Talk:Self-reference/Archive 1

Let's be certain that the examples of books with self reference actually have self references
Hi. I noticed that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was listed as a book that contains a reference to itself, but, having read those books many times, I know that they do not refer to themselves. The books often do refer to a fictional electronic book called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but this is a different book with the same title. In fact, the title of the real book written by the real D. Adams refers to the fictional book written by the fictional Ford Prefect and other contributers.

I haven't read the other books listed as examples, but I wonder if a similar mistake was made with those.

A Very Special Note from the Management
Q. Should I add self-reference as a link somewhere if I figure out a clever way of doing it?

A. No. Avoid self-references, Self link, there's already a self-reference in the "Examples" section, and no matter how clever or original you think it is, it's really not. Trust us.

You are incorrect, as the first instance of self-reference I just inserted can be used as its definition. And your "Trust us" statement is not a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanpi (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bolded links
The intended self-links are now shown bolded. How to fix? -- Paddu 17:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed by using a link to a section. -- Paddu 06:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see in the references section a specific case of *self-reference* listed. However, I do think that the top of the article reference to the Wikipedia Standard of not including self-references within articles is a good alternative, serving the purpose of warding off additional examples while at the same time providing one case of self-reference.  This is perhaps the best and most ironic example of perversity of the rules as one could imagine.  Well done, I say.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-reference representation on this node
When I visited this article a couple months ago, I was confused by all these links back to the same article. "How stupid of them" I thought. Then I got it. I laughed, sent links to the page to friends, etc. To me it was the ultimate expression of geek humor. In fact, it was the first time I really took notice of wikipedia, decided it was cool, and since that time have started contributing articles myself.

I hope those of you who are sense-of-humor challenged and removed the links will reconsider.


 * So, what's the story? Are self-links verboten for some reason?  If someone can explain why they were all taken out (I suspect it's something besides a lack of humor), then please do so.  GTBacchus 14:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * All we need is an easy to find section describing why there isn't a self-referencing link
 * First of all, self links aren't rendered as links: see Self link. I can't link to this talk page with Talk:Self-reference, because that ends up as Talk:Self-reference. Indirect self-links are possible, but unlike regular links, they serve no purpose: an article cannot refer to itself to provide additional information, which is what links are for (at best, it could include section links for quick navigation within the article). In fact, if you encountered this normally, it'd be a flaw, to be corrected. That's another good reason not to do it: don't make people who fix things waste time on exceptions.
 * As an aside, links to an article typically should not be repeated (self link or not), one is usually enough, with the rest regular text.
 * Finally, this joke is so obvious and done to death that omitting it makes the encyclopedia better. Including self-reference in self-reference doesn't make it a better article; not even a funnier one. The farthest you could probably go is to add something like "This article is an example of self-reference, by virtue of this very sentence."JRM 17:16, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)


 * I really disagree with your assessment of this as a "joke". If that's true, then all self-references are jokes; instead of, a means to draw out and study the properties of referencing objects through language.  It's just that a reference to self-reference in this page is more of a study on how this wiki can accomplish a self-reference.Sp00n17 18:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're applying a slippery slope argument here: I don't think all self-references are jokes, on the contrary&mdash;Gödel's incompleteness theorem is more prone to fill me with awe than split my sides. But in the context of a Wikipedia article, calling the mere insertion of self-links "a means to study the properties of referencing objects" would be too much credit. Self-reference is trivial for hypermedia; in Wikipedia it's only slightly more difficult because of the restriction to indirect links.
 * Just adding indirect self-links has zero informative value. It may be amusing, some people may even think of it as "clever", but that's all. JRM 18:44, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)


 * "Gödel's incompleteness theorem is more prone to fill me with awe than split my sides."... Okay, I did find that rather amusing. I'd have to agree with the fact it lends no informative value.  Sp00n17 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. A self-referenced link to this page is perhaps the first thing on everybodies mind when they first read Self-reference.  Problem is that it's not healthy for the wiki to have one.Sp00n17 18:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Problem is, since everybody is going to think about it when they goto this page ... and don't find it, then they'll try to add it. Instead of messing with the wiki-system which doesn't smile on self-references... why not just place a small section explaining why there isn't a self-reference link on the page.  Doing so would prevent people from adding it in.Sp00n17 18:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion has insidious merit; the article would then refer to itself in the explanation of why there's no self-referencing link to it. JRM 18:44, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Oh, scratch that: I see the Examples section already has a self-reference. What more do you want? The remainder of the discussion belongs on the Talk page, and we can just refer people who absolutely have to add clever links to that. No meta-content in the article needed. JRM 18:49, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)


 * All I wanted was a means to prevent any more self-references to self-referece added to self-reference. Of course you're right, there is an example already.  It references a section within the page.  If people still post self-references even with the example there, then perhaps something more is needed.  At this point, I'm fine with the examples as is.Sp00n17 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One self-referential link is fine. It would be harmful only if it was similar to the hypothetical dictionary entry that used circular definition (e.g., the entry for x saying "refer to y" and the entry for y saying "refer to x") and provided no new information. Wikiwikifast 03:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, but it's going to be a cold day in hell before I make waves over something like this. :-) Share and enjoy. JRM 04:51, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

The pedants win, for now.

Misspelled/Mispelled?
I remember looking at this page before and seeing, in the Examples section, "One word in this sentence is mispelled." I took this as "mispelled" referring to itself, but now someone changed (corrected?) this sentence to "One word in this sentence is misspelled," which is correct in spelling, but it's a false sentence with no self-reference. I don't want to change it back in case it's supposed to be like this, but I just want to let everyone know.
 * No, it's not supposed to be like that, but this is going to cause false positives on spelling checkers everywhere. I nuked the whole sentence on the grounds that we've got too damn many examples anyway&mdash;one less clever self-reference isn't going to hurt, and we won't have to worry about "corrections" anymore. If this upsets anyone, feel free to put it back in, but you better promise to watch over it, then. :-) JRM · Talk 23:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * It's still a true statement. Misspelled is one of the words in the sentence. Like "Their are three errorrs in this sentence." The third error is the statement that there are three errors, when in reality there are only two. CrossEyed7 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But then the sentence has three errors, so that isn't an error at all, so it only has two. Paradox, not self-reference. Rawling 4851 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
I've reverted some changes. In the remote chance that they were somehow valid, they're viewable here.

selfref tag
the selfref tag should not be used. please convert it to external links to avoid you know what.

External links: -- Zondor 21:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, consensus of Wikipedia to avoid self-references
 * Template talk:Selfref, discussion on Wikipedia on using a Wikipedia template to track self-references


 * I laughed out loud when I saw the link to "avoid self-references" at the top of this article. I want to keep it just for comedy value. Ashibaka (tock) 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it should be kept. It is still a very naughty self-reference. But, it can be kept because it is enclosed in the selfref tag. -- Zondor 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubious example

 * The wiki code, " This page intentionally left blank ", used in Wikipedia

I don't think this qualifies. Even if you put this on a "blank" page, how would it be self-referential? At best you could call all notices of the form "this page intentionally left blank" self-referential, though that's debatable (the page can be said to refer to itself through the sentence, in a way).

Is the link perhaps supposed to qualify as a "reference"? I don't see the point this is trying to make. (And also, we can afford to stick to clear, well-known examples, not contrived ones like this.) JRM · Talk 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-Reflexivity = Self-Reference?
I came across this page when I noticed that Wikipedia lacked articles on Self-reflexivity or Self-reference-- a concept I know of through literature and film studies. Refusing to believe that Wikipedia didn't have anything on this, I eventually came across this page, which seems to be getting at the same concept. Is it the same thing-- i.e. if I was going to add content about self-reflexivity, should it be added here? Should self-reflexivity redirect to here (as they are now), or should it be a separate page? -Alecmconroy 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, this page is muddled and confused; this is due, in my estimation, to the fact that it attempts to explain several different and closely related concepts, all of which are called self-reference but differ in their specifics with regard to context. My vote would be to overhaul the page, creating section divisions for the most common uses (linguistics, formal logic, computer science, art (with sub-sections for literature, music, theater, film, static images, sculpture? etc.) with considerably more explication of context-dependent definitions, as opposed to a list of "Examples", some of which do little to clarify the concept.  For example, the "Sentences" section contains (only) two self-reference paradoxes - one example of a self reference paradox would suffice (I like the liar paradox, as it is relatively simple to understand, unlike the second example), and there are also a near infinite number of non-paradoxical sentences that are self referential: "This sentence contains a conjunction and is stored as a series of UTF-8 characters," for example.  "Literature" contains a tag stating that the main article on self-referential literature is "Metafiction", but this is not the case, as metafiction is defined by characteristics other than self-reference (commonly called self-reflexion when employed in metafiction); self-reference can occur in works that would not be considered metafiction.  A "See also" tag would be more appropriate.  Any of the included examples that are straightforward illustrations or otherwise noteworthy could be re-integrated under the appropriate section (of type of self-reference) instead of organized by source of the example, though the two may be related.  I realize that this is a considerable amount of work; I may endeavor to undertake it myself, and in that case, let this serve as my statement of intent and mea culpa. JohannVII (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Paranoia?
Not challenging it, but can anyone explain why one of the "See alsos" is paranoia? What does paranoia have to do with self-reference?

Definition
The article says when is a self-reference possible, but i didn't understand what is a self-reference --Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage in songs
Having 24 examples of self-reference, all in lame short sentences, is, to quote Ryan Howard, "excessive." But those will stay. I've been thinking and I've compiled a list of 5 or so popular songs that employ self-reference. I think a short list like this will help explain and demonstrate self-reference at least as well as, if nto better than, the multitude of sentences up there now. I'm going to go ahead and add them to the examples list, perhaps under a sub-heading, unless anyone objects here.70.131.157.139 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow apparently there is a list of self-referential songs. How did i not see that before...Tflynn17 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition
The first sentence of the article doesn't define the term. I'm not sure how to define "self-reference", since I don't know much about logic, but this should be changed.

sentences
"This sentence no verb." is technically not a sentence. This would make it actually not a self reference either because "this sentence" can't refer logically to something that is not a sentence. Just pointing it out, and yes I do understand it is supposed to be a joke.--Shadowdrak 05:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance somone could add this to the page?
http://geocities.com/lmtbl/art/short/metacorder.txt

A good story which uses self referencing.


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. 193.95.165.190 09:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism
121.222.232.188 should probably be blocked, as this user has repeatedly (at least four or five times) made the same or similar vandalistic edits to this page. What's the procedure for that? --Jim Henry (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dreams
I removed the entire section on Dreams because it had no basis in reality and no sources. It has a faulty definition of Lucid Dreams, claiming that lucid dreaming implied control of the dream. This is not correct. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

other section
Most of the items in teh other section are not really selfreferential, e.g. Steal This Album... etc. and others do not have sources. I suggest removing most of them... They are junk... History2007 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The diffidently and ambiguously described section would be the former section Talk:Self-reference, which (at some point since) has been removed. --Jerzy•t 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation (disambiguation)
I've reverted a see-also link to Disambiguation (disambiguation), and discussed why in some detail at User_talk:Cakedamber. --Jerzy•t 06:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

mathematics (self-referencing function)
click on this and it will lead you to the top of the page!

I understand that this is a funny joke but do we need it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.36 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even think it was meant to be funny, I think it was just a leftover from before that article was redirected here (see Talk:Self-referential function). I removed the link as it is now pointless. — JAO • T • C 11:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Idries Shah The Book of the Book
Absolute must: Amazon page. From here: "consists of sixteen written pages of reviews of itself. The rest of the book is intentionally filled with about 140 blank pages". Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Idries Shah. From the book's official page at the publisher's homepage: "Used for more than seven hundred years as a teaching story". Octagon Press was founded by Shah, so Shah's retelling is, fittingly enough, self-published. Paradoctor (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

self-reference
1. Self-reference statements are meaningless. 2. There is one or more true statements. If 1 is true then 2 can not be true. If 2 were true then it would be self-reference. If 2 can not be true then 1 can not be true. If 1 were true then there would be a true statement. That would mean 2 is true. If 1 is true then 2 can not be true. 1 CAN NOT BE TRUE.Davidsstorm (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's delete You're So Vain
I just deleted from the See also section a song that contains only an entirely unremarkable instance of self-reference. The reason I've not yet done the same for You're So Vain is that I see a faint possibility that the self-reference in the song has been discussed anywhere. Failing that, I'll delete it for the same reason as Konstantine. Paradoctor (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By what criteria is a piece of literature or art self-referential? Does the entire them have to be self-referential, or can only one or two parts of it be? I think the Carly Simon song should stay because it reminds the listener that they're experiencing a song, not something spontaneous and unplanned - and the self-reference is in the chorus. Michael 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)

What's appropriate in the See also section?
These edits: seem to warrant discussion.
 * WP:SEEALSO recommends restraint
 * In my understanding, while linked articles need not substantially focus on the subject matter, there should be information on the topic that goes above and beyond what is contained in the article.
 * Standard examples and notable (in context) pathological cases belong in the text. Merely interesting asides should go into See also.
 * Self-reference is a concept popping up everywhere, so mere usage is not interesting enough. Otherwise we'd have to list every text using "this" to refer to itself.
 * How about List of self-referential works?

Paradoctor (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we add positive feedback to the see also section? The links I added contain topics that allude to self-references as they contribute to themselves, so why can we not add them. Also, the hidden message at the top of the section is kind of funny. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we did add positive feedback, we'd have to add negative feedback as well. That doesn't make too terribly much sense, especially when we link to feedback, which covers both.
 * "why can we not add them": As stated in #4, there are tons of self-referential things out there, we only want a few of the most interesting. Otherwise, we'd have to include thousands of links, which kind of defeats the purpose.
 * For any given link, you can test whether it belongs by asking three questions:
 * Is there a more general article covering the subject? In the case of global warming and optical feedback, the answer was "yes", that's why I replaced them with feedback.
 * Is the information already covered by another link? In the case of Konstantine, the answer was "yes", we already had another song that referred to itself, You're So Vain. Since that song is much better known, I deleted Konstantine.
 * Does it contribute any interesting information not contained in the article? This one can be difficult to answer, as people have different ideas about "interesting". As long as the answers to questions 1 and 2 are "no", you have a good chance to find consensus, though. OTOH,
 * Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for term/information
I am looking for a term referring to this or information regarding this phenomena; the phenomena that all language is self referential, words are only defined by other words, so on and forever... If you know anything about this please help. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe circular definition and (lack of) groundedness are what you are looking for. Next time, you might want to try the Help desk first, it's what they do. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all suggestions; I will use help desk in the future. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a little late, but you are talking about Ferdinand de Saussure and his system of linguistic signs. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A new reference
Every bureaucratic bone in my body urges me to remove the latest addition to the "references" section, but I just can't do it. It has to remain. This is vitally important. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Self-referential links have been added, and deleted, many times to this article. But such links clearly violate Wikipedia policy. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)