueless or thoughtless joy (neither the good of justice, or the evil of malice).  Following from this, the word does seem to imply that the subject of Schadenfreude ought to have a feeling of sympathy/empathy in the event of experiencing Schadenfreude, and so the word might be classified as a bad thing itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.111.189 (talk)


 * Adorno's definition of schadenfreude (cited in the article lead) describes it as a largely unanticipated delight: this suggests an absence of any preexisting malice, and that the feeling may take a person by surprise. Schadenfreude may also be a fleeting experience, tempered perhaps by the belated realisation of what one is laughing at. Malice seems to me to be an altogether longer lasting emotion. I think part of the point is that anyone can experience schadenfreude - one does not need to be a malicious person to do so. Pingku (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

America's Funniest videos
Is it Schadenfreude when people laugh when a guy gets hit in the nuts by a ball or toy?
 * In my opinion, yes -- mild, but yes.
 * Davidkevin 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * mild? in my option it is the perfect example of schadenfreude (and since i am german i must know ;)


 * Mild compared to someone feeling pleasure that another person broke an arm, or had their house mortgage foreclosed, or died.


 * Davidkevin 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You usually don't take pleasure in exteme unfortune of others unless the person is an enemy. Strangers having mild but painfull accidents, is the most classic case of schadenfreude. Carewolf 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comedy?
What about slapstick, or other forms of comedy ?

Is it Schadenfreude when we laugh because George’s (Seinfeld) hand modeling career comes to an end on the surface of a hot iron? Is it Schadenfreude if we laugh because Elaine has a look-a-like manikin, or Jerry is forced to wear a puffy shirt? --Dryfus 05:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thats not. You just have the feeling of Schadefreude if someone who has behaved in an unfair way or someone you don't like gets a punishment or problems or whatever. In the German article is written, that men and women have different reasons to feel Schadenfreude: In the brain of male people endorphins are released if someone gets punished who has done something unfair before. Female persons feel Schadenfreude because of empathy (it's written in that way, but to me it is the same). Scientists say that Schadefreude has a big role in human societies: It helps to keep justice and punishment of offences of norms. In slapstick and other forms of comedy you don't have the feeling of Schadenfreude because there was no bad action of the person which is worth to be punished. Schadefreude goes much deeper, as the proverb says, "directly from the heart". (I'm from Germany, so I know about the word Schadenfreude. I just have some problems with English. ^^) [User:Kjara - not registered] 10:33 pm, 17 January 2007

Three names: Larry, Curly, and Moe. Anyone who has laughed while watching The Three Stooges is 'guilty' (assuming that this is supposed to be a bad thing - I believe that there wayyy too much moralizing on this topic and that none of the stone-throwers are without sin, themselves).

--Misanthrope67 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article, Keep Expanding
This article was a good start. There's something missing though: "Misery loves company" is the American-equivalent that reminds me of schadenfreude. It's not enough to note that the meaning is to take pleasure in others' pain, rather the cultural sickness that permits this pleasure, particulary when it is publicly enjoyed en masse.

Deus Ex Reference
Who on this insane planet described Gunther Hermann as a 'disfigured character'? He is a cyborg with psychopathic tendencies ! --Dem 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Listcruft"?
One editor's "listcruft" is another editor's "important additional information which contributes greatly to the value of an article". Davidkevin 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackan, other people have been working to compile examples of the use of schadenfreude in popular culture for 3-1/2 years, and it is extremely arrogant-appearing on your part to come in out of nowhere and wholesale-delete material because you think it's "listcruft".


 * I will agree with you on examples in which the word is merely mentioned without context, but in examples where the meaning of the word is made clearer through the example, it is inappropriate that you continue these deletions with the appearence of "just because you wanna".


 * Schadenfreude is an uncommon word which has become increasingly media-common in a relatively short time. Several examples of Uses In Context are necessarily in order to make it clear where and where it is not appropriate to use the word -- otherwise, we will be left with the semantic confusion such as exists between "disinterested" and "uninterested".


 * Davidkevin 07:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Davidkevin, you are taking this article way too personally, it's not about who wrote what or how long it took them, if doesn't belong in an encyclopedia it doesn't belong, and that's the bottom line. I have no vested interest in this one particular article but to make it better (and as for saying I "come out of nowhere", maybe you didn't realise this is an online Wikipedia anybody with an internet connection can edit, but it is). I'd recommend you to read up on What Wikipedia is not, Guide_to_writing_better_articles, and Manual_of_Style. This article is in dire need for editing help, and if you oppose every single improvement because of your emotional attachment to the many references and current layout, you are only working to the detriment of Wikipedia. Mackan 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of personality, it's a matter of you removing appropriate material. I have no problem with good edits, I just don't see what you're doing as such.  I submit that you are making the article worse, not better, less encyclopedic, not smoother.


 * I have reverted twice this day; rather than push for the letter of WP:3RR, I will observe the spirit and wait until the next 24 hour day begins to revert again if necessary...but as long as you do so, unless there is an overwhelming editorial show of support from editors who have worked on this article in the past against my doing so, I will be putting back material I think you've inappropriately deleted which I think relevant to the article at least twice a day while presently seeking further administrative relief.


 * Avoiding that would be a Good Thing, probably for both of us.


 * Davidkevin 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep on claiming I've "inappropriately deleted" material but if you read the guidelines I've several times asked you to read, you'd realise my edits (deletes) were most appropriate. Please find support for your editorial standpoints from the guidelines/policies and not your esoteric tastes. That is the only way of solving an edit conflict. Mackan 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think as it currently stands (I.e. reduced by Mackan’s edit) the list gives more than enough examples of it’s use in context. --Goatan 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me also take this opportunity to ask you to take a look at WP:OWN. "You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them". I am especially concerned by your statement "unless there is an overwhelming editorial show of support from editors who have worked on this article in the past". Just because people have worked on this article in the past doesn't mean they have more to say on the article than anybody else. Mackan 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudo-physician, heal thyself. WP:OWN applies precisely to you with regard to this article.  You're the one who has come out of comparative nowhere and is apparently attempting to act as the absolute arbiter of what is an appropriate popular cultural reference to include and what is not, repeatedly deleting in an edit-war fashion anything which you personally disapprove regardless of how appropriate a reference others think it to be.  (And that isn't intended as an "attack", but as an observation the basis of which can be verified by checking the edit record.)  There's editing boldly and then there's editing proprietarily, and the two are not identical.


 * If necessary, I'm going to request an admin to take a look at the record. Your repeated deletions are lowering the value of the article, or so it seems to me.


 * Davidkevin 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than block for vandalism, I have requested Mediation.  Davidkevin 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dilbert
Today's Dilbert strip uses the term effectively. It's probably not noteworthy enough to include in the article, but I thought that anyone reading this discussion page would get a kick out of it. (I'll probably be deleting this comment in 3 weeks or whenever comics.com strips automatically expire) - Ugliness Man 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite my comment below, you gotta love Dogbert! --Iacobus 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with pop culture citations
I gotta agree with other comments above that there is a certain amount of cringe factor in chasing down every sitcom and comic book reference to subjects listed in Wikipedia. Thank goodness Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias, but... Is it not testament to our obsession with the "now" that we seek to include such ephemeral references? They are also very culture-specific - someone from India or Kenya, with English as a second language, looking up Wikipedia for information may care a lot less about the Simpsons or Dilbert - and even we in Australia don't have all of the sitcoms, etc, that US contributors refer to. This is a problem that Wikipedia is going to have to deal with, unless it wants itself to be buried in detail chronicling every nuance of "now" culture. There is a difference between encyclopedias and chronicles!

And don't get me started on those articles devoted to pop culture subjects! --Iacobus 23:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone just uses the word without context (as in the "schadenfreude ray gun" or as the name of the Chicago comedy troupe, then I agree that including an entry on such as that is crufty excess. However, if the word is used in an illuminating fashion, as in the Simpsons reference, or the Sarah Silverman quotation, then it seems to me that including a pop-culture reference is appropriate.  The rule I use in making such a determination is if such a reference helps make the meaning and use of the word more clear, then it's appropriate to mention in this section.


 * Davidkevin 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but who wants to hear about how a Malcolm in the Middle episode used the word once, or a starcraft novelization implemented the term. Some are very relevant---Avenue Q and The Simpsons but truly, just because it can be found in pop culture does not mean that it deserves reference to in an encyclopedia. 75.71.42.115 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Crufty Excess?
I guess I'm not seeing how indicating that the word was used as the name of a radio program is 'crufty excess' (whatever that is) any more than mentioning any other of its references in popular culture. I've resubmitted this perfectly valid reference to the word several times, only to see it called 'spam' and most recently 'vandalism'. Whether "Davidkevin" likes it or not, the word 'Schadenfreude' was, in fact, used as the name of a radio sketch program which ran from 2003 to 2005 on Chicago Public Radio. It's not spam—I don't have anything to do with the program or the people who produced it. And it's sure as hell not 'vandalism,' for crying out loud. It's a usage of the word in popular culture. Lighten up. 65.104.185.164 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is WAY too finite. It was in once city and lasted for 2 years? That's worse than the Malcolm in the Middle reference. 75.71.42.115 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cleanup" Notice
Since the article proper reads fairly well -- at least it does in my opinion -- and since there has been no entry on this page as to why a cleanup notice is necessary, I have removed it. Anyone who disagrees has the right to re-insert that notice, of course, but some mention here of why he or she believes the article to be poorly written and in need of cleanup would be appropriate and appreciated. Davidkevin 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Popular Culture References
Hello all! I am with the Mediation Cabal and am here to help resolve the situation regarding the quotations in the popular culture section. I would ask that any further debate about the subject be placed under this heading now for the mediation. Since the debate seems to be largely between Davidkevin and Mackan, I will be addressing myself to them. However, if another user wishes to express their opinions here, please do so.

Davidkevin and Mackan, I need to know exactly how many references you would like in the article. So, would both of you please tell me what version in the history of this article you want it to be? If you have additions, please reference a page in the history and list any additions on here. I hope you all have a good evening (or whatever time you are in) and God bless. LawrenceTrevallion 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with the current version of the article, which as I write this is dated 04:14, 1 September 2006.


 * It isn't the number of references, it's the appropriateness of them by the criteria I cited above which matters to me:


 * "...if the word is used in an illuminating fashion, as in the Simpsons reference, or the Sarah Silverman quotation, then it seems to me that including a pop-culture reference is appropriate. The rule I use in making such a determination is if such a reference helps make the meaning and use of the word more clear, then it's appropriate to mention in this section."


 * Thank you for volunteering your time to help us reach consensus.


 * Davidkevin 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this article, but I'd like to tender an opinion. The way I understand it, it seems that some editors would like to reduce the Pop culture section, as it amounts to listcruft, and other editors would like to keep the section as is because the quotes help explain the meaning of the term.
 * I think both sides have a valid point. However, I think the original list (the larger one) is not excessively large, and can be left as is.
 * As a compromise, perhaps we could create a Wikiquote article on Schadenfreude? It would be an excellent place to put many of these pop culture references without cluttering up the main article. --K e rowyn Leave a note 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing your suggestion Kerowyn. What is everyone else's opinion of Kerowyn's idea? His/her idea could work, but bear in mind that Wikiquote involves direct quotations, so the list, as it stands in the article now, could not be transferred verbatim. LawrenceTrevallion 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I think all the examples should be removed as I find them intrinsically unencyclopedic and quite unhelpful. Schadenfreude is not that hard of a concept to define and I don't think a short example of how it was used in an episode of the Simpsons is the best way to demonstrate the meaning of the word. The examples I left in previous edits were actually all examples I thought would should be put on a disambig page but I was too lazy to create one. The first example, saying that Hitler's humour was entirely based on Schadenfreude, I think does belong in the article but it has nothing to do with "Popular culture" and should be incorporated into the rest of the text, perhaps the introduction wouldn't be such a bad place for it. Allow me also to add that even though this "conflict" has largely been between me and Davidkevin, some other users have expressed their support for my changes, on this talkpage and on my user talkpage. Davidkevin has not received any support from anyone so far, with the possible exception of user:Kerowyn, just now. Mackan 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another problem with the current article is that Davidkevin, on nobody but his own authority, removed the clean-up tag from the article (twice, first time marking it as a "minor edit"). I would like it put back on the top of the article, not only because of the list but because of other problems with the article as well.Mackan 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you Mackan for participating in the mediation. (This is informal, so I cannot make anyone participate.)  Again, if anyone else is willing to contribute their thoughts, please do so.  Now, a few points:


 * 1) Mackan, on your user page you pointed out that Wiki policy states this is not an unconnected amalgam of information.  While this is true, I think it is important to bear in mind that many articles have "Trivia" sections which are of a similar vein as this section.  "Trivia" sections seem to provide relevant if not necessary information.  (A good example of this is the T.E. Lawrence article.)  With all this in mind, I do not believe the spirit of the section can be said to conflict directly with Wiki policy.  What are your thoughts?
 * 2) DavidKevin, you said on Mackan's talk page that you wanted to keep references "examples where the meaning of the word is made clearer through the example."  I believe, however, that Mackan was correct when he said that the definition is already clear.  I asked someone else's opinion about this (a non-Wiki user) and she understood the meaning without the pop culture references.  I also did not find the references necessary to understanding the word.  (I would certainly like to hear other opinions on this point.)
 * 3) My outside source did find the examples interesting, and that seems to be the spirit of the Trivia sections and that warrants the section remaining in the article.  So, I propose two things: First, rename the section "Trivia."  (This would allow for other interesting facts about the word to be added here.)  Second, reduce the number of references and trim some of them.  For example, the last one regarding Ben Affleck does not add anything for me because I do not know the context.  Also, I think the second reference could be shortened to the first sentence, as the information in the rest of the reference is basically stated in the article.  Let me know what you think.  LawrenceTrevallion 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been a few days, and the issue seems to have gone quiet. Are there any more thoughts, or am I no longer needed here? LawrenceTrevallion 03:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been off-and-on ill and not able to concentrate for long amounts of time. I'll have some further comments in a day or so, and ask for your forebearance.


 * Davidkevin 09:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I have not been on Wikipedia much lately. (Grad school will do that to you.)  Anyways, I think we need to close this case out, if there is even still interest.  Davidkevin, what are your thoughts on my proposal?  LawrenceTrevallion 13:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am going to close the case in the Cabal. If anyone wishes to resume a mediated debate, feel free to contact the Cabal.  God bless!  LawrenceTrevallion 14:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heck, I was going to write to you later this morning, having just gotten back into things.


 * Anyway, if it still matters, I think some people need examples as this is an unusual word. I would be willing to accept a freeze of the section with the status quo as it existed at the time arbitration began, without the extra material added since by others (including a repeat of material both Mackan and I agreed was cruft).  There was enough there to satisfy me.


 * If it isn't too late, how about that?


 * Davidkevin 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Inverse of Schadenfreude
Sour grapes is not really the inverse to Schadenfreude. Does anyone know a word with the meaning "sadness in another's joy/success"?


 * "Joy" and "happiness" don't exactly have a direct opposite. Being unhappy can mean sadness, anger, or simply discontent.  So sour grapes is sort of an inverse of Schadenfreude (if Schadenfreude is being happy at someone else's misfortune, the inverse would be being unhappy at someone else's fortune, right?) Then again, we might have a new problem in that there's more than one definition of "sour grapes". - Ugliness Man 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Jealousy"? Bart van der Pligt 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use Jealousy because it implies envy while sour grapes doesn't. The inverse of jealousy would be a "Better you than me" thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.117.127.156 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Obviously, the word would be Freudenschade. Is this used in German (or other languages), I wonder?  Surely I can't be the only one to have thought of this.  Kostaki mou 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese
Just to add that, in Portuguese, there's a verb (not a noun to express the feeling) that means "to wish someone's bad luck". The word is agourar. The root is "agouro", which is basically an ancient synonym for "luck" and can be good ("bom agouro") or bad ("mau agouro"). The verb became intrinsically attached to the "bad meaning" over time, and now it's only used when someone is wishing (or merely predicting as a strong possibility) failure to others. I won't edit anything or even suggest the inclusion - so it becomes a prerrogative of anyone in the know -, but I thought this should just be noted. Not sure if it fits the meaning.

Poor Translation (Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude)
"Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude (denn sie kommt von Herzen): "Schadenfreude is the most superb kind of joy (since it comes directly from the heart)." (proverb)"

In my opinion, this is the equivalent of breaking walnuts with a sledgehammer.H6a6t6e 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only is the translation weak, a proverb "Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude" doesn't even exist in the german language usage. The correct proverb is "Vorfreude ist die schönste Freude" (Vorfreude means pleasant anticipation). The Version with Schadenfreude is occassionally used to emphasize the evil and sneaky nature of Schadenfreude in some contexts in contrast to the innocent original proverb. IMHO it makes not much sense to try to translate a derived satirical proverb on it own without mentioning it's roots and out of context. I'd recommend to delete this aleged proverb from the article as it's not used as a proverb by it's own, only as a reference to the original proverb. --X4u 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it's not actually a German proverb, I went ahead and deleted it - if somebody wants to add it back, feel free to, but do cite reliable sources. Thanks. :) -- Schneelocke 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It requires a reliable source, not just a source

 * I re-deleted the alleged "proverb" after Loyeyoung put it back up, using Dale Carnegie's book as a source. His book might be full of great advice for getting along with people, but it's hardly a reliable source for German expressions. Yes, it's a popular and widely disseminated book, but the fact that it appears in a popular book written by an American, who cites no source of his own, doesn't mean that any German ever uttered that phrase. People have a tendency to attribute entirely made-up sayings to foreign cultures whenever they feel the saying would be believable in the context of those cultures. For instance: "May you live in interesting times," while supposedly either a Chinese blessing or curse (depending on who's telling the story), turns out to have been made up out of whole cloth by some white dude. The same kind of thing happens all the time in other areas as well. For instance: Lemmings do not actually commit suicide en masse by running off the edges of cliffs. And yet, it's become so deeply ingrained in our way of thinking--to the point of spawning a metaphor for describing mindlessly self-defeating behavior--that plenty if not most people think it's really something lemmings do. Let's not promote a similarly ridiculous myth about the Germans here on Wikipedia unless somebody can find some reliable sources (by which I mean, preferably, German-language sources, which really ought to be obvious). Hell, I could write a book claiming all kinds of things were said by the Germans or anybody else--and so what? There is a world of difference between a source and a reliable source, people.
 * And speaking of reliable: A pretty reliable way to find out if a phrase is well-known is to google it: "Schenfreude" by itself gets you 1,710,000 hits. "Die reinste Freude ist die Schadenfreude" gets you 32, all but 5 of which are non-German-language sites. What does this tell you? I know what it tells me: That it's not a German proverb. That is, unless it's one of those secret proverbs that nobody ever says or has heard of....
 * Anyway, the second reason I took down the quotation is that I've got a copy of Carnegie's book, and the passage Loyeyoung quotes does not appear in any of the three chapter sixes it contains, so its a misattribution anyway. Buck Mulligan 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Trails.
 * -I don't have a horse in the race either way, but the point of the article is about the use of the word in the lexicon, not about German proverbs. The purpose of the citation under the "In popular culture" heading is to show how the word was first introduced to popular culture. Perhaps Mr. Carnegie made up the quote, I don't know. If he did, it would explain why Americans are so convinced it's a German proverb even though Germans swear they've never heard of it!
 * --Google is one indicia of word usage, but only of current usage. (Some of us can actually remember a day before there were personal computers. LOL) If the word were in common current usage, one would simply turn to the dictionary for reference.
 * --You are right to correct my sloppiness in citing the quotation. It's in Chapter 6 ("The safety valve in handling complaints") of Part III ("Winning People to Your Way of Thinking"), the fifth paragraph or so from the end of the chapter.
 * --I included the quotation in the spirit of contributing to the collective knowledge. If the community doesn't find it helpful to that end, it doesn't hurt my feelings. Keep it in, keep it out, or change it. Next time you are in on Texas border, come see me and we'll haggle it out over a plate of carne asada.

--Loyeyoung 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Loyeyoung. I, too, remember (with some fondness, actually) the days before everybody became attached at the lap to a computer, but I think you're wrong to say that only current usages are discoverable on Google. Try googling something like "I like the cut of his jib," which practically nobody says anymore, probably since nobody knows what a jib is anymore, and you'll get plenty of hits (625 in this case).
 * Strangely enough, I still can't seem to find the quotation you mention in Carnegie's book. Four paragraphs from the end of "The Safety Valve in Handling Complaints" I've got the following: "Larochefoucauld, the French philosopher, said: 'If you want enemies, excel your friends; but if you want friends, let your friends excel you.'" Strange, no? The general message is the same, but the quotation is different. Maybe my edition of the book differs from yours (I'm looking at p. 162 of the revised, 1981 edition published by Pocket Books). Hell, maybe enough Germans wrote to the publisher to complain that they already had enough problems with the way they're perceived by the rest of the world, and the passage was excised.
 * Anyway, I understand your point about this being an article about the usage of a word, and not about German proverbs, but it seems to me that if a German proverb is going to be cited as an example of the usage of the word in question, then that proverb ought actually to exist. On the other hand, if Carnegie is responsible for introducing the word to Americans on a mass scale by way of a non-existent proverb that he made up for effect, then that in itself is pretty interesting. Maybe we can settle this whole business by including some statement to that effect in the article.
 * And by the way, some carne asada would be great, right about now. Buck Mulligan 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that Simon & Schuster did some excising. I had an old PB edition on the shelf, so I pulled it down to compare. It's the 106th printing (1977) of the 1940 Pocket Book edition. The quote is there, on page 153, two paragraphs after the "La Rochefoucauld" [sic] paragraph that you quoted, which is the seventh paragraph from the end in the PB edition. Interestingly, the copyright page has the following statement: "This Pocket Book edition includes every word contained in the original, higher-priced edition. . . ." Then I went to Amazon.com, which has a "Search this book" feature for the current edition in print. Lo and behold, the "Rev Sub" editions (September 1, 1981) of both the S&S hardback and the PB paperback do not contain the word "schadenfreude." If my hypothesis is correct that Mr. Carnegie is responsible for bringing the word to English-speaking Americans, it is ironic that the publisher would delete its usage. (I wonder if the revisions increased sales enough even to pay for making the changes. My observation has been that "revising" classics tends to make them worse, not better. But I digress.)--Loyeyoung 01:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Precision about the French equivalent
The article states that "Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres" can be considered as the French equivalent of the term. Being French myself, I think that the connection is subject to discussion. The correct translation is not really "One's misfortune makes the happiness of others," but rather "The misfortune of some people makes the happiness of other people." I think you can see my point. The first interpretation makes the reader think that these people are happy because the poor guy is unhappy, and Schadenfreude immediately comes to mind, as the reader imagines these people to be happy because they know the other person faces a misfortune. But this is only an interpretation of the proverb. The proverb can also mean that the consequences of an unfortunate situation are bound to indirectly help another person, and that "there is no good which wasn't born from something bad." It doesn't mean that the person which were helped by the misfortune of another person takes pleasure from the view of his unhappiness. So, to be short, the proverb can be interpreted in two different ways, and Schadenfreude only implies to one of them. Maybe this should be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.71.84.166 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Listcruft, redux
Some of us have had this discussion/argument before, but I just want to mention that I think that Popular Culture citations should be limited to those which actually show the word Schadenfreude used in a context in which the meaning of the word is made clear. That a comedy troup once used it for a name or that it was used as a Cold Case episode title (with no further info indicating why) seem to me to be insufficient for an encyclopedic citation. Thoughts? -- Davidkevin 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

shadenfruity
Article currently has a sentence "There is also an americanized version of schadenfreude which is pronounced "shadenfruity"." It was added by 66.189.25.148 on October 9, 2007 and I can't find a single reference to "shadenfruity" anywhere online (not in Google, Google Scholar, Google News or Urban Dictionary) that doesn't link back to this Wikipedia article; IOW its highly dubious and sounds like someone's mispronunciation that a random IP address thought should be in Wikipedia. I'm going to remove it from the article proper, but if someone can verify it, feel free to add it back. -- Limulus 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does hohn have to be capitalized?
This seems strange to me.--Filll 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a direct translation from German where all nouns are capitalised whether they are proper nouns or 'normal' nouns. 82.152.201.24 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Expressions and the term in other languages
Does anyone have references for this section or should it be chopped? ~ 99.247.120.178 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC) ~
 * Going once, going twice... 99.247.120.178 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This will take some work to find. Just leave them there for time being and we will clean them up a bit.--Filll (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The saying quoted in the article as a Portuguese equivalent of Schadenfreude—"Pimenta nos olhos dos outros é refresco"—does not mean precisely what the translation implies (pepper in the eyes of others is refreshing). A literal translation would be 'pepper in the eyes of others is a refreshment,' i.e. it does not sting. The saying simply refers to one's inability to commiserate when faced with the disgrace of others; it has no gloating connotations. I'm removing it from the article. --Christycorr (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude in Non Sequitur cartoon
Check out Non Sequitur for December 26. - Parsa (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Holiday
For some reason, this has been pointed to a list of Roman religious festivals, nothing to do with Roman Holiday or indeed this article. Link deleted until a suitable one appears either on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Slavedriver (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

German proverb
"Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude" - "Schadenfreude is the best joy"

Do you think this could be added to the article? --84.139.126.10 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The proverb is "Vorfreude ist die schönste Freude" NOT "Schadenfreide..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.247.14 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Epicaricacy
It's not in the OED. It's not in Webster's. Can anyone actually show me the 1727 dictionary it supposedly comes from? --Stlemur (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "epicaricacy" was first mentioned in this article on 23 January 2005, by Dermar130. At first it said, "This appears to be a neologism as it does not appear in most dictionaries."  About four hours later, the stuff about Bailey's dictionary was added, by 216.36.142.254, with the comment "(corrected epicaricacy referrence)".  A quick search of the Internet turns up definitions of epicaricacy that are apparently from before 2005, such as here, though off hand I don't see any etymologies.  So at least some of this content can certainly be sourced, whatever happens with the rest.  Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you can now actually look at the relevant page of Bailey's dictionary. (Sorry, not the 1727 edition.) Pi zero (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
The reference to Meriam Webster says that the word is German. The opening paragraph should reflect that. --evrik (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster does not say that the word is German. It says that its etymology is German. . Similarly, Dictionary.com says that it "comes from the German."  That is very different from saying what you imply, that Schadenfreude is not a real word in English. German words that are not also English words do not show up in English dictionaries. betsythedevine (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Evrik, are you unable to understand the explanation? The same exact explanation was given several days ago.  --C S (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical and philosophical discussion of the emotion "schadenfreude"
evrik did some excellent research about historical discussion of the emotion commonly called schadenfreude and added this information to the article  epicaricacy. I believe that this information, which relates to the emotion described by both words rather than the etymology of either, would improve the article schadenfreude, so I added a slightly edited version here. I am using this talk page to explain my action. Evrik reverted my addition of this material, but I have put it back again so that other editors can express their opinions in this matter. I think historical material is appropriate to this article and will benefit Wikipedia users who search for "schadenfreude." betsythedevine (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I think there is value in the information, it was directly copied from the other article. Assuming good faith ... okay it strengthens this article, but really. Since you copied it from the other artilce you should have the courtesy to leave the links and titles from the article you copied it from. --evrik (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * * Really, my edits were not motivated by bad faith and not intended to show any lack of courtesy -- it is quite common for Wikipedia editors to re-use and re-shape material by other editors to fit it into a different article. (Policies WP:COPY and WP:OWN both address similar issues.) A lot of material originally from schadenfreude has been re-purposed in just this way to become part of epicaricacy. betsythedevine (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor scholarship
As a note about this article. Two major passages were lifted from another article. The section titled, "Literary and philosophical discussion of the emotion of schadenfreude" added here was taken from this article; while the section on variants found here was taken from this same article. If you do a google search on passages of the text, you will see several blatant issues of plagariam or copyright violations. I will note this on the article page. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Copying text into a Wikipedia article from another Wikipedia article is not a violation of copyright. --Stlemur (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sur de Filadelfia" doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, so I removed the notice. Wikipedia content is allowed to be copied by anyone as long as they also abide by the GFDL.  Wikipedia can copy from itself (since it abides by its own rules), which I thought would have been obvious.  Indeed, much of Wikipedia content is copied over and re-used elsewhere on Wikipedia (and the Internet at large).  --C S (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly did not intend to cause such angry feelings when I praised the research done by Evrik and added what I thought was the best of it to "Literary and philosophical discussion of the emotion of schadenfreude." As others have said, this anger reflects a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia editors typically work. The section on "Variants", which I did not participate in moving is a different case. As of May 5, the article schadenfreude contained [that material in slightly different form and the article epicaricacy didn't exist. Evrik transferred that material and more into epicaricacy on May 9 ; he also expanded and improved it. That material was later deleted from [[epicaricacy]] and pasted into schadenfreude by an IP Special:Contributions/199.200.243.253 who has made a few other edits in this process, in most cases adding "epicaricacy' to other articles. So the two cases are really quite different, involving different events and different people. betsythedevine (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you go through the article, sentence by sentence, you'll see a bunch of material lifted from other parts of the internet. The New York Times article is just one citable source. Let an admin decide. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A good fraction of this article I wrote myself, from scratch. Did you know that many other places on the internet copy from Wikipedia, since they are free to under our license? Just finding text from this article in other places in the internet does not prove very much.--Filll (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of copyvio from the New York Times article that was used as a reference for that section. So far you've been intent on stirring up trouble, rather than trying to improve Wikipedia.  Your name is also very reminiscent of an indef-blocked user.  So although I am not an admin, based on WP:IAR I have removed the copyvio tag and will keep doing so.  No admin will block me for doing what is indisputably necessary. --C S (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what's South of Philly? Wilmington.  Bleh.  Seriously, I'm not sure where south of Philly is coming from but he/she/it is totally wrong and not being helpful in the least.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Enlightenment/Renaissance
Added by User:Renroma in the text of the article:
 * Burton's work is not representative of Enlightenment ideas; rather it reflects an earlier Renaissance worldview. Please alter the entry accordingly.

bogdan (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just removed the gratuitous mention of Enlightenment without adding this new and also uncited claim that Burton represents a "Renaissance worldview." betsythedevine (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that Burton's work represents a Renaissance worldview as opposed to a scientific worldview, which gives us the basis of the Enlightenment. A quick glance at any library catalogue will find numerous books on Burton and Renaissance melancholy. Other Renaissance figures that shared a similar view were Petrarch, Marsilio Ficino, and Michelangelo. But this is not the point of this article. I just wanted to say that Burton clearly was not an Enlightenment thinker--clearly anything but. Sorry to write so much.

Schadenfreude and Hitler
I got a comment on my talk page from User:Davidkevin: "Yes, the Hitler example is important.  It helps show just how damned evil the concept is. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)". I'm no fan of schadenfreude (or Hitler) but WP:NPOV makes a bad fit with showing how damned evil (a topic) is. What Davidkevin objects to is my schadenfreude edit and its summary "I don't think this rather vague Hitler anecdote adds much value to the list. Is Third Reich really "popular culture"?" This morning, I notice that yet another editor has taken the Hitler anecdote out again. -- betsythedevine (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "(Revert third attempt by same editor in 24 hours to add same Hitler anecdote that two other editors don't think belongs here)," you said, betsythedevine, in your edit summary.


 * Yes, an illustrative Hitler anecdote which was already there when I did my first edit on this article over three years ago, and which the two of you, coming out of nowhere, ignoring over three years of consensus, have decided to remove just this week.


 * I'm not going to violate 3RR, but I will continue to put it back those allowable three times each day if I have to. I have extraordinarily strong feelings about this and will do my best effort to prevent the article from being damaged this way.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, "three years of consensus"? You know, there's a very good reason that's an invalid argument.  I, and along with many others, have edited this article, but I surely didn't realize I was contributing to a consensus that this passage is appropriate or correct or important to include.  You have "extraordinarily strong feelings about this"?  Uh....why on earth, why??  Why do you have so much invested in this anyway?  By the way, if you keep doing that every day, you will be violating 3RR, and you will be blocked.  Sorry.  --C S (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do I have so much invested in this? The common gang-attack this has degenerated into is an excellent example.  It's no longer about the article, it's about actually causing schadenfreude in the mass of participants by pounding one individual until he cries "uncle".  -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be in for the reasons listed above. Furthermore, it isn't really an illustrative example; saying "Schadenfreude is the kind of thing Hitler found funny" doesn't provide any information as the fact before is that "Hitler's sense of humor was based entirely on Schadenfreude".  On which note -- illustrations of a word being used belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, and in either case, "funny" examples don't help to provide information about the word or its usage.  Instead, illustrative examples and discussions should be drawn from scholarly works on the subject, including Schadenfreude in popular culture.   --Stlemur (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That one of the most evil men in human history practiced this form of "humor" on a frequent basis is in fact illustrative of the true nature of schadenfreude. Illustration is the whole point of citing examples.


 * Further, that example has been in the article for literally years. You two are coming out of nowhere and removing value from the article in the face of dozens of earlier editors.


 * This has happened before, and I guess will continue to happen every so often, people new to the article deciding to make it less encyclopedic by removing valid examples they don't like. And they just have to be put back again.  And again.  And again.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does it say, then, exactly? -- Stlemur (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Davidkevin, your previous work on this article is admirable but other editors are entitled to challenge your edits and to be granted a presumption of good faith when we do so. Wikipedia has no policy enshrining material that has been in an article for "literally years." This article is about schadenfreude. Schadenfreude is an emotion, not a "form of humor" that evil people "practice." The fact that Hitler enjoyed playing mean practical jokes on his friends  has a very marginal relevance to this article. You feel strongly that a Hitler anecdote should be included here. At least two others strongly disagree. Wikipedia's three-revert rule precludes your adding your item "again. And again.  And again." BTW my previous edits to this article include creating the section on scientific studies of schadenfreude, not that this gives me ownership either but I do think it's inaccurate as well as rude to describe my work here since May as "coming out of nowhere and removing value from the article in the face of dozens of earlier editors." -- betsythedevine (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was speaking strictly about the removal, not the addition of other valuable material.


 * As I said above, which you seem to not have noticed, I have no intention of violating 3RR -- but I do have the right to put it back those three times each day, and I will each day if you make it necessary. It isn't a matter of my claiming any ownership (which I don't), it's a matter of you, yes, coming out of the proverbial "nowhere", and saying "we don't like this so out it comes and there are two of us and one of you, so there!" -- making the article less encyclopedic and less informative in the process.


 * As for whether it's humor or emotion, I happen to think it's sometimes both: a form of alleged humor used to express a vicious, violent emotion.


 * I suspect that someday it will be recognized in the DSM as a form of mental illness. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you might want to re-read WP:3RR. Three reverts per day is not a 'right' and insisting on reverting exactly three times a day every day in an attempt to control the content of the article is edit warring whether the 3RR is broken or not.  Reductio ad Hitlerum aside, your insistence that the fact that an associate of Hilter's said he was prone to Schadnefreude is 'illustrative of the true nature of Schadenfruede' is original research -- synthesis, to be exact.  If you want the article to say that Schadenfreude is evil, or whatever it is you're trying to say, you need to cite actual research to support that position.  "Hitler was evil.  Hitler used Schadenfreude.  Q.E.D." doesn't wash. Does that mean that watercolors and vegetarianism are evil, too?  -- Vary | Talk 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Watercolors and vegetarianism don't motivate people to hurt innocents, bully to the point of causing PTSD, or drive others to suicide. Schadenfreude does.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I needed to re-read WP:3RR. Your points are well taken, as I was giving off the wrong impression.


 * It is not, and hasn't been, my intention to be disruptive or game the system, or any of the other objectional practices. My honest intent is to keep what I believe to be appropriate information in the article.  The removal is, I honestly believe, inappropriate, and renders the article less encyclopedic.  Inasmuch as the article was fine with that information in it for over three years, I see the insistence on removal by editors new to the article as disruptive, not the restoration.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "it's been there for a long time so that means it has to stay" argument never flies. It's funny how you see this as random editors coming out of the woodwork and saying "it's three (now four, I guess) of us against you, so there!"  As I see it, you were the one that started off by saying "Don't argue with me, I have dozens of invisible editors supporting me!"  It's only natural to respond to something like that by pointing out, "Hey, look at how many people are visibly against you."  --C S (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you care to show me where I said any of the sentences you ascribe to me in quotation marks? Or would you care to apologize for putting words in my mouth I never said?  Making me into a straw version of myself is not just inappropriate but downright dishonest.  Cut it out.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My use of quotation marks was not to indicate direct quotations, something which I think is obvious to anyone following the discussion. So no need to worry that you've been made into a straw version of yourself.  By the way, if I am being dishonest somehow by using quotation marks in this manner, didn't you start the dishonesty by using quotation marks in exactly the same way above?  After all, you first attributed the "so there" remark to your opposition using quotes  I only paraphrased it and continued this idealized dialogue in quotes as I think is fairly natural.  -- C S (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. We were both equally wrong for doing that.  I, too, should have expressed what I was trying to say in another way, just as I complained to you.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In further defense of CS here, Davidkevin's personal attacks on other editors here include not just alleged "dishonesty" by CS but also responding to his ""courtesy" note on my talk page with a "rude anonymous rant" (me), and being "unable to read English" (Stlemur). User:Vary gets off lightly with "don't ascribe to me what I haven't done'.  I agree with CS also that if putting paraphrases in quotes is "dishonest", then what shall we say about Davidkevin's reduction of different arguments from me and Stlemur to his quote-enclosed "we don't like this so out it comes and there are two of us and one of you, so there!"?  I have been trying to keep such personal issues out of my comments here, but Davidkevin's attacks on the (four so far) editors who disagree with him are a poor substitute for offering solid evidence for his side of the argument.  -- betsythedevine (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as my supposed personal attack on you, why don't you link to the entire sequence of back-and-forth posts instead of an earlier version of the page which stops at a point which misleadingly makes me look bad?


 * In my grade school catechism class, the priest called that lying by omission. My Protestant friends called it bearing false witness.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has policies WP:NPA and WP:AGF, which Davidkevin has broken repeatedly. I didn't link to the "entire sequence of back-and-forth posts" (or to his entire talk page, or to the entire corpus of Wikipedia) because my point in linking to specific posts by Davidkevin was that he has attacked four different editors here.  That he sometimes follows attacks with apologies is a point that might interest his grade-school priest very much, and if Davidkevin wishes to make that point he should feel free to make it instead of attacking me for not making it for him.  -- betsythedevine (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What a terrible person I am for apologizing when I make a mistake.


 * As for the older exchange, you were rude. I noted it. You apologized.  I accepted it in good faith, as one is expected to do.


 * You've broken that good faith.


 * Now you're being predictable. You linked to an incomplete account of that exchange.  I noted that, expressing irritation at the manipulation.  After I posted, it occurred to me, "I'll bet she will now accuse me of attacking her for complaining about her lie by omission."  Sure enough, here we are.


 * Deliberately trying to incite inflammatory responses this way, attempting to lay a false foundation in order to get somebody you don't like banned is an old wikitrick.


 * This has degenerated into a gang-attack, one of the types of deliberate net-bullying I cited as itself an example of schadenfreude-related bad behavior. I choose to not participate further.  I have actual constructive work to do < > and allowing you the hateful "win" of defeating my blood-pressure medicine, causing me to have a stroke, would give you more schadenfreude than any one human being should be allowed to have .  < >


 * I'm done with this. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hardly know what to respond to these latest charges except to urge anyone reading them to read all the rest of this section in search of evidence for schadenfreude, 'gang-attack" and/or"net-bullying." betsythedevine (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a lot of gall altering my post, to insert another incomplete link to your bad behavior in order to make yourself look better than you actually behaved at my expense, as well as changing my text to run-on paragraphs so that it would be harder to read, forcing me to come back here against my wishes and correct it.


 * What kind of person are you? You have the right to say anything you want over your own signature, but not over mine.


 * Your claim your husband won a Nobel Prize -- haven't you better things to do than play manipulative games with other people's words?


 * I want no more part of this, or of you. Have the basic decency and ethics to leave me and what I've written over my signature alone.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The item's tenure in the article is irrellevant. It's OR, not to mention a logical fallacy.  And as for the PTSD comments, I think you're thinking of Sadism, there, not Schadenfreude.  Some people take pleasure in causing pain, but that's not what Schadenfreude is.  So if you want the article to say 'anyone who experiences Schadenfreude is mentally ill', as you implied above, you need to support that with facts from reliable sources, and not take the easy way out and just play the nazi card.  -- Vary | Talk 20:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not "playing the Nazi card" -- I didn't write that item. It was already here when I first read the article.  Please don't ascribe to me what I haven't done.


 * I did not say that I wanted the article to say "anyone who experiences Schadenfreude is mentally ill." I don't, as it's not a citeable fact.  Again, don't ascribe to me things I haven't done.


 * Schadenfreude is the taking of pleasure from another's pain. That does include someone taking pleasure from pain he or she has her- or himself inflicted.  "A difference which makes no difference is no difference."  -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if you weren't the one who originally added it. We don't know the editor who added the material's motivations for adding it.  We know your motivations for insisting that it stay despite the several editors who want it removed -- you think it proves that Schadenfreude is bad and wrong.  So, yes, you're playing the nazi card.  And 'a difference which makes no difference'?  Please.  'Schadenfreude' does not cover causing pain for your own amusement.  We have a whole other word for that.  Someone somewhere may have referred to Adolph Hitler's enjoyment of nasty practical jokes as 'Schadenfreude,' but they're wrong.  It's sadism.  That difference makes all the difference.  -- Vary | Talk


 * We have a whole other word for square too, but a square is still a rectangle. KenFehling (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Davidkevin, I do not know Stlemur and was unaware of his existence until he tried to shorten the popular culture listcruft today. We are not a team, we are two different editors who disagree with you in different ways and for different reasons.  I see that now Vary, whom i also do not know, also disagrees with you quite strongly on this.


 * You "happen to think" schadenfreude is both humor and emotion. Can you cite any dictionary that defines schadenfreude as "humor"?  Schadenfreude is enjoyment or satisfaction, not laughter or mirth.  People may enjoy schadenfreude with or without laughter.  Some people like succotash but that doesn't mean lima beans are the same thing as maize.  Can you cite any dictionary that defines schadenfreude as an active effort to make other people unhappy?  The word "schadenfreude" describes a passive emotion.  This article is not about practical joking or sadism or a cruel sense of humor.  Hitler's cruel sense of humor is irrelevant to this article.  It may be relevant somewhere else but it does not belong here.  -- betsythedevine (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "This article is not about practical joking or sadism or a cruel sense of humor"? I respectfully disagree.  It's all over the Net, the one leading to the other as night follows day.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure -- betsythedivine and I interacted briefly during the deletion debate over epicaricacy -- Stlemur (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

((My apologies, Stlemur, for having forgotten this. But my point holds that you and I did not act as a team to attack Davidkevin. -- betsythedevine (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC) )) Here are some dictionary definitions: None of the examples given by the OED mention practical jokes and the use of the word "misfortunate" clearly implies, to me at least, the rightness of betsythedivine's "passive" argument. -- Stlemur (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others"
 * Oxford English Dictionary: "Malicious enjoyment of the misfortunes of others."
 * American Heritage Dictionary: "Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others."
 * It's usually at this point in the Wiki-discussion that I throw my hands in the air in frustration and shake my fist at the sky as somebody tells me that his book quote renders the evidence of my own eyes and ears false. Never mind that I have seen and heard people deliberately cause harm to others to gain pleasure for themselves, I'm delusional or am imagining it.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is debating whether the phenomenon you describe exists, ok? The discussion is about whether or not what you describe is the definition of schadenfreude.  In my experience, the term is often used in contexts where the person getting the pleasure did not actively cause the other's misery.  Whether or not schadenfreude also applies to situations when the other's misfortune is caused by the first person is more subtle.  I don't think from the types of examples usually given that practical joking really counts as schadenfreude.  -- C S (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that anyone gives a damn what I'm actually saying at this point, but I am not speaking of "practical joking" but rather the deliberate false and malicious gossip and personally directed hate-speech intended with the specific purpose of causing harm for personal pleasure which so pervades the Net these days. Internet bullying for "fun" -- including entire groups ganging up on one individual -- has become common, and all of it is schadenfreude.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's just what they call it. Schadenfreude does not involve any active malice.  If you are causing harm to someone so that you can laugh at them, you are not taking pleasure in their 'misfortune' but in your own nastiness.  Not the same thing at all.  -- Vary | Talk 12:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing that ugly behavior is out there, or that some people use "schadenfreude" loosely to cover a wide range of it. But in Wikipedia, schadenfreude means what dictionaries say it means.  Anybody who wants to fight against cyberbullying can find much better ways to do so than maintaining a Hitler anecdote in an obscure Wikipedia article about schadenfreude.  -- betsythedevine (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see some of what Davidkevin is saying as being at odds with the dictionary definition. If someone slips on a banana peel that you purposely put there, I would classify that as misfortune even though you indirectly caused it.  I think often people see misfortune as being a sum of various conditions.  If someone directly and single-handedly harms me that's not misfortune.  However if someone sets me up, but there's an element of chance, and other necessary contributing factors align to cause something bad to happen, that could be considered misfortune. KenFehling (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Davidkevin, your three years of editing this article, your "extraordinarily strong feelings about this," the evidence of your "own eyes and ears", and points of view you claim are "all over the net" -- none of these meets the standards of WP:V.  The relevant policy covering them would instead be a negative one, WP:NOR.  The Hitler anecdote doesn't belong here because it's not an example of schadenfreude.  Furthermore, you are wrong in thinking that connecting Hitler to schadenfreude makes your point that schadenfreude is evil.  See Reductio ad Hitlerum for the logical fallacy.  Finally, Wikipedia works by editors arguing about facts and citing their sources, working together to reach consensus.  The consensus right now is that your point of view is mistaken. If you want to shift the consensus you have to cite evidence that will convince other editors.  -- betsythedevine (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think given that Davidkevin is showing some confusion over the meaning of schadenfreude, and also that I am unable to find the occurrence of the term in the book "In the Third Reich", I advise to keep that passage removed. First it needs to be established that the author really did refer to Hitler's humor as being based specifically on schadenfreude. Then the material needs to be incorporated in an appropriate way. It is not appropropriate for "in popular culture". -- C S (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who's taken a minor interest in this article in the past (mainly via Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy), I have to say that I agree with C S—the Hitler bulleted item in the "popular culture" section of the article is inappropriate. -- Deor (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude and "causing harm for pleasure"
Maybe we can disentangle some of the conflict from the previous section ("Schadenfreude and Hitler") by separating out one simple factual issue: whether the article on schadenfreude should or should not contain some informative, well-cited (and schadenfreude-related) material about people actively seeking to make other people unhappy, for example by sadism or bullying. -- betsythedevine (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As one who has been reading the back-and-forth over the Hitler question for the past little while, I'd like to say that the inclusion of these issues seems unnecessary to me. Schadenfreude, as we all (apart from Davidkevin) agree, is neither bullying nor sadism, so why muddy the waters?  It seems a safe bet that most people reading the article as it currently stands will realize that there is a sadistic element involved in the feeling (not an activity) being discussed.  Davidkevin obviously has extremely passionate feelings about this topic, and this in itself counts as a good reason for him to absent himself from the editing process for a while.  Furthermore it seems to me that, in the absence of his very insistent but not terribly well-reasoned remarks on this discussion page over the past few days, it would never occur to anyone that we might want to add a section (however well-cited and schadenfreude-related) to the article on sadism or bullying.  Anything that we might say about either of these topics (or for that matter about Hitler) that was not glaringly obvious would likely count as original research.  Why not just let this whole thing cool off?  -- Buck Mulligan (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Buck Mulligan on every point. The "See also" links also offer an opportunity to make the connection. betsythedevine (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture.. really??
Without reading the talk page (which was rude of me) I deleted the in-popular-culture section because frankly I consider it to be unnecessary, and I was directed to the talk page where apparently consensus was made to keep it.

Reading over the talk page I can see little in the way of consensus.

Thus I would like to reignite the fight to remove the in-popular-culture section. My main reasons are that: --Hugzz (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a word. Do you REALLY need a list of every time the word is used on tv or in a magazine or a book?
 * It does not add ANYTHING to the article. Some people on the talk page have argued that it is valuable on the basis that it helps explain the meaning of the word, however i propose that
 * Firstly, the article does a very good job in and of itself of explaining the meaning of the word, and thus the further examples are not needed, and
 * Secondly, if examples WERE needed to explain the concept, we would be better off having a section titled "Examples" in which made up examples are listed, rather the Popular Culture examples
 * It is encyclopedic. Painfully. It just plainly looks like someone who is a fanboy of The West Wing heard the word and in their excitement decided that everyone in the world has to know about it
 * I see in the edit history of the article that people keep adding and deleting Popular Culture references
 * Who is to say what Popular Culture reference is worthy of being on the list?
 * Is it really more relevent if the simpsons mentions the word than if, for example, malcom in the middle mentioned it?
 * I propose that it is equally irrelevant. If everyone can agree that it's not encyclopedically important to list a Malcolm in the Middle reference, then why can't they see that a Simpsons or West Wing reference brings nothing more to the table?
 * Frankly, its just another stupid list bringing down the quality of Wikipedia. In-Popular-Culture lists are useful on some articles, but do not have to be added to ALL articles. Schadenfreude is NOT a complex concept, so why should anyone be impressed to know that its referred to in TV now and then?
 * The list will be plainly US-centric. Schadenfreude is a concept that everyone in the world can understand. If there was a list of "Examples" using "bob" "frank" and "mary" to explain the concept then everyone in the world can understand this. The TV shows that you list are not something that everyone in the world can understand.


 * I'd be in favor of dropping the list entirely and replacing it with a paragraph (or however little is merited) of discussion. Lists invite longer lists. --Stlemur (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page "consensus" I mentioned involved disputing page editors and a representative from the Mediation "Cabal." But re-discussion is certainly in order.


 * Here are some articles that do not include pop-culture reference to their topics: Wall Street Crash of 1929, blog, and Wikipedia. Goldberg Variations, zombie and Miss America service just a few of their many pop-culture references using a disambiguation page. Marilyn Monroe excludes pop-culture references but links via "See Also" to a separate article Marilyn Monroe in popular culture.


 * Here are a random few Wikipedia articles that do have "Popular culture" sections: Berliner (pastry), Series of tubes, and The Sopranos. None uses a list format. In each case, the examples (few or many) add value to the article. If we keep a popular-culture section on this article, we should follow their example, as suggested above by Stlemur.


 * I agree with Hugzz that the list as it stands adds little value (except for explaining the origin of "Skaddenfreude".) It has been so pared down and condensed that real information has been removed. I think there is potential value to the article in taking some of the information from an older much more informative version: . betsythedevine (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the rewritten version. Two things stand out, though:


 * We're walking a knife edge with regard to the purpose of the section. If we're trying to make the point that "schadenfreude" as a word has become more established over the past several years -- a perfectly reasonable point to make -- we need a source to back the conclusion up or it becomes original research. If we're just showing usage and letting the reader conclude on their own, then I don't know if it's justified to cherrypick examples; just a list of usages seems more like something that goes in a dictionary to me than something that goes in an encyclopedia.
 * Is "skaddenfreude" notable on its own or are we just using it as an illustrative example? --Stlemur (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section needs to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I'm glad you agree that it's now a useful addition to the article. Many Wikipedia articles include useful "Popular culture" information, and I think the information here is relevant and useful. To my mind, that is the "purpose" of any section of any Wikipedia article -- to add value to our understanding of its subject. As for "skaddenfreude", I don't think it is notable enough to deserve its own article though Google returns about 2,500 search results for it. betsythedevine (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm nearly a year late, but let me add this: Schadenfreude isn't a "word". It's a concept. Thus, an "In Popular Culture" section is fine.  Aaron  ►  02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Variants
While we're on the subject of what to drop -- why should the "variants" section be here instead of in Wiktionary? --Stlemur (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at talk and page histories, these variants reflect contributions from many and diverse editors. And won't removing them make the article even more US-centric? Adding information to Wiktionary also sounds good. Pixels are cheap, and this article is not yet over-long. betsythedevine (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's interesting" isn't in itself a valid argument; neither is the amount of effort. As I read [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|the guideline on what goes in Wiktionary]], translations shouldn't go in Wikipedia. I will agree that the "variants" given aren't exact translations -- but the problem of original research comes up in arguing what the are. --Stlemur (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that our choice here should be guided by Wikipedia policy, including relevant bits of WP:NAD. But having now read that policy in detail, I don't see anywhere it requires the elimination of examples of the concept in other cultures. If you look at the article doughnut, for example, more than half its length describes similar regional variants in many cultures -- the equivalent of our variant list of  foreign expressions.  Wikipedia makes an effort to counter the systemic absence of viewpoints from people outside the US/Canada/UK BIAS. I think removing this article's multicultural material would be a step in the wrong direction.


 * You invoke INTERESTING and WP:EFFORT, but they both come from an opinion/essay about valid criteria in an AfD. In the case of an defamatory or plagiaristic article being considered for deletion, "it's interesting" is (I agree) no valid argument for retaining the article. An essay more closely related to the schadenfreude "variants" is WP:LISTCRUFT, where it is clear that some lists are valuable and that broad interest is a valid criterion. (Undesirable lists are those "of interest to a very limited number of people.") The schadenfreude variants, on the other hand, are of interest to many, as shown by the article's talk and page histories. betsythedevine (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposite of schadenfreude
The article mentions "mudita" (joy at another's happiness) as "the" opposite of schadenfreude (joy at another's suffering). Maybe it is the opposite in one sense, but why isn't "sadness at another's suffering" an equally valid opposite? "Empathy" or "compassion", for example. betsythedevine (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And what about the total opposite − the sadness if somebody else is happy? I'd propose "envy" or "jealousy".--Zenit (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the relevant paragraph I added a sentence "completing the quartet". The quartet I had in mind is something like:
 * (1) Joy at another's unhappiness (schadenfreude),
 * (2) Joy at another's happiness (mudita),
 * (3) Sadness at another's unhappiness (pity or compassion),
 * (4) Sadness at another's happiness (envy or jealousy).
 * This approach may be better than trying to justify a rather strained notion of 'opposite'. Pingku (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Stooges Image - Non-free Use
I have added a non-free use media rationale for this copyrighted image, "to illustrate the concept of schadenfreude". Pingku (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I added that image to the article because it appears on several other Wikipedia articles. Flickr has a couple of much better illustrations of the concept, but they are not free use.  One photo shows a souped-up pick-up truck with giant wheels under a sign with high gas prices; the truck is for sale.  Comments on the photo mention how annoying it is to share the road with noisy trucks like that.  Another schadenfreude-tagged photo seems to derive joy from jealousy rather than revenge -- a gorgeous red sports car getting a parking ticket.  Any of you amateur photographers out there have a schaenfreude illustration that you want to give to Wikipedia? betsythedevine (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What a textbook example of how people infected with schadenfreude hate it being defined as the vicious, negative, violent emotion it is.


 * You fought like hell to remove an example citing it in one of the most evil men in history, and now have replaced it with an example of three Jewish comedians. It's never been an underlying cause for murder, no, it's a type of harmless comedy!


 * And I must say that using the three men who made the very first public satire of that evil man for this purpose, men he ordered murdered without hesitation if they ever came within his reach, adds that frisson of irony which I'm sure causes that much more pleasure.


 * Don't worry, I'm not coming back (so you can have the Last Word I know you want so much), but this action is so egregious publicly noting it is mandatory. -- Davidkevin (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Content
mentioned this in a strip  --Rcollins03 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude and "lulz"
When you see different people showing up trying to make the same change to an article on your watchlist, chances are that change ought to get discussed on the talk page. Several people have now tried to add "lulz" to this article; and several others have removed it. Unfortunately, there are definitions of "lulz" out there that tie the word directly to the (different) word "schadenfreude." According to Encyclopedia Dramatica: "Lulz is laughter at someone else's expense (from the German concept of "Schadenfreude".)

That's not an encyclopedia-quality source, and it isn't quite right. But "lulz" is no longer outside the range of good sources: for example, a recent New York Times article included it, saying,  A corruption of “LOL” or “laugh out loud,” “lulz” means the joy of disrupting another’s emotional equilibrium.

In other words, the difference between "lulz" and "schadenfreude" is that the enjoyment of "lulz" is the enjoyment of actively causing harm to somebody else, rather like bullying, whereas "schadenfreude" is purely the post-harm enjoyment of the other person's embarrassment. Enjoying post-embarrassment schadenfreude doesn't rule out the possibility that you played some role in causing it--but causing the harm isn't part of the official definitions of schadenfreude.

My impression also is that "schadenfreude" is typically based on envy or resentment of somebody "above" you whereas bullying and "lulz" involve torturing somebody weaker who cannot fight back. There is a discussion further up this talk page, where I asked about including a section in this article about actively causing harm to others for enjoyment; the consensus was that this lay outside the scope of the article. IMO, the best solution would be if lulz got its own article and we could link a "See also" there. betsythedevine (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is now encyclopedia-quality material out there not just for lulz but also for "FAIL", in an October article in Slate. So I added information about these terms to the section that discusses English equivalents. betsythedevine (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)