Talk:Insult

Proposed merger from Comeback (return insult)

We have problems with tone and reliability of references over at Comeback (return insult), and neither that article nor this one are overly long. What would people say to merging that article into this one? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the article Comeback (return insult) because I first thought that wikipedia does not have an article like this. I don't really know anything about merging, but when we actually do it with this article, do you mean just to put the article into sections? 987li (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging means that we would take the content that we can use from the Comeback article and put it into this one somewhere, then redirect the comeback article here so that readers are sent here automatically. Have a look at WP:MERGE for details on what this entails. I'm afraid that when we merge we should probably trim out content referenced to unreliable sources such as Yahoo Answers, though. (Not to say that their content is false, just that it doesn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, which are fairly strict.) Let me know if you have more questions, and I'll do my best to answer. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge - Yahoo answers is not a reliable source and can't be used for references. Consequently, there's actually very little at the article that can be merged here. Most of it is poorly written original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now the only way to have the page not get deleted is to find a source that isn't on Yahoo answers (which most of them are to ask about how to create a comeback) or that shows examples of witty and clever comebacks, but now sources must be showing what exactly a comeback is, which very few websites have. 987li (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really you should be looking at academic sources, for which a normal web search isn't going to be very useful. Have a look at this Google Books search and this Google Scholar search for a start. The Scholar results are pretty good, but it looks like most of the Books results are guides to creating comebacks rather than scholarly works. We could use those "how-to" books for a couple of examples, possibly, but it's not the main thing we should be using. One example I did find from Google Books was this one: [1]. There are more if you look on Scholar. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When are we going to merge it?987li (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge done. There was already more information on comeback in this article than in the comeback stub. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical meaning

"Insult" is used in technical and scientific writing to refer to harm inflicted by a specific mechanism, e.g., chemical insult, radiological insult, fatigue insult, and the like. In most cases the insult depends on exposure intensity, temperature, time, and protection (e.g., shielding, distance from source).

Removed form the article. It there a chance to write something encycklopedic (with proper refernces) on the technical usage of the term? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverse situation

It there a term for when damning commentary is really complimentary? I'm asking specifically with regard to this:

Mark Twain (November 01, 2013) [First published in 1872]. "CHAPTER XIX. Roughing it". Roughing It. University of Virgina Library. Indeed, I have been obliged to look the bulky volumes of Wood's "Uncivilized Races of Men [sic] –The Uncivilized Races, or Natural History of Man (1868)– clear through in order to find a savage tribe degraded enough to take rank with the Goshoots. I find but one people fairly open to that shameful verdict. It is the Bosjesmans (Bushmen) of South Africa.... The Bushmen and our Goshoots are manifestly descended from the self-same gorilla, or kangaroo, or Norway rat, whichever animal-Adam the Darwinians trace them to. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

—Pawyilee (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pawyilee "Praising with faint damns" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Redirects

• Flout, Flouts, Flouted and Flouting

any better target? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Schwarzkopf quote

This was deleted. It was widely seen in American media (and probably elsewhere), and it is hard to imagine a more biting (and apt) repartee of military and political incompetence by an enemy. We are discussing a military rout that anyone should have seen coming. It was completely avoidable: Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to evacuate Kuwait, and anyone who did not see the enemy buildup along the border and near the shore as sure to win, and that Saddam Hussein had no meaningful allies and no rational defense of holding onto Kuwait. There was no sneak attack after an enemy giving assurances that none was forthcoming.

As General Norman Schwarzkopf described Saddam Hussein as an opponent:

"As far as saying whether Saddam Hussein is a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that he is a great military man; I want you to know that."

Basically, Saddam Hussein did none of what one would expect of a competent senior officer, who might even specialize in one of those areas at the expense of others. It is hard to see this insult topped in relevance and accuracy. If there should be a military disaster bigger in scale as a failure that gets a similar set of causes and no obvious necessity for the defeat or inevitability of such, then that insult could supplant this one. There have been plenty of military blunders in the past. Napoleon and even Hitler had strokes of genius as well as catastrophic choices made in desperation. I am not going to fault the losing side for losing to overwhelming force. (The quote that I remember faulted Saddam Hussein as a politician and a statesman, too, so that would be better if available.

The analysis is obvious: Saddam Hussein failed at every level of relevance in a military activity in an effort that had no justification as an objective.

Improvement is always an objective at Wikipedia, and nobody expects it to be static. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs)

References

I am sorry you are upset that I reverted your contribution here. As I said in my edit summary. we do not need real life examples. If we start listing real life examples people will start adding all their favorite quotes from real life and movies and the article will become bloated. Furthermore, I simply do not see this example as adding to the understanding of what an insult is. Your justification above seems to be based on Saddam Hussein had it coming and Schwarzkopf nailed it. Perhaps so, but that does not mean it goes here. It is already listed at wikiquote:Saddam Hussein#Saddam Hussein which is where it does belong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Feelings? No. One of a kind, and not so much to be added to as replaced when a better example appears. This one at least involves two notable figures in history. If anyone's feelings were hurt it would have been those of Saddam Hussein at the time. My feelings? I have no personal stake in the argument. A real insult is more appropriate than one from fictional literature, and one involving two highly-notable characters in a historical context is far better than some insult involving non-notable persons.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Formal section confusing.

Does anyone know what this means? “ The flyting was a formalized sequence of literary insults: invective or flyting, the literary equivalent of the spell-binding curse, uses similar incantatory devices for opposite reasons”.Can we find a way to simplify or replace this?Any help would be appreciated. Coolman2932 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the whole section with forms of insults for entertainment. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally think your version of the replaced section is better, good job! Coolman2932 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jocular Exchange and Transivist Quarrel?

What does Jocular Exchange and transivist quarrel even mean?I’d delete that section if I knew what to replace it with.Any help would be appreciated. Coolman2932 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Added History

I have added a History to the text because I think it may add a needed level of detail both for examples of Insults and information about the history of them. Feel free to edit/add more because I think there is likely much more room for more historical examples. - TragicPower — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I also added "Unintentional Insults" before for more examples. TragicPower (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.92.198 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Criticism

Here’s a focused critique of this article on "Insult," highlighting its shortcomings and areas for improvement. I’ll keep it sharp and actionable, building on my earlier analysis but zeroing in on what doesn’t work and why. 1. Inconsistent Depth and Focus Problem: The article swings between shallow overviews and overly specific tangents. For example, "Perceptions" gets a single paragraph, while "Anatomies" dives into Desmond Morris’s 10 categories and Shakespeare’s seven-fold hierarchy—details that feel disproportionate to the broader topic. Why It Matters: This unevenness disrupts the reader’s ability to grasp a cohesive picture. Casual readers get lost in jargon, while those seeking depth find other sections lacking. Fix: Balance the level of detail across sections—either summarize "Anatomies" or expand "Perceptions" with examples of shifting social mores. 2. Lack of Cultural Breadth Problem: The article leans heavily on Western examples (Ancient Rome, Christianity, Shakespeare, Mozart, Skeletor), with only a fleeting nod to Buddhism’s "Right Speech" as a non-Western perspective. Why It Matters: Insults are culturally specific—e.g., honor-based insults in Middle Eastern contexts or indirect jabs in East Asian politeness norms are absent. This limits its global relevance. Fix: Include diverse cultural examples, like Japanese batsu (punitive mockery) or Indian vachanbhed (verbal sparring), to reflect insults’ universality. 3. Clarity and Accessibility Issues Problem: Dense or vague passages—like Lacan’s “imaginary order” quote (flagged with “clarification needed”) or the undefined “transitivist quarrel”—alienate readers. Placeholder references (e.g., “Jesus’ best insults”) also undermine credibility. Why It Matters: An encyclopedia should be clear to a general audience, not just academics. Obscure terms and incomplete citations erode trust and usability. Fix: Simplify jargon (e.g., explain Lacan in plain terms), remove or define niche phrases, and ensure all references are specific and verifiable. 4. Weak Cohesion and Flow Problem: Transitions between sections feel abrupt. For instance, jumping from "Sexuality" (incel trolling) to "Entertainment" (flyting and Skeletor) lacks a connecting thread, making the article feel like a patchwork. Why It Matters: Readers need a logical narrative to follow, especially with a topic spanning history, psychology, and pop culture. Fix: Add bridging sentences—e.g., “While insults often target personal traits like sexuality, they also serve as public performance in entertainment”—to tie sections together. 5. Overreliance on Anecdotes Problem: Vivid examples like the Cadaver Synod and Mozart’s scatological humor dominate, but they’re not always tied to broader insights about insults. Skeletor’s inclusion feels more fan-service than scholarly. Why It Matters: Anecdotes should illustrate, not overshadow, the analysis. Without synthesis, they’re just trivia. Fix: Contextualize examples—e.g., link the Cadaver Synod to posthumous shaming trends or Skeletor to modern insult comedy’s evolution. 6. Underdeveloped Themes Problem: Key ideas—like the intent-versus-impact dichotomy or insults’ role in social bonding—are mentioned but not explored. "Unintentional Insults" lists examples but doesn’t analyze how perception shifts outcomes. Why It Matters: These themes are central to understanding insults’ complexity, yet they’re left as surface-level observations. Fix: Deepen analysis—e.g., discuss how microaggressions (mentioned briefly) blur intent and impact, or how jocular insults reinforce group identity. 7. Questionable Relevance of Some Content Problem: Entries like “negging” (tied to pickup artists) and “incel” feel narrowly contemporary, while the V-sign in "Anatomies" is a random gesture without explanation of its insulting weight. Why It Matters: Including trendy or obscure items without grounding them risks dating the article or confusing readers. Fix: Either justify their inclusion (e.g., negging as a modern backhanded compliment variant) or replace with timeless examples (e.g., middle finger over V-sign). 8. Incomplete References Problem: Citations are spotty—some are robust (e.g., Desmond Morris), others vague (e.g., “Matthew 5:22 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary”) or missing details (e.g., no link or author for “In ancient Rome…”). Why It Matters: Weak sourcing undermines authority, especially on a topic blending fact and interpretation. Fix: Provide full citations—titles, authors, dates, and links where possible—to bolster credibility. Overall Critique The article has potential but stumbles in execution. It’s a grab-bag of interesting facts and ideas that doesn’t fully gel into a unified exploration of insults. It’s engaging yet frustrating—rich in examples but poor in synthesis, broad in scope but narrow in perspective. It tries to serve both casual readers and scholars but satisfies neither fully due to its inconsistent tone, depth, and clarity. To elevate it, the article needs: A clearer narrative arc (e.g., tracing insults from primal aggression to modern wit). Broader cultural lenses to match its universal claim. Tighter editing to prune tangents and clarify dense spots. Stronger integration of examples into overarching themes. As it stands, it’s a decent draft that informs but doesn’t enlighten. With refinement, it could be a standout resource. What do you think—any specific flaws you’d prioritize fixing? 78.3.92.198 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)