Talk:Lawyer jokes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Topics

This whole section should be a subcategory of legal humor. Legal humor is a legitimate category -- see, e.g., all the material collected in monographs, some disparaging lawyers, some not. There could even be a separate section on "lawyer bashing"/"lawyer jokes" -- the two are virtually the same (we all know that 99% of anything labeled "lawyer jokes" is not going to be lawyer-friendly).

I would add that only true "lawyer jokes" should be included. Half or more of what are passed off as "lawyer jokes" are in fact old ethnic slurs recycled as "lawyer jokes" -- e.g., the old "skid marks" joke. A real lawyer joke should be one that could only be used on lawyers -- not, for example, the following: "Why are lawyers afraid to go to the beach? A: They're afraid cats will try to cover them with sand." It's a great joke, but it could be used on any group.

In contrast, the best true lawyer joke I know: "They've begun replacing rats with lawyers at the NIH. Why? Three reasons: First, there are more lawyers than rats in the world. Second, the researchers were becoming too emotionally involved with the rats. Third, there are some things that rats just won't do." This is a clear LAWYER joke -- not just an ethnic slur recycled, a raw statement of hostility.

And there is a great deal of really good legal humor out there -- Dickens, Twain, Milne, etc. See the gems collected in Trials and Tribulations: Appealing Legal Humor, by Daniel R. White (Catbird hardback version); (Plume softback version).

Perrygirl 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


in an age in which humor based on race, creed, color, sexual orientation, physical or mental disabilities, or national origin is, quite properly, taboo

I modified this because it seemed POV. Hammerite 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." A revolution kills off the lawyers not because they are evil, but because they are the cornerstone of justice system. The leaders of a counterrevolution to whom the forces of truth and justice will rally.

Best lawyer jokes I have read. --216.8.171.192 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know a few self-hating lawyers that love lawyer jokes, actually they are pretty common.--Exander 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What is encyclopediac about this article? It seems to be a good candidate for deletion. There is no documentation for any of its assertions rewinn 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is rewinn perhaps a lawyer? ;-)

Above anon edit by Rlong19

Check my user page and see ;-) But is there an answer to the question? rewinn 07:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic humor genealogy false

Simply put, Peter Tiersma is wrong. His claim has no backing, is just a guess. An argument in making the distinction between "lawyer jokes" and "non-lawyer jokes dealing with lawyers" could be made in the same way with ethnic humor. Dead Mexicans and skunks as opposed to lawyers and skunks. In both cases the joke does not derive from the ethnicity's or profession's characteristics. This is a broader form of joke that is use in many contexts. The goal is to amuse by showing how "bad" something is in an unexpected way. Above unsigned comment is by 24.118.107.3

[edit] Distinguish Analogy and Geneology

The question is one of analogy, not of geneology. The analogy is accurate: many lawyer jokes are simply hate jokes; which came first (ethnic or lawyer jokes) would be easy to document but, in the absence of documentation, the straightforward hate jokes have been deleted pending documentation. rewinn 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR and POV tags

This entire article is Original Research and necessarily POV (since there is no objective std for humor.) "Lawyer joke" is at most a topic for wikitionary; the article is not encyclopediac. How do we move this to wikitionary? rewinn 05:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POLL: Move to Wikitionary and/or delete

This page is entirely OR. At most, it might be a wikitionary entry. I suggest it be deleted rewinn 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This section should not be deleted, but it should be a subcategory of legal humor, which merits at least brief attention. Legal humor is a legitimate category -- see, e.g., all the material collected in a considerable number of monographs, some disparaging lawyers, some not. There could even be a separate section on "lawyer bashing"/"lawyer jokes" -- the two are virtually the same (we all know that 99% of anything labeled "lawyer jokes" is not going to be lawyer-friendly).

If lawyer jokes are assembled, I suggest that only true "lawyer jokes" should be included. Half or more of what are passed off as "lawyer jokes" are in fact old ethnic slurs recycled as "lawyer jokes" -- e.g., the old "skid marks" joke. A real lawyer joke should be one that could only be used on lawyers -- not, for example, the following: "Why are lawyers afraid to go to the beach? A: They're afraid cats will try to cover them with sand." It's a great joke, but it could be used on any group.

Consider, in contrast, the best true lawyer joke I know: "They've begun replacing rats with lawyers at the NIH. Why? Three reasons: First, there are more lawyers than rats in the world. Second, the researchers were becoming too emotionally involved with the rats. Third, there are some things that rats just won't do." This is a clear LAWYER joke -- not just an ethnic slur recycled, a raw statement of hostility.

In any event, there is a great deal of really good legal humor out there -- Dickens, Twain, Milne, etc. See the gems collected in Trials and Tribulations: Appealing Legal Humor, by Daniel R. White (Catbird hardback version); (Plume softback version). These are worth noting as a category of humor in a major professional field.

It's just that so far, this article doesn't do it.

Perrygirl 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote delete. There are many established theories of overall humor which cover this material. Collections of jokes are common in print and on the Internet. Mr. Galanter has had a book published by the University he works for, which seems to be the major accomplishment reported by this article. To make a collection anything but a list, jokes are ordered in some fashion. It's not difficult to imagine orderings based on country, social group, age group, media of delivery, length, complexity of language, subject, etc. But what insight would the classification provide? There are people with special knowledge: if Steve Martin, Groucho Marx, or Mark Twain ( pick someone ) writes about why they think they are funny, it's a reasonable bet their opinion is worth reading. But Galanter hasn't demonstrated special insight, either. Delete. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR and relevance

The set of examples might be challenged on other grounds, but is not original research (it's also difficult to see why sources should be needed for it; the jokes are there, so their existence needs no confirmation, and nothing needing a source is claimed about their provenance). The general section on humour about lawyers, on the other hand, was irrelevant to the article, as it didn't contain or refer to any lawyer jokes. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The jokes are unsourced and have been deleted. Wikipedia is not a joke book. This article is a ditionary definition, and not encyclopediac. rewinn 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote; if you have a response, fine — merely repeating that they're unsourced, though, is rather rudely to ignore my argument. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If by rudely you mean "plainly" I accept the charge, for surely there is nothing impolite about my comment. No source was given for the jokes; we have only the contributor's bare assertion that the are lawyer jokes; which may indeed be the case but is scarecely encyclopediac. They will be removed and continue to be removed until a source is given for them. Wikipedia is neither a joke book nor a place for self-published materials such as jokes that one may have heard somewhere. One may wish to start a blog instead. rewinn 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

It's unclear that the article needs or even benefits from division into sections, and taking general comments from the lead certainly needs some explanation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For me any structure is useful and is clear. The comment in the lead was not "general". It was addressing a very narow class of lawyer jokes, what was made clear by asectioning. `'mikka 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Any structure is useful and clear? You can't believe that.
    OK, let's say "any reasonable structure". `'mikka 06:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I don't accept your understanding of the lead. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    The previous version (with the dubious claim about "most jokes", and unreferenced, too) was plain wrong. Please explain your objection to the current lead. `'mikka 06:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed joke

Q: What do you call a male lawyer with an IQ of 60 who is wearing a black dress?
A: Your honor.

Removed until it will become found out from releable sources that this is no just a random joke with the word "lawyer" in it, of which are zillions, but represents a notable category of jokes, e.g., about low esteem of judges. `'mikka 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am well aware that the atricle is on a verge of be deleted as unreferenced, original research, but what is here must be meaningfully organized, rather than random collection of blurbs. `'mikka 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "blurbs" here, nor how the quoted joke could be anything but a joke about lawyers (among whom are counted judges). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not thousands of other different jokes about lawyers, starting from King Solomon? I bet hundreds of them are unique in ione respect or another. So far three jokes are more than enough for this small article, anyway. "how the quoted joke could be anything but a joke" oh yes it can, just as atree may be something else than a tree; it may be, eg. pine or birch. `'mikka 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

??? A birch and a pine aren't trees? You seem to be confusing being something other than x with the possibility of x-ness being further divisible into types. As your division of the jokes into types is pure original research, with no sources, your insistence that other people give citations looks more than a little hollow. As you've clearly taken ownership of the article, though, and are aggressively defending your changes, there's clearly no point bothering further. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confusing nothing. Probably bad command of English. I didn't say that a pine is not a tree. You explained it yourself. A pine is a tree, yes, but an article about a pine says more than it is "a tree".
Your "original research" accusation is splitting hairs here. The whole article was one big original research.
As for "no sources", you probably have a low resolution monitor without scroll button on your mouse. I added one major ref into the text and quite a few in talk page, for further inspection.
And "my insistence" part is quite strange: I didn't request from others anything so far. You are confusing me with someone else.
Yes, I am taking the "ownerhip" of the article, since no one bothers to turn this piece of garbage into an encyclopedic article while it is still not deleted, unlike gone medical humor, drummer joke, aviation joke, etc. This one at least has a research book to quote.
Yes, I am aggressively defending my changes, in response to no less aggressive wholesale reversal, which I consider as a manifestation of complete disrespect to a fellow wikipedian. This is especially strange to see in a topic obviously lacking any incentives for political wars raging elsewhere in wikipedia. `'mikka 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

A minimal google search shows that the topic actually was researched, and this may become a regular article. `'mikka 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, does it make sense to have a more general article, lawyer humor or Legal humor?

  • BYU Law Review, vol 1992, #2, Symposium On Humor and the Law
    • Articles

Introduction: Humor in Legal Education and Scholarship James D. Gordon IIIThe Wrong Stuff Alex KozinskiId. Gerald F. Uelman2010: A Clinical Odyssey Paul BergmanMinutes of the Faculty Meeting Anthony D'AmatoAn Unofficial Guide to the Bill of Rights James D. Gordon IIIHumor as the Enemy of Death, Or Is It "Humor as the Enemy of Depth?" Kenney HeglandI Want to Know What Bearer Paper Is and I Want to Meet a Holder in Due Course: Reflections on Instruction in UCC Articles Three and Four Marianne M. JenningsLegal Education and the Theatre of the Absurb: "Can't Anybody Play This Here Game?" Paul A. LeBel

    • Humor Guides

A Bibliography of Humor and the Law James D. Gordon IIIThe Syufy Rosetta Stone

    • Notes and Comments

Better Off with the Reasonable Man Dead or The Reasonable Man Did the Darndest Things Randy T. AustinA Negative Incentive Based Proposal for Campaign Finance Reform: Lessons from Nottingham York Moody FaulknerHumor, the Law, and Judge Kozinski's Greatest Hits David A. GoldenReflections of a 3L- A Thought Piece Grant M. Sumsion

Now that someone has actually gone and conducted some research into the subject (actually citing a published work!) the article may be edging its way, however tentatively, toward value. I'll see if I can find some addition sources. However, wikipedia remains not a joke book nor a venue for self-publishing witticisms. rewinn 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Humor as separate topic?

I think that legal humor or the like may be at least as plausible a topic as lawyer joke; for sources see for example Andrew McClurg. rewinn 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This should be merely a subcategory of legal humor. Legal humor is a legitimate category -- see, e.g., all the material collected in monographs, some disparaging lawyers, some not. There could even be a separate section on "lawyer bashing"/"lawyer jokes" -- the two are virtually the same; we all know that 99% of anything labeled "lawyer jokes" is not going to be lawyer-friendly. Perrygirl 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galanter Taxonomy

I guess the Galanter Taxonomy is as reasonable an organizing principle as any. Since he seems to have mentioned the repurposed aspect of some jokes, I included that as a fourth taxonomic element. If jokes are to be included then they should be organized taxonomically; I have taken a first step toward filling out the structure. rewinn 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied it a bit, but I'm not sure about this. Aside from anything else, the article is completely one-side. If one person has wasted his life providing a taxonomy of lawyer jokes I bet that others have (there are probably University departments devoted to it), and they're bound to disagree with him. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is wikipedia. If there are any, someone will eventually add something useful and referenced. `'mikka 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I hope someone sues someone else for copyright infringement of a lawyer joke taxonomy, thereby providing us with a meta-lawyer-joke. But I'm not going first. rewinn 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with Mel Etitis, there are dozens of theories of humor and attitudes toward jokes. Except for the particular stereotype prejudices about lawyers, there's every reason to treat legal humor similarily to other humor (about doctors, about farmers, about politicians, about bankers, about gangsters, etc.) Putting jokes in a taxonomy hardly explains why some are funny and others are not, and, for example, it's unsupported and questionable that there are lawyer jokes specific to the United States (which aren't common, say, to Canada, Australia, or the UK). What purpose does this classification then serve? This article is strangely narrow. What with the panegyric about Galanter, it seems more like an article about him, than about lawyer jokes. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have a better published reference for the topic, you are welcome to expand the article. If it is panegyric, it is because you and you (and you too) did not add anything from other authors. If there is no other authors, then what's wrong with panegyric to a unique writer? Besides, please explain which wording exactly reads as panegyric, and we together apply the WP:NPOV here. `'Míkka>t 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mikkalai, you just deleted exactly some of the irrelevant "laudatory discouse" ("John and Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law and South Asian Studies...) Many of the cites in the "References" section above seem reasonable; I've read a couple, but don't own them. Following the line of Perrygirl, in "Topics" above, I'm not sure that "lawyer jokes" are much different than jibes at other professions; given that assumption, "Cracking Jokes" ISBN 0-89815-188-0 and "Maledicta" (e.g., ISBN 0-89471-499-6) are books describing a variety of underlying cause for humor. This paper, for example, discusses Freud's and Raskin's theories of humor: http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper/. This paper mentions various academic theories http://dsc.dixie.edu/owl/syllabi/humor.htm, for example those of Hobbes, Oring, Bergson, and Gruner. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly POV, or I will assume that other pages include examples of nigger jokes, kike jokes, woman jokes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.146.35 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jokes cited in article are not specific to lawyers

The jokes which are cited as "Lawyer" jokes largely involve factors which are not directly tied to lawyers, except in the trivial sense that they mention "lawyer" and two or three of the stereotypical trappings of lawyers. The basic joke format does not depend on the law. E.g.:

(Rework of "Repurposed jokes") A plumber falls overboard from a cruise ship in shark infested waters. As the passengers watch in horror, he is immediately encircled by sharks. Just as they expect the worst, the sharks form two lines providing a path for the man to swim back to the ship; the plumber explains "professional courtesy".

(Rework of "Playmates of the Devil") Heavenly pluming maintenance was falling behind. So, God called Satan, asking for help. When Satan rejected the request, God said he urgently needed the man, to which Satan replied, "When are you going to get a plumber? They all belong down here!"

(Rework of "Lawyers as Economic Predators") A reporter says to a defendant clad only in briefs, "I see your expert witness plumber lost your case!" The defendant replies, "No, we won!"

The reason these jokes are analogs of the lawyer jokes is that the word substitions are largely mechanical: Whereas creating a new, funny joke is a difficult and sometimes prolonged process, the above jokes could be turned out easily, immediately, and indefinitely. Hence, they are only superficially different. They can all be combined into single topics, perhaps with an explanation of why some professions are such ready targets. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Joke retargetting is a well-known phenomenon. And there are many other research work in humor I compiled recently: List of publications in humor research (and it is way far from being comlpete; not to say that there are languages other than English). Unfortunately wikipedians don't bother to write articles about humor using cholarly references. `'Míkka>t 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out your article, Míkka. I'm looking forward to having a look at it in detail.
Everyone has an understanding of what's funny to them. Perhaps by definition, it's correct. People have difficulty understanding that other people's perception of what's funny is always valid. It's strange. We have no difficulty identifying people who have odd religious beliefs -- and accepting some measure of what they believe -- yet there's some very visceral and personal reaction concerning humor which leads to absolute judgments about other people's sense of humor. Examples are comments "That's not funny", "He's really funny", "You aren't funny" and "She has no sense of humor". There's something important to learn here about intolerance, something simple and practical. Everybody enjoys a joke...so anybody should be reachable providing their needs for humor are met.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)