text:
Coast Mountains

The Coast Mountains (La chaîne Côtière) are a major mountain range in the Pacific Coast Ranges of western North America, extending from southwestern Yukon through the Alaska Panhandle and virtually all of the Coast of British Columbia south to the Fraser River. The mountain range's name derives from its proximity to the sea coast, and it is often referred to as the Coast Range. The range includes volcanic and non-volcanic mountains and the extensive ice fields of the Pacific and Boundary Ranges, and the northern end of the volcanic system known as the Cascade Volcanoes. The Coast Mountains are part of a larger mountain system called the Pacific Coast Ranges or the Pacific Mountain System, which includes the Cascade Range, the Insular Mountains, the Olympic Mountains, the Oregon Coast Range, the California Coast Ranges, the Saint Elias Mountains and the Chugach Mountains. The Coast Mountains are also part of the American Cordilleraa Spanish term for an extensive chain of mountain rangesthat consists of an almost continuous sequence of mountain ranges that form the western backbone of North America, Central America, South America and Antarctica.

The Coast Mountains are approximately 1600 km long and average 300 km in width. The range's southern and southeastern boundaries are surrounded by the Fraser River and the Interior Plateau while its far northwestern edge is delimited by the Kelsall and Tatshenshini Rivers at the north end of the Alaska Panhandle, beyond which are the Saint Elias Mountains, and by Champagne Pass in the Yukon Territory. Covered in dense temperate rainforest on its western exposures, the range rises to heavily glaciated peaks, including the largest temperate-latitude ice fields in the world. On its eastern flanks, the range tapers to the dry Interior Plateau and the subarctic boreal forests of the Skeena Mountains and Stikine Plateau.

The Coast Mountains are part of the Pacific Ring of Firethe ring of volcanoes and associated mountains around the Pacific Oceanand contain some of British Columbia's highest mountains. Mount Waddington is the highest mountain of the Coast Mountains and the highest that lies entirely within British Columbia, located northeast of the head of Knight Inlet with an elevation of 4019 m.

Geography
The Coast Mountains consists of three subdivisions known as the Pacific Ranges, the Kitimat Ranges, and the Boundary Ranges. The Pacific Ranges are the southernmost subdivision of the Coast Mountains, extending from the lower stretches of the Fraser River to Bella Coola. Included in this subdivision is four of the five major coastal icecaps in the southern Coast Mountains. These are the largest temperate-latitude icecaps in the world and fuel a number of major rivers. Other than logging and a large ski resort at the resort town of Whistler, most of the land in the range is completely undeveloped. Mount Waddington, the highest mountain of the Coast Mountains, lies in the Waddington Range of the Pacific Ranges.

Just north of the Pacific Ranges lies the central subdivision known as the Kitimat Ranges. This subdivision extends from the Bella Coola River and Burke Channel in the south to the Nass River in the north.

The third and northernmost subdivision of the Coast Mountains is the Boundary Ranges, extending from the Nass River in the south to the Kelsall River in the north. It is also the largest subdivision of the Coast Mountains, spanning the British Columbia-Alaska border and northwards into Yukon flanking the west side of the Yukon River drainage as far as Champagne Pass, north of which being the Yukon Ranges. The Boundary Ranges include several large icefields, including the Juneau Icefield between Juneau, Alaska and Atlin Lake in British Columbia, and the Stikine Icecap, which lies between the lower Stikine River and the Whiting River.

Because the Coast Mountains are just east of the Pacific Ocean, they have a profound effect on British Columbia's climate by forcing moisture-laden air off the Pacific Ocean to rise, dropping heavy rainfalls on the western slopes where lush forests exist. This precipitation is among the heaviest in North America. The eastern slopes are relatively dry and less steep and protect the British Columbia Interior from the Pacific weather systems, resulting in dry warm summers and dry cold winters.

Beyond the eastern slopes is a 154635 km2 plateau occupying the southern and central portions of British Columbia called the Interior Plateau. Included within the Interior Plateau is a coalescing series of layered flood basalt lava flows. These sequences of fluid volcanic rock cover about 25000 km2 of the Interior Plateau and have a volume of about 1800 km3, forming a large volcanic plateau constructed atop of the Interior Plateau. North of the Interior Plateau on the range's northeastern slopes lies a huge mountainous area known by geographers as the Interior Mountains, which includes the neighbouring Skeena, Cassiar and Hazelton Mountains.

Origins and growth
The Coast Mountains consist of deformed igneous and metamorphosed structurally complex pre-Tertiary rocks. These originated in diverse locations around the globe: the area is built of several different terranes of different ages with a broad range of tectonic origins. In addition, oceanic crust under the Pacific Ocean is being subducted at the southern portion of the range to form a north–south line of volcanoes called the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, a northern extension of the Cascade Volcanoes in the northwestern United States, and contains the most explosive young volcanoes in Canada. Further north the northwesterly structural trend of the Coast Mountains lies partly in a large continental rift responsible for the creation of several volcanoes. These volcanoes form part of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, the most volcanically active area in Canada.

Insular and Omineca Arc eruptive periods

The first event began 130 million years ago when a group of active volcanic islands approached a pre-existing continental margin and coastline of North America. These volcanic islands, known as the Insular Islands by geoscientists, were formed on a pre-existing tectonic plate called the Insular Plate by subduction of the former Farallon Plate to the west during the early Paleozoic era. This subduction zone records another subduction zone to the east under an ancient ocean basin between the Insular Islands and the former continental margin of North America called the Bridge River Ocean. This arrangement of two parallel subduction zones is unusual in that very few twin subduction zones exist on Earth; the Philippine Mobile Belt off the southeastern coast of Asia is an example of a modern twin subduction zone. As the Insular Plate drew closer to the pre-existing continental margin by ongoing subduction under the Bridge River Ocean, the Insular Islands drew closer to the former continental margin and coastline of western North America, supporting a pre-existing volcanic arc on the former continental margin of North America called the Omineca Arc. As the North American Plate drifted west and the Insular Plate drifted east to the old continental margin of western North America, the Bridge River Ocean eventually closed by ongoing subduction under the Bridge River Ocean. This subduction zone eventually jammed and shut down completely 115 million years ago, ending the Omineca Arc and the Insular Islands collided, forming the Insular Belt. Compression resulting from this collision crushed, fractured and folded rocks along the old continental margin. The Insular Belt then welded onto the pre-existing continental margin by magma that eventually cooled to create a large mass of igneous rock, creating a new continental margin. This large mass of igneous rock is the largest granite outcropping in North America.

Coast Range Arc eruptive period
The final event began when the Farallon Plate continued to subduct under the new continental margin after the Insular Plate and Insular Islands collided with the old continental margin, supporting a new continental volcanic arc called the Coast Range Arc about 100 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period. Magma rising from the Farallon Plate under the new continental margin ascended through the newly accreted Insular Belt, injecting huge quantities of granite into older igneous rocks of the Insular Belt. At the surface, new volcanoes were built along the continental margin. Named after the Coast Mountains, the basement of this arc was likely Early Cretaceous and Late Jurassic intrusions from the Insular Islands.

One of the major aspects that changed early during the Coast Range Arc was the status of the northern end of the Farallon Plate, a portion now known as the Kula Plate. About 85 million years ago, the Kula Plate broke off from the Farallon Plate to form a mid-ocean ridge known to geoscientists as the Kula-Farallon Ridge. This change apparently had some important ramifications for regional geologic evolution. When this change was completed, Coast Range Arc volcanism returned and sections of the arc were uplifted considerably in latest Cretaceous time. This started a period of mountain building that affected much of western North America called the Laramide orogeny. In particular a large area of dextral transpression and southwest-directed thrust faulting was active from 75 to 66 million years ago. Much of the record of this deformation has been overridden by Tertiary age structures and the zone of Cretaceous dextral thrust faulting appears to have been widespread. It was also during this period when massive amounts of molten granite intruded highly deformed ocean rocks and assorted fragments from pre-existing island arcs, largely remnants of the Bridge River Ocean. This molten granite burned the old oceanic sediments into a glittering medium-grade metamorphic rock called schist. The older intrusions of the Coast Range Arc were then deformed under the heat and pressure of later intrusions, turning them into layered metamorphic rock known as gneiss. In some places, mixtures of older intrusive rocks and the original oceanic rocks have been distorted and warped under intense heat, weight and stress to create unusual swirled patterns known as migmatite, appearing to have been nearly melted in the procedure.

Volcanism began to decline along the length of the arc about 60 million years ago during the Albian and Aptian faunal stages of the Cretaceous period. This resulted from the changing geometry of the Kula Plate, which progressively developed a more northerly movement along the Pacific Northwest. Instead of subducting beneath the Pacific Northwest, the Kula Plate began subducting underneath southwestern Yukon and Alaska and during the early Eocene period. Volcanism along the entire length of the Coast Range Arc shut down about 50 million years ago and many of the volcanoes have disappeared from erosion. What remains of the Coast Range Arc to this day are outcrops of granite when magma intruded and cooled at depth beneath the volcanoes, forming the present Coast Mountains. During construction of intrusions 70 and 57 million years ago, the northern motion of the Kula Plate might have been between 140 mm and 110 mm per year. However, other geologic studies determined the Kula Plate moved at a rate as fast as 200 mm per year.

title: Coast Mountains


text:
Talk:If You're Happy and You Know It

Earliest Album appearance?
There is a 1966 Russian album of Soviet-produced Japanese songs called Вокальный квартет Улыбка и М. Кажлаев featuring the track ВК Улыбка - Когда счастливы (японская нар. песня, обр. М. Кажлаева) which they claim is a direct translation of the "Japanese traditional folk song" "Shiawase nara te o tatakou"; which is without a doubt the same melody and lyrics (simply translated) from If You're Happy and You Know It.

Dates?
Is this really a 1916 song (like the categories say) whose copyright ran out in 2001, or was that date-range referring to the lifespan of the author, who's redlinked as of this writing? -- Arvedui (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain & von den blauen Bergen kommen wir
Strangely enough Youtube links this song to the 2 songs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She%27ll_Be_Coming_%27Round_the_Mountain and "von den blauen Bergen kommen wir" (german version).

And the melodys of all 3 songs are not just similar, they sound like variations on the same theme. And all the 3 songs have even more lyrical variations sung mostly at various sport events.

What is going on here and where does it put the citation that is needed for the claim of origin named in this article? -- Ollj 26 October 2011

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin
Rihito Kimura, the author of the Japanese version claims, that the song is based on a Spanish folk song, which was inspired in the Psalm 47 ("O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph."). Hellerick (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese melody variation

 * There is a notable variation from the 5th measure (including pick-up note) to the 6th measure, attested in Japan.[citation needed]

How do I cite the Sakamoto Kyu version? The Japanese article has several uses in commercials and covers and they may have the same melody as well. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:If You're Happy and You Know It


text:
Mount Waddington

Mount Waddington, once known as Mystery Mountain, is the highest peak in the Coast Mountains of British Columbia, Canada. Although it is lower than Mount Fairweather and Mount Quincy Adams, which straddle the United States border between Alaska and British Columbia, Mount Waddington is the highest peak that lies entirely within British Columbia. It and the subrange which surround it, known as the Waddington Range, stand at the heart of the Pacific Ranges, a remote and extremely rugged set of mountains and river valleys.

It is not as far north as its extreme Arctic-like conditions might indicate, and Mount Waddington and its attendant peaks pose some of the most serious expedition mountaineering to be had in North America — and some of the most extreme relief and spectacular mountain scenery.

From Waddington's 4019 m fang to sea level at the heads of Bute and Knight Inlets is only about 32 kilometers; across the 3000 m gorges of the Homathko and the Klinaklini Rivers stand mountains almost as high, and icefields even vaster and whiter, only a few aerial miles away, with a maw deeper than the Grand Canyon, comparable in relief to the Himalayas (to which the terrain of British Columbia was compared by colonial-era travellers).

Mount Waddington is the namesake of the Mount Waddington Regional District, which takes in the seaward slope of the Waddington Range and the adjoining coastline and parts of northern Vancouver Island adjacent to Queen Charlotte Strait.

Discovery and exploration by Europeans
In 1925, while on a trip to Mount Arrowsmith, Vancouver Island, Don and Phyllis Munday spotted what they believed to be a peak taller than Mount Robson, the then accepted tallest peak entirely within British Columbia. In the words of Don Munday, "The compass showed the alluring peak stood along a line passing a little east of Bute Inlet and perhaps 150 miles away, where blank spaces on the map left ample room for many nameless mountains." While there is debate as to whether the peak they saw was Mount Waddington (Don Munday observed that the feat is impossible), they almost certainly saw a peak in the Waddington Range, and this led the Mundays to explore that area.

Over the next decade, the Mundays mounted several expeditions into the area in an attempt to climb it. Known to them as "The Mystery Mountain", in 1927 the height was measured at 13,260 feet by triangulation; they reached the lower summit in 1928, deeming the main summit too risky. On their recommendation the Geographical Names Board of Canada gave it the name Mount Waddington after Alfred Waddington who was a proponent of a road route, known as Waddington's Road, and again later the same for a railway, via the Homathko River valley and Bute Inlet, which would connect to Vancouver Island via Seymour Narrows.

In the summer of 1934, two expeditions attempted to climb the mountain. The first expedition, made up of climbers from Winnipeg, made their attempt on the northwestern flank which had not been explored by the Mundays. After crossing Tatlayoko Lake and making their way down the Homathko River, they then spent two days constructing a bridge over Nude Creek before reaching the Tiedemann Glacier on June 23. It took them three days to reach the shoulder of Mt. Waddington at 3200 m. They attempted the summit on June 28 but poor weather and route conditions on the final tower forced them to retreat, 180 m from the top. The second expedition, consisting of climbers Neal Carter, Alan Lambert, Alec Dalgleish and Eric Brooks from British Columbia, made their attempt from the southeast. On June 23, they established their base camp on the Franklin Glacier. The ascent abruptly ended three days later when Dalgleish fell to his death from the southeast ridge.

In 1935, a group of climbers from the Sierra Club of California made three attempts from their base camp at the Dais Glacier. The group failed in two attempts on the south face due to stormy conditions, poor route conditions and falling ice. Two climbers succeeded in reaching the northwest summit (first climbed by the Mundays) on a third attempt but proceeded no further.

First ascent
On July 4, 1936, Fritz Wiessner, Bill House, Elizabeth Woolsey and Alan Willcox reached the head of the Knight Inlet. For the next twelve days they ferried loads to their base camp at Icefall Point on the Dais Glacier. While on the glacier, they were joined by another expedition led by members of the British Columbia Mountaineering Club and the Sierra Club. Wiessner and House agreed to allow the others a first chance at the summit but this group failed to find a route up the south face.

On July 20, Wiessner and House first attempted the line of a great couloir that comes directly down between the main summit tower and the northwest peak. It was an excellent line for quickly ascending but they were unable to traverse onto the south face proper due to poor rock conditions and were forced to retreat to base camp. By 3 am the next morning they were already climbing up a couloir to the right of the face. Good weather the past few days had cleared most of the snow away from the ledges making for good climbing conditions. Following the left branch of the couloir, they reached a snow patch in the middle of the face. The final 1000 ft of the south face then presented a fierce hurdle of "sheer forbidding-looking rocks" as noted by Wiessner. While Wiessner initially started in boots, he quickly changed to rope-soled shoes and gave his ice axe and extra rope to House. Wiessner led several pitches up technically difficult rock including several overhangs. After traversing east across the face they rested on a ledge just below the southeastern ridge, a full 9 hours since leaving the snow patch on the south face. After climbing a short chimney they finally reached the small snowy mass at the top, 13 hours after their start in base camp. They aborted their earlier plan of descending the shorter north face and retraced their ascent line, reaching their tent on the Dais Glacier at 2 am. The ascent to the summit and back to base camp had taken over 23 hours.

Notable ascents

 * 1936 South Face FA by Fritz Wiessner and Bill House.
 * 1942 South Face 2nd ascent by Helmut and Fred Beckey.
 * 1960 Bravo Glacier ascent by Elfrida Pigou who did not summit after being killed by an avalanche.
 * 1977 South Face variation FA of route, 3rd ascent of south face by Jack Tackle and Kenneth Currens.
 * 2012 Flavelle-Lane Route First solo ascent of the peak by Colin Haley.

Climate
The Waddington Range massif is known for fierce as well as unpredictable weather, located as it is at the brunt of the warm, wet winds that soak the British Columbia Coast, of which it is the highest point. Precipitation levels in the area of the peak are among the highest in the Coast Mountains. The peak has an ice cap climate (EF).

In 2010 and again in 2023, scientists successfully drilled ice cores at Combatant Col, the saddle between Mt. Waddington and Combatant Mountain, to obtain a climate and environmental record from the ice covering the last few hundred years. The 2023 core reached 219 meters in depth, at or near the base of the ice.

Access
To reach Mount Waddington, one could take a long approach originating from Vancouver, with the bulk of the journey consisting of a long boat ride through the Strait of Georgia and the Knight Inlet, taking up to three days. A shorter water approach from Port McNeill, British Columbia, a northern community of Vancouver Island accessible by scheduled daily air connections and/or road from Victoria, reducing the water journey to less than a day may be undertaken.

Alternately trails and rough roads do exist from the Chilcotin side of the range, and may be accessed via BC Highway 20, from Williams Lake, departing from the main route to Bella Coola at Tatla Lake to connect to the Homathko River and up a side creek or glacier from there. This inland route is also the access route for the neighbouring Niut and Pantheon Ranges.

Mount Waddington is a popular destination among mountain climbers since it is the highest peak in the Coast Mountains and a challenging climb. It has been compared to Mont Blanc's structure.

title: Mount Waddington


text:
Talk:Schadenfreude

Archive 1 contains ...
I just created the first archive of this talk page. For the most part, it contains a lot of debate about the appropriateness of "Pop Culture" and "Trivia" usages in this article (and its general quality of scholarship). The debate never seemed to come to any solid consensus; if anyone wants to bring the subject back up, take a quick glance over Archive 1 to see the old debate. Peace and Passion (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cree equivalent? I doubt it
I have serious doubts about "currillos" as a Cree equivalent of "Schadenfreude". I don't know a lot of Cree (or ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐧᐁᒧᐧᐃᓐ), but I know enough to think "currillos" looks way un-Cree. Don't have time to figure out who posted that particular line, but I thought those interested ought to be aware. In other words, I am nominating that particular line for deletion. --Haruo (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Freudenschade
If this page is going to redirect from freudenschade, then it needs to at least mention the word (in the sense of sadness at another's joy, presumably). 149.138.100.1 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How interesting! Thanks for calling this to our attention, since I had no idea that "Freudenschade" re-directed here. (A history of that re-direct suggests the article began by assuming this word meant exactly what "schadenfreude" does.) A student humorist in 2006 wrote an article said there was a need for the word "freudenschade," saying "If Schadenfreude is feeling joy at the misfortune of others, then Freudenschade is feeling miserable at their joy." But the article doesn't claim this word exists as anything but that student's invention. I am unable to find it in any dictionaries, online or otherwise, although it was once a Yahoo "worthless word of the day". It seems to be a word that has been multiply invented but hasn't caught on. betsythedevine (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It´s definitely no german word. Reversing the parts of a word just produces nonsense, not opposite meanings, in the german language.

There is another invented "Gernam" word, gluckschmerz , which should at least be considered for mention in this article's discussion of related emotions , as a synonym of freudenschade. This word appears in an article from the Wall Street Journal (12 June 2015). That article cites references, including a scholarly 2014 paper by Harvard psychologist Dr. Mina Cikara , who also authored a (possibly) related article at the Washington Post (27 Aug 2014) , and other contemporary and earlier uses. The WSJ article states that Dr. Charles Baxter says he invented the word (it appeared in one of his short stories in a 1983 book) but that he didn't claim to be the originator ... An earlier 1983 use was found in a weekly California newspaper, the Anderson Valley Advertiser.

To my amusement, I found that the WSJ article (available from the above cited link only to subscribers) was kindly reprinted in the Anderson Valley Advertiser (14 June 2015 , just below the poem).

A google (news) search on gluckschmerz, which pointed me to the Washington Post article mentioned above , also turned up articles by the New Yorker (19 Mar 2015) , the Atlantic (17 Mar 2018) , and Forbes (21 Nov 2018) ... just in the first 10 returned links. Subsequent links include an earlier (27 Nov 2014) Wall Street Journal article, and 2 more newspaper articles - dailytelegraph , and theguardian - both published in 2016 (and discussing Australian subjects). However, I did not find any Canadian or British articles in this search.

Lastly, I (among about 8 million other TV viewers) was exposed to the word gluckschmerz when it's meaning was explained by a character on the CBS-TV show Mom  that originally aired 09 May 2019.

Perhaps there are now reasons enough for a wikipedia editor to include gluckschmerz in the related emotions section of the article page. Mark T. mgt220 A yahoo dt com 70.106.141.7 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I've added information on Gluckschmerz to the article. Keep in mind that you could have added that information yourself, too! --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

section is synthesis
I am concerned that the section, "Literary usage and philosophical analysis" is synthesis in that it puts together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. For example, the Book of Proverbs makes no such connection - or mention of - schadenfreude, so it cannot be connected, unless a citation explicitly connecting the two can be made. Can I get some input on what other folk think about this? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to have speculative interpretation of Bible passages included anywhere in Wikipedia, even if I agreed with the interpretation. And I do not. Jonsuiter (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree,a nd have been waiting for someone to weigh in. It has been removed. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody has since added it back in. I really don't know why it's there in the first place, other than maybe being an ancient reference to command AGAINST Schadenfreude. WillieBlues (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The section provides useful and relevant information about historical and literary treatment of the emotion described by the word "schadenfreude." It does not reach any conclusion about the Bible passage or any other source mentioned except that an emotion described is similar to that currently described by the word "schadenfreude." betsythedevine (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

List is extremely unencyclopedic
(Justifying the removal of the list) To quote just a few (official) Wikipedia Policies I think apply here:

 * - Articles are about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." NOT about "the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Usage and etymology are only acceptable here because it is a loanword and they lend to the context and subject matter of the article directly. The translations do not.
 * - "Wikipedia is not a [translation] dictionary [...] The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia."
 * - "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used" [in other languages or places], unless fundamentally necessary to the context of the article.
 * - Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details" or an "indiscriminate collection of information."

That's simply from What Wikipedia is not. Some Original Research rules are also being missed out on here. Many other comments on this talk page regard the inherent unreliability and controversy surrounding such a list. I'm removing the list until/unless someone justifies or cites it (or somehow makes it otherwise acceptable). Translation lists such as this have been removed quickly from other articles; perhaps if someone would like, they may figure out how to add this information to Wiktionary (I'm not sure if it's even appropriate there, though). Some of them will be appropriate for Wikiquote, if somebody wants to start an article for Schadenfreude there.

I will leave it here for the further reference of those interested: 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * P.S. Plus look below for some I've bolded which don't directly relate to the concept at hand, but are in fact quite different. There are some that mean the opposite.  Plus some that are just a different idea altogether (eg. Romanian). Estonian doesn't even explain! Plus, a bunch of other ones just basically assert "Schadenfreude is enjoyable!" 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Variants

Expressions in other languages
 * Arabic, the word "shamateh" (شماتة) exactly corresponds to "deriving joy from the misfortune that befalls on others". In a poem attributed to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, he warns that "And do not complain to the enemies constantly - For the enemies' "shamateh" is a disease - And do not ask forgiveness from someone who lacks generosity - For there is no water for the thirsty in a fire".
 * Chinese, the phrase xìngzāi lèhuò is an old idiom that directly translates to "enjoying (other's) calamity (and) laughing at (other's) misfortune".
 * Egen lykke er at foretrække men andres ulykke er dog ikke at foragte: "(One's) own happiness is to be preferred, but the misfortune of others should not be scorned."
 * Der er ingen fryd som skadefryd: "There is no glee like schadenfreude."
 * Geen schoner vermaak dan leedvermaak proverb: "No pleasure more beautiful than schadenfreude." (Proverb, often used ironically).
 * Neid zu fühlen ist menschlich, Schadenfreude zu genießen teuflisch: "To feel envy is human, to savour schadenfreude is devilish." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
 * Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude: "Schadenfreude is the best form of joy." Often used ironically to criticize somebody's display of schadenfreude. A modern witticism; the real German proverb from which this derives is "Vorfreude ist die schönste Freude." (Anticipation is the best joy.)
 * Lachen heißt: schadenfroh sein, aber mit gutem Gewissen: "Humour is just Schadenfreude with a clear conscience." (Nietzsche)
 * The word herekakia (χαιρεκακία) corresponds to wanting or enjoying the misforune of others.
 * kahjurõõm on kõige suurem rõõm
 * Vahingonilo on aidointa iloa, sillä siihen ei sisälly tippaakaan kateutta: ("Schadenfreude is the most genuine kind of joy, since it doesn't include even a drop of envy"). "Vahingonilo" has much the same meaning as "Schadenfreude" down to the meanings of the individual words that make up each compound word.
 * Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres proverb: "One person's misfortune is another's happiness". However, the equivalence here is inexact, as the proverb really means that only that one person would benefit from another's misfortune, not actually find pleasure in misfortune for its own sake. A better expression would be "Se réjouir du malheur d'autrui" ("To find joy in another's misfortune" i.e. To gloat) or "C'est bien fait pour lui" ("He got what he deserved") which is to be linked with joy in vengeance, possibly passive.
 * אין שמחה כשמחה לאיד: "There is no joy like malicious joy"
 * legszebb öröm a káröröm: "The most beautiful joy is the malicious joy."
 * Indonesian: "Sukur(in)!" or "Tahu rasa!" is said, expressing Schadenfreude.
 * Japanese, the phrase 他人の不幸は蜜の味, translates literally as "others' misfortunes are the taste of honey."
 * 고소하다 gosohada, literally translated means "to smell or taste sesame oil", (a pleasant after taste) because in Korea the smell of sesame oil is regarded as very pleasant, this phrase also is used when one is pleased about a particular event. It is especially used when one is pleased about an event involving the misfortune of people they considered to be evened with or unworthy of a pleasure or their status.
 * padan muka means "fits your face" but the more appropriate English translation is: "You got what you deserved";
 * skadefryd er den eneste sanne gleden "schadenfreude is the only true joy"
 * Portuguese: in Brazil, schadenfreude is usually descripted by expressions, slangs or informal explanations, as there is no specific word in Brazilian vocabulary for this feeling. Pimenta nos olhos dos outros é refresco and rir da desgraça alheia are the most used among Brazilians, meaning "pepper in another's eyes is refreshing" and "laugh at someone else's misfortunes", respectively.
 * să moară şi capra vecinului "let the neighbour's goat die as well"
 * škodoradosť je najväčšia radosť "schadenfreude is the greatest joy"
 * malsana alegría There is not a one word equivalent. There would be something as 'alegrarse por la desgracia ajena', but 'malsana alegría' is more frequent, translated as "sickly joy".
 * gozarla (Argentina) Literally "to enjoy someone". The meaning is made clear by the context. Also "placer morboso", literally "morbid pleasure".
 * skadeglädje är den enda sanna glädjen "schadenfreude is the only true joy"
 * สมน้ำหน้า som nam na, can be interpreted as: "You got what you deserved"; "Serves you right"; or "I'm laughing at your bad luck".

Similar terms in other languages
 * inat: (inat or inad, spite, ill will, resentment at others' fortune, pleasure from others' misfortune)
 * شماتة: shamaatah shamtan, taking pleasure in the misfortune of others)
 * злорадство: (зло, evil or harm, радост, joy)
 * (幸 enjoy[ing]; 災 [other's] calamity; 樂 be happy for/laugh at; 禍 [other's] misfortune/suffering)
 * zluradost: (zlo, evil, radost, joy)
 * škodolibost: (škoda, damage, harm, or loss, libost, pleasure)
 * skadefryd: skadefryd (skade, damage, injury or harm, fryd, glee)
 * leedvermaak: (leed, suffering or sorrow, and vermaak, entertainment)
 * malica ĝojo: (malica, wicked, and ĝojo, joy)
 * kahjurõõm: (kahju, damage or harm and rõõm, joy)
 * vahingonilo: (vahinko, accident or damage, ilo, joy)
 * שמחה לאיד:, joy, איד, misfortune, based on Proverbs 17:5) (simcha la'ed), also: " מתכבד בקלון חבירו " (see Mishneh Torah, the laws of Teshuvah chap. 4:4).
 * káröröm: (kár, loss or damage, öröm, joy)
 * piktdžiuga: (piktas angry, džiaugsmas joy)
 * сеир: (зло, evil or harm, радост, joy)
 * skadefryd: skadefryd (skade, damage, injury or harm, fryd, glee)
 * злорадство: (зло, evil or harm, радость, joy)
 * aighear millteach: (aighear, delight or joy, millteach, malicious or destructive)
 * злурадост/zluradost: (zlo, evil, radost, joy)
 * škodoradosť:(škoda, damage, harm, or loss, radosť, joy)
 * škodoželjnost: (škoda, damage, harm, or loss, želeti, to wish)
 * skadeglädje: (skada, damage, glädje, joy or happiness)
 * зловтіха: (зло, evil or harm, втіха, joy or happiness)
 * In french, I think you can use "mauvaise joie" but it's a very old term.
 * "There is not a one word equivalent". In Spanish there's a word like Schadenfreude, it's regodearse (verb) or regodeo (noun). --Dj 2012 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Photograph
At first I didn't understand the photograph and thought it was inappropriate for the article but it is really a good one. Fixentries (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So the photo, really? Seriously? I mean the big "Wikipedia is t3h ser1ous resource" mentality has kept it around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.75.3 (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture
What is the contribution of the current image to the understanding of the article subject? -- Fallacies (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Schadenfreude is a pleasurable emotion resulting from the misfortune of someone else. Most people experience it to some degree when the misfortune is seen as deserved. The villain who suffers a well-deserved downfall is an occasion of schadenfreude to most people. The point of the illustration is to provide a familiar example of the concept. betsythedevine (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The label of the picture fits the article, but the picture is a cartoon character while the caption refers to a play. Shouldn't one or the other be changed so that they match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.190.61 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture depicts a villain being pleased, while the caption refers to him being angry, sad, or resigned. The picture and its caption imply that the villain is a character, and we the readers are the audience. Therefore if we are to believe the caption, we should be happy about him being sad, but he's not sad. Because of this I think that the image and its caption contradict each other. J I P | Talk 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Shading of meaning in German vs. standard use in English
I'm no expert in German, so I'm not bold enough to edit this in here, but I'm told that Germans have a shading of the meaning of Schadenfreude that is missed by most English users of the term.

I've heard from several native German sources (some second hand) that this term is usually associated with the pleasure someone gets from seeing justice done to someone else, that their misfortune was earned. When I've heard this term used in the United States, it usually doesn't have this connotation, the misfortune might be earned or not. JordanHenderson (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The touchstone for whether or not to add material to the article is whether or not it can be cited from a "reliable" published source. I personally agree with you that "schadenfreude" in English is acquiring much broader usage, and hence a broader range of meanings, than it had a decade ago. If some linguistic researcher or dictionary says this in print, their conclusions could go into the article with an appropriate citation. betsythedevine (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC
 * If that is true, then it'd be a case where English doesn't have a translation. Before, I had thought it of a mild type of sadism, but this makes more sense. this article is a bit misleading...Jabberwock xeno (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I AM GERMAN so here is a description, first hand

Desription of the concept of Schadenfreude in german language, by a german.

Usage in German Language: The term "Schadenfreude" means the pleasure someone gets from seeing justice done to someone else, that their misfortune was earned.

For example: A man steals an apple from a tree of his neighbor, but the neighbor saw the theft from inside the house ,but unseen by the thief, now the thief bites in the sweet apple with delight, but there is a worm inside, that tastes awful, and he complains and goes away scorning, the neighbor feels "Schadenfreude", that the thief didn't get what he expected. Something like a punishment by the Goddess of Luck ("Tyche","Fortuna") for bad ,unruly or stupid behaviour, or in a more PUCK (Robin Goodfellow) goblin kind of way, that the lazy daughter in Mother Hulda (German fairy tale) gets reproved her idle nature by sending her home covered with pitch, (a german reader feels "Schadenfreude", about the reward of the lazy daughter from Mother Hulda.)

Second example: A man wants to eat a very hot potatoe, but his friend tells him not to do it, he will burn his mouth, the man laughs about the advice and puts the potatoe in his mouth, of course he burns his mouth and starts to make a lot of fuss, the friend feels "SchadenFREUDE" about the situation of his friend, because he told him before that his mouth would be burned, but the man didn't listen.

"Schadenfreude" is !!! NOT !!! about feeling delight in the misfortune of another being, in terms of the misfortune of a pauper dying of starvation, or making fun about the pains of a dying or wounded person.

"The touchstone for whether or not to add material to the article is whether or not it can be cited from a "reliable" published source." In my opinion that will be almost impossible, because the english speaking world and literature didn't grasp or understood the mental concept and thoughtstructure behind this term, in the first place, so the meaning of the word in germany is different than the meaning that the english gave this term.

Simply said: Schadenfreude in german, is a different word and concept than Schadenfreude in english,today. That happens, if you just translate the words in a different language, but not the right meaning associated with it. Words have always several meanings and connotations. An example is the english word "gay" and its change in meaning. The term gay was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637. The term's change in meaning as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, referring to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality. The term gay in a book of 1584 is not the same gay in a book of 1989. An author of 1590 did not write that Sir Francis Drake was homosexual,for example, when he visited London in 1584, he just had a merry good time with his friends :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.64.46 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.111.251 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that is wrong: The most common German dictionary defines "Schadenfreude" as the "evil pleasure derived of the misfortune of others". 134.96.30.134 (talk)

too bad you are dismissing the longer explanation as this is, in fact, the correct way in which the word is used in german. an brief look into the abbreviated duden does not do it justice. such superficial translations are possibly the reason 'schadenfreude' is rather misunderstood and, hence, misquoted.

in german, schadenfreude ‘occurs’ within a context - meaning that the person suffering the schadenfreude of others 'earned' this in some shape of form. this could be an adversary, a politician, a celebrity or any other known person perceived as arrogant, deceitful or simply obnoxious etc… in other words: if mother teresa had tripped and fallen during her lifetime, schadenfreude would not have been expressed.

the german wikipedia adds at least that: "Schadenfreude scheint eine dominante Rolle beim Erhalt von Gerechtigkeit und der Bestrafung von Normverstößen in menschlichen Gesellschaften zu spielen. In vielen Religionen und Wertesystemen wird sie jedoch geächtet." (schadenfreude seems to play a dominant role in the maintenance of justice and the punishment of norm violations in human societies. it is, however, unacceptable in many religions and value systems.)

unfortunately, the german wiktionary also just uses the abbreviated explanation but adds as an example: "Er sah mit Schadenfreude die Niederlage seiner Gegner." (he gleefully watched the defeat of his opponents.) thus adding a context to the 'glee'. --96.63.2.100 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the above, but i also would add: -Schadenfreude was indeed used in the broader sense feeling joy from others misfortune, Schopenhauer has been mentioned -nowadays, Schadenfreude, at least colloquial, is only used in very tame instances of slight misfortunes, when someone stumbles and catches himself, for example. 176.0.108.245 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Schadenfreude vs Gloating
What is the difference? Contextual examples would be helpful. DBWikis (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on their definitions, it would seem that gloating is by definition more intense, malicious, and overt than the usually inadvertent emotion expressed by schadenfreude. There some amusing examples of villainous gloating in this non-encyclopedia-quality source: betsythedevine (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't think the antonyms section is right or adds much. I added a citation request. If there is one, ok. Otherwise it sounds like someone's nice theory and we should remove it. clapre —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Why a weasel word
Why is the start of the article tagged as a Weasel word?. This German word is used as a loanword in English and some other languages, including Danish. I fail to see why it should be.--ThisSpace (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Glückschmerz
As German is my native language, I'm in doubt with this line of the article:

Alternatively, envy(or its German near-equivalent "Glückschmerz"), which is unhappiness in another's good fortune, could be considered the counterpart of schadenfreude.

The word "Glückschmerz" is neither common in German language, nor can it be found in popular dictionaries like classical Grimm's Wörterbuch at http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/DWB or German Wortschatz at http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/ To me it seems more like a rather naive composition intending to build a semantic antonym but failing to do so. Proper German terms for being unhappy in another's good fortune are Neid or Missgunst, the first one being a straight translation of English envy, the second meaning something like malevolence or jealousy. Asking the great Google, I can find only 440 occurences of "Glückschmerz", mostly in English language. Despite it may be "common" in English, it isn't in German and i strongly encourage to change it to "Missgunst". --89.186.128.99 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, Gluckschmerz is an English coinage. I've added information on it to the article. --Macrakis (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

lulz???
Lulz and Schadenfreude are (as near as I can determine) identical. Yet there's no mention of it so couldn't we reference the popularity of Schadenfreude in relation to interent culture.--Lookingthrough (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Schadenfreude describes a feeling of pleasure in somebody who observes someone else's trivial and/or deserved misfortune. People who set out to cause grief and pain to others, and then gather on the internet to express their delight in such achievements, are said to be seeking lulz. If you think these two things are identical, I disagree. If some reliable source says that schadenfreude can lead to sadistic behavior, or that schadenfreude is frequently seen on the internet, this article could certainly quote that source. I wonder if lulz should perhaps have its own article... betsythedevine (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 * They are still related ideas, taking pleasure in others misfortune or harm. 98.24.154.187 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

link to the Russian article in language section
Link to the Russian article in Language section is wrong - the Russian article has been deleted. --212.158.208.26 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

German Pronunciation
I see there is an English pronunciation of Schadenfreude, but not a German one. I could record it, but how would I upload it just as the English one is? IOA94 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful suggestion-- but material in Wikipedia must be based on published material, not on original contributions by our editors. betsythedevine (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a recording of the pronunciation would count as OriginalResearch (else where would all our audio files come from?!). See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Pronunciation task force for a guide, and ask at the talkpage there if you need assistance. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected -- Quiddity seems to know a lot more about this than I do. betsythedevine (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Calqued by scandinavian languages?
I am Norwegian with one Swedish and one Danish parent here, hence trilingual and the claim that the scandinavian words skadefryd and skadeglädje are calqued from Germans seems very weird to me, especially not the Swedish word "skadeglädje". Such a claim should be followed by a reference of some sort. The words have existed for centuries in the scandinavian litterature and language and I sincerely doubt it is a calcqued version of the german word "Schadenfreude". They don't even mean the same thing in fact. Schadenfreude refers to a more karma-like feeling where someone who have done you something wrong get exposed to something of a negative nature that could serve as a karma-like revenge. However in the scandinavian languages the words are referring to the more evil and "forbidden" feeling of experience joy for others mishaps, regardless of whether they deserved it or not. Consequently I find it highly unlikely that it's some sort of loan word, it's more likely just words that have been put together (extremely many words in scandinavian languages are in fact two words put together) as a result of a desire to name the forbidden feeling of feeling joy for others misfortunes totally unrelated to the german word, although resembling...

I propose the section claiming

"and has been calqued in Danish and Norwegian as skadefryd and Swedish as skadeglädje."

get removed as it both lack plausibility and reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.200.88 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good etymological dictionary in any of those languages could solve the question one way or the other of calquing. But since, as you say, no reference is given to support the claim as it stands, I will add a tag to solicit references. If no reference shows up, the claim should be removed. betsythedevine (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that it should be removed. There is no proof(or cite) that it's a word-for-word translation from deutsch, most germanic languages just work this way and doesn't the fact that it's a endocentric compound exclude the possibility that it's calqued? (or at least when both languages normaly use compound words as standard and not only in special cases like in english.)

I think that all calques I have seen have been exocentric compounds. Skadeglädje is a type of glädje, but for example pineapple is a calque because it's a exocentric compounds(it's not a type of apple and it doesn't have anything to do with pines).--83.189.147.216 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The entry for the word "skadefryd" in the Danish etymological dictionary claims that the Danish word is indeed created from the German, and that the earliest examples of it in Danish are from the 1790s. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 * You are onto something central here. I am sure Skadefryd have a longer use in Scandinavia, esp. Denmark/Norway and that the Germans picked it up during the Hansa period. 152.65.36.146 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Schadenfreude in pop culture
Possibly add section for references in popular culture Avenue Q has a song about it. Also, in season 3, episode 9 of Community (TV Series), there is a line that subtly alludes to schadenfreude.

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Scientific Studies' edit
Added two additional studies to the 'Scientific Studies' section of the article. Crystalan13 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT ON THE SECTION OF THE MAIN ARTICLE BELOW Little-used English words synonymous with schadenfreude have been derived from the Greek word, epichairekakia (ἐπιχαιρεκακία).[2][3] Nathan Bailey's 18th-century Universal Etymological English Dictionary, for example, contains an entry for epicharikaky that gives its etymology as a compound of ἐπί epi (upon), χαρά chara (joy), and κακόν kakon (evil).[4][5] A popular modern collection of rare words, however, gives its spelling as "epicaricacy".[6] MY COMMENT: Nathan Bailey's analysis is almost but not quite right. The Greek word is χαιρέκακος = a person enjoying on others misfortunes out of his own bad temper, without any shade of revenge. χαιρεκάκια, as an abstract noun is possible, i.e. technical derivation, but has been never used. The verb ἐπιχαίρω means 'I am enjoying on other people's good fortune or success'. That means that Nathan Bailey's would be better as chairekakia not epichairekakia. About epicharikaky; it is a bit mistaken; it shoukd be epicharekaky About epicaricacy. Rather mis-connected

COMMENT ON Calqued by scandinavian languages I am not able to comment whether the word 'calqued' is appropriate; it could be just the opposite direction. But Schadenfreude has nothing to do, in everyday use, with Karma and the like. It means just "evil pleasure derived of the misfortune of others" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonicosC (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Regarding the calqued thing, according to the Danish etymological dictionary the Danish word "skadefryd" is apparently derived from the German, since skadefryd in Danish didn't become a commonly used word until the 19th century. I suspect the same would apply to at least Norwegian but possibly also Swedish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily a wicked emotion
I believe that the tone of this article is too negative about the concept of Schadenfreude.

This is an emotion that we are all very familiar with that helps us cope with misfortune. When someone suffers a misfortune it is not uncommon for a friend to share a story that is similar in some way. For example, when a significant other leaves or is unfaithful it makes a person miserable and he may call his friends to be around him in order to help him cope. The friends will share stories about their own failed relationships that are often worse than what the unfortunate has experienced. In doing so the unfortunate person experiences a bond of shared understanding and is comforted.

Adam Smith talks of fellow-feeling being an intrinsically pleasurable thing for humans. Schadenfreude is a way to establish fellow-feeling with others. It lets the unfortunate know that he/she is not alone, and it could be worse.

Doubtlessly it can be a wicked thing when it is manifested as a form of sadism or even a form of passive revenge against one who has wronged you. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily a bad thing in all cases.

Unfortunately Adam Smith does not talk about Schadenfreude directly so I cannot add anything to the philosophy section about this concern. I just wanted to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Being4itself (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say thanks to who ever left this insight - it never occurred to me that yes - as given in the example of the pictures of the monks watching another monk suffer - they are sharing a common fellow-feeling and if for example this leads them to understand the other monk better especially if this leads them to compassion or to be able to understand how lucky they are because they are not in that situation themselves. Thats a powerful and complex reading that had never occurred to me before. Thank you! X-mass (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Spott, Hohn and Häme
The article says:

A distinction exists between "secret schadenfreude" (a private feeling) and "open schadenfreude" (Hohn, a German word roughly translated as "scorn") which is outright public derision.

But "Hohn" must not be confused with "Häme".

The mildest form of the three words is kind of "mockery" (Spott), if it comes to disrespect of another person, it's "scorn" (Hohn). And if one is adding Schadenfreude to that, it's called "rancorousness" or "malice" ("Häme").

Jackobli (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 * "Spott" is usually reserved for a witty remark bearing (justified) criticism, often identical to sarcasm.

"Hohn" is taking delight in the misfortune of others without regard to etiquette, just for the sake of amusement. "Häme" is a malicious expression of feelings, taking satisfaction in the mischief of another person, often rooted in a grudge. Schadenfreude can be attributed to all three terms, but "Spott" takes it joy from the zinger, "Hohn" from the actual event and "Häme" from the damage ensued by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.66.80 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Unspecified "Scientific studies"
The first paragraph of the "Scientific studies" section contains the sentence, "Other researchers have found that people with low self-esteem are more likely to feel schadenfreude than are people who have high self-esteem," attributed to an article in the New York Times. However, that article just says, "Research has shown that people with low self-esteem are more susceptible to schadenfreude than those whose self-regard is high," without identifying this supposed research by title or author. I believe this sentence should be removed or its reference updated to point to something more credible. Userboy87 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Expansion
The article was recently made much longer. The new version reads much more like an essay than a wikipedia article. I also think it could be much more concise. For example, the lead now reads:
 * ...pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. Borrowed from German into English and several other languages, it is a feeling of joy that comes from seeing or hearing about another person's troubles or failures. It is an expression of pleasure or self-satisfaction at another's failure.

Why do we need to say:
 * pleasure derived from the misfortune of others
 * a feeling of joy that comes from seeing or hearing about another person's troubles or failures.
 * It is an expression of pleasure or self-satisfaction at another's failure.

These seem very very similar. The wording is often prescriptive rather than descriptive: "...schadenfreude should be defined...". The wording is often unnecessarily vague and roundabout: "It was reasoned that if schadenfreude is an emotion that originates from inequity aversion then the termination of an unequal condition should trigger more positive reactions as compared to the termination of an equal event even if the two conditions involve equal gains." This paragraph and sentence starts with an unclear passive ("it was reasoned" — by whom? when?). This seems to be reporting a research report in too much detail. In general, the new version is very wordy and sometimes not even grammatical English. I am not sure if we should try to edit it, or revert to the previous version. --Macrakis (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your insights. It is for this very reason why I'd requested a peer review as well :) I see what you mean by the language used and I realize that it needs a good hard second look by the original author itself (i.e. me, who expanded it) and would appreciate if I'm given about a day (or two) to ensure the changes are done and the article has better adherence towards the literature of being deemed encyclopedic. TopCipher (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, that part of the lead, was there before the article was expanded 5x. Will try to change it to a more appropriate tone as possible. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I could, I have edited a few aspects and I'm constantly working on finding better ways to improve the same. In the meantime, I've also raised a request at WP:GOCER and hope to work with some editors who may assist with it. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I've had to remove pretty much all your recent additions to the article. The reason that the article didn't read like an encyclopedic article is now clear: huge amounts of text were plagiarized, verbatim, from academic articles. This is wrong for three reasons: because it is WP:Plagiarism; because it is drawing on individual academic articles which may or may not represent a consensus in the field; and because the style is wrong for Wikipedia. Copying large amounts of text verbatim is never right, even if the source is footnotes (as you did here), and not even if the copied material is put in quotation marks (which you did not do here).
 * Please review our policies on plagiarism before editing this article again. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semantic field and antonyms
As the current "Related words" section says, there are many words that could be considered "antonyms" for schadenfreude, in different directions: envy, compassion, mudita. I see no reason that any of them should be mentioned in the lead, any more than we mention antonyms of pride, peace, depression, etc., in their articles' leads.

It is also strange to combine, in the related words section, related concepts (which of course are expressed in words) and related words in other languages. I do think it would be useful to discuss the whole semantic field around related concepts, as discussed in, say, Richard Smith's Envy: Theory and Research or the papers in Schadenfreude: Understanding Pleasure at the Misfortune of Others.

Over-emphasizing the Buddhist concept of mudita also seems like POV-pushing. Interestingly, it isn't even mentioned in much of the literature about schadenfreude. --Macrakis (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What your saying has a point in that yes there are multiple antonyms of schadenfreude, but equally if the article was not called schadenfrede but about the idea of the "enjoyment of others suffering" One schadenfreude would be just one of many such words that are used. Two if such an article was created, the immediate response from the wikipedia community would be to combine it back into schadenfreude and delete the article. Why - because schadenfreude is a zeitgeist word, it popular and thus everything is seen in relation to it.

What I was trying to suggest was that antonyms of Schadenfreude - I have put something in to that effect. If that's still not acceptable can you explain why keeping this information from people is good or is it just an ironic sense of schadnefreude X-mass (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think I was POV pushing with Mudita but I can see how you would see that! Personally I use frubbly to describe the feeling I get when I see other people being happy

So I have made two changes. First an addition to the introduction to flag that synonyms and antonyms exist but I haven't listed any. Second I changed the sub-clause from the rather indistinct 'related words' to the more exact synonyms and antonyms and i the process flagging where people can find the range available.

Is this OK with you or can you suggest a better way to do this? X-mass (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. First of all, I really don't understand why it is useful to say "It has various synonyms and antonyms." in the lead of the article. That is true of many concepts, and so doesn't add any useful information. For example, "pride" could be said to have the synonym "hubris" and the antonyms "shame" or "modesty", but it's not useful to mention that in the lead. Remember, Wikipedia is about the concepts, not the words (see WP:NOTDICT). I have split the "Synonyms and antonyms" section into "Related concepts" (much more important than related words, which is what synonyms and antonyms are), and "In other languages". In general, Wikipedia frowns on sections which are simply a list of translations, and if it stays that way, it should probably be deleted. If there is something interesting we can say about the treatment in other languages, then we should, e.g., that some languages borrow the German word, some calque it, others have related proverbs but no word. --Macrakis (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

yes many other words have synonyms and antonyms but this is not an average word. What evidence we have from neuroscience suggests that what makes humans intelligent and more capable than other animals is our ability to hold complex emotional states. Being emotional is to be human. Thus words that describe and communicate emotional states are different, maybe not everyone but I believe most people need to understand what their feeling i.e. the synonyms that refer to related conceptions and the antonyms the opposite  feelings. Schadenfreude describes a powerful and difficult emotion, one that most of us have from time to time, some us bask in those feelings others feel shame. At its root I think of Wikipedia as hypertext encyclopedia that flags words and acts as a vector to help us understand both ourselves and the world we in habit. I think we can afford a few words at the end of the introduction to recognize the complexities

OK i now understand why you put in related concepts - that is better than antonyms and synonyms, but as i said antonyms and synonyms are useful flags or pointers to help distinguish if what we are feeling is schadenfreude or a similar emotion. However, you have a much better understanding of comparative languages of how meaning shifts depending on its culture and context than i have - so it might be i just don't understand. I certainly became far more aware of how uncertain language and meaning can be as a result of my studies in history, philosophy and especially in law. So I hope that my change made sense but I now understand why you did what you did. Best wishes for all the help X-mass (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter the Schadenfreude
German: "Wie man in den Wald hineinruft, so schallt es heraus" speaks "What goes around, comes around", but literal translation may be more like: "When you shout into the woods it echos back." From https://www.duolingo.com/comment/1296465/Wie-man-in-den-Wald-hineinruft-so-schallt-es-heraus Please also mind notions of poor (moral) character or a corrupt mind, motivated by evil or so! 82.164.42.11 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph of this article says that Schadenfreude is one of four related emotions, but not clarify what the other emotions are. Vorbee (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

should not this article rather belong into the wiktionary?
i mean schadenfreude is (a rather exotic sounding) loanword from german. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schadenfreude and as for a "real english" word for (more or less) the same meaning https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gloat#English covers pretty much what is there to be said about it. the wikipedia article doesnt seem to add anything substantial to what can be learned from the dictionary while at the same time the WP article seems to get lost in musings about whether there should be a distinction between "rightful" or "true" and "uncorrect" schadenfreude/(evil) gloating.

i think the lede needs the above two links added, otherwise a ridiculous notion arises that there arent any native english words to describe the notion of schadenfreude.89.134.199.32 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC).

In media
Arent Ridiculousness and Jackass just two examples of shows whose primary purpose is schadenfreude in their audiences?

Inconsistent dialect in this article
In the section Etymology, the word 'pluralised' is spelt with an S -- the British spelling.

In the section Psychological Causes, the word 'hypothesized' is spelt with a Z -- the American spelling.

This violates the Manual of Style at MOS:CONSISTENT. I suggest this article be rewritten, either in American or British English. Besenj (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian translation exists?
It says in the article that there is no translation. In Norwegian there is it seems? https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadefryd 84.215.53.155 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

English Word
Article states that the English word for schadenfreude is 'epicaricacy', however, Wiktionary itself says that its use has been scant, plus Nathaniel Bailey's dictionaries (the only dictionary source) seems incredibly outdated, as the reference list dates it back to 1737 and 1751. It is also not recognised in modern dictionaries afaik.

Plus, isn't schadenfreude also an English word despite it being borrowed?

New user and unsure if I should edit this, so just going to leave this here. Qlovic (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Schadenfreude


text:
Pythagorean comma

In musical tuning, the Pythagorean comma (or ditonic comma), named after the ancient mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, is the small interval (or comma) existing in Pythagorean tuning between two enharmonically equivalent notes such as C and B♯, or D♭ and C♯. It is equal to the frequency ratio $(1.5)^{12}/2^{7}$ = $531441/524288$ ≈ 1.01364, or about 23.46 cents, roughly a quarter of a semitone (in between 75:74 and 74:73 ). The comma that musical temperaments often "temper" is the Pythagorean comma.

The Pythagorean comma can be also defined as the difference between a Pythagorean apotome and a Pythagorean limma (i.e., between a chromatic and a diatonic semitone, as determined in Pythagorean tuning); the difference between 12 just perfect fifths and seven octaves; or the difference between three Pythagorean ditones and one octave (this is why the Pythagorean comma is also called a ditonic comma).

The diminished second, in Pythagorean tuning, is defined as the difference between limma and apotome. It coincides, therefore, with the opposite of a Pythagorean comma, and can be viewed as a descending Pythagorean comma (e.g. from C♯ to D♭), equal to about −23.46 cents.

Derivation
As described in the introduction, the Pythagorean comma may be derived in multiple ways:

 * Difference between two enharmonically equivalent notes in a Pythagorean scale, such as C and B♯, or D♭ and C♯ (see below).
 * Difference between Pythagorean apotome and Pythagorean limma.
 * Difference between 12 just perfect fifths and seven octaves.
 * Difference between three Pythagorean ditones (major thirds) and one octave.

A just perfect fifth has a frequency ratio of 3:2. It is used in Pythagorean tuning, together with the octave, as a yardstick to define, with respect to a given initial note, the frequency of any other note.

Apotome and limma are the two kinds of semitones defined in Pythagorean tuning. Namely, the apotome (about 113.69 cents, e.g. from C to C♯) is the chromatic semitone, or augmented unison (A1), while the limma (about 90.23 cents, e.g. from C to D♭) is the diatonic semitone, or minor second (m2).

A ditone (or major third) is an interval formed by two major tones. In Pythagorean tuning, a major tone has a size of about 203.9 cents (frequency ratio 9:8), thus a Pythagorean ditone is about 407.8 cents.

Size
The size of a Pythagorean comma, measured in cents, is
 * $$\hbox{apotome} - \hbox{limma} \approx 113.69 - 90.23 \approx 23.46 ~\hbox{cents} \!$$

or more exactly, in terms of frequency ratios:
 * $$\frac{\hbox{apotome}}{\hbox{limma}}

=\frac{3^7/2^{11}}{2^8/3^5} = \frac{3^{12}}{2^{19}} = \frac{531441}{524288} = 1.0136432647705078125 \!$$

Circle of fifths and enharmonic change
The Pythagorean comma can also be thought of as the discrepancy between 12 justly tuned perfect fifths (ratio 3:2) and seven octaves (ratio 2:1):

 * $$\frac{\hbox{twelve fifths}}{\hbox{seven octaves}}

=\left(\tfrac32\right)^{12} \!\!\Big/\, 2^{7} = \frac{3^{12}}{2^{19}} = \frac{531441}{524288} = 1.0136432647705078125 \!$$

In the following table of musical scales in the circle of fifths, the Pythagorean comma is visible as the small interval between, e.g., F♯ and G♭. Going around the circle of fifths with just intervals results in a comma pump by the Pythagorean comma.

The 6♭ and the 6♯ scales are not identical—even though they are on the piano keyboard—but the ♭ scales are one Pythagorean comma lower. Disregarding this difference leads to enharmonic change.

This interval has serious implications for the various tuning schemes of the chromatic scale, because in Western music, 12 perfect fifths and seven octaves are treated as the same interval. Equal temperament, today the most common tuning system in the West, reconciled this by flattening each fifth by a twelfth of a Pythagorean comma (approximately 2 cents), thus producing perfect octaves.

Another way to express this is that the just fifth has a frequency ratio (compared to the tonic) of 3:2 or 1.5 to 1, whereas the seventh semitone (based on 12 equal logarithmic divisions of an octave) is the seventh power of the twelfth root of two or 1.4983... to 1, which is not quite the same (a difference of about 0.1%). Take the just fifth to the 12th power, then subtract seven octaves, and you get the Pythagorean comma (about a 1.4% difference).

History
The first to mention the comma's proportion of 531441:524288 was Euclid, who takes as a basis the whole tone of Pythagorean tuning with the ratio of 9:8, the octave with the ratio of 2:1, and a number A = 262144. He concludes that raising this number by six whole tones yields a value, G, that is larger than that yielded by raising it by an octave (two times A). He gives G to be 531441. The necessary calculations read:

Calculation of G:
 * $$262144 \cdot \left(\textstyle{\frac 9 8}\right)^6 = 531441$$

Calculation of the double of A:
 * $$262144 \cdot \left(\textstyle{\frac 2 1}\right)^1 = 524288$$

Chinese mathematicians were aware of the Pythagorean comma as early as 122 BC (its calculation is detailed in the Huainanzi), and circa 50 BC, Ching Fang discovered that if the cycle of perfect fifths were continued beyond 12 all the way to 53, the difference between this 53rd pitch and the starting pitch would be much smaller than the Pythagorean comma. This much smaller interval was later named Mercator's comma (see: history of 53 equal temperament).

In George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization (1953), the half step between the Lydian Tonic and ♭2 in his Altered Major and Minor Auxiliary Diminished Blues scales is theoretically based on the Pythagorean comma.

title: Pythagorean comma


text:
Magic and religion

Belief in magic exists in all societies, regardless of whether they have organized religious hierarchy including formal clergy or more informal systems. While such concepts appear more frequently in cultures based in polytheism, animism, or shamanism. Religion and magic became conceptually separated in the West where the distinction arose between supernatural events sanctioned by approved religious doctrine versus magic rooted in other religious sources. With the rise of Christianity this became characterised with the contrast between divine miracles versus folk religion, superstition, or occult speculation.

Distinction
Early sociological interpretations of magic by Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert emphasized the social conditions in which the phenomenon of magic develops. According to them, religion is the expression of a social structure and serves to maintain the cohesion of a community (religion is therefore public) and magic is an individualistic action (and therefore private).

Ralph Merrifield, the British archaeologist credited as producing the first full-length volume dedicated to a material approach to magic, defined the differences between religion and magic: "'Religion' is used to indicate the belief in supernatural or spiritual beings; 'magic', the use of practices intended to bring occult forces under control and so to influence events; 'ritual', prescribed or customary behaviour that may be religious, if it is intended to placate or win favour of supernatural beings, magical if it is intended to operate through impersonal forces of sympathy or by controlling supernatural beings, or social if its purpose is to reinforce a social organisation or facilitate social intercourse".

In 1991 Henk Versnel argued that magic and religion function in different ways and that these can be broadly defined in four areas: Intention – magic is employed to achieve clear and immediate goals for an individual, whereas religion is less purpose-motivated and has its sights set on longer-term goals; Attitude – magic is manipulative as the process is in the hands of the user, "instrumental coercive manipulation", opposed to the religious attitude of "personal and supplicative negotiation"; Action – magic is a technical exercise that often requires professional skills to fulfil an action, whereas religion is not dependent upon these factors but the will and sentiment of the gods; Social – the goals of magic run counter to the interests of a society (in that personal gain for an individual gives them an unfair advantage over peers), whereas religion has more benevolent and positive social functions.

Connection
This separation of the terms 'religion' and 'magic' in a functional sense is disputed. It has been argued that abandoning the term magic in favour of discussing "belief in spiritual beings" will help to create a more meaningful understanding of all associated ritual practices. However using the word 'magic' alongside 'religion' is one method of trying to understand the supernatural world, even if some other term can eventually take its place.

It is a postulate of modern anthropology, at least since early 1930s, that there is complete continuity between magic and religion.

Robert Ranulph Marett (1932) said:

"Many leading anthropologists, including the author of The Golden Bough, would wholly or in the main refuse the title of religion to these almost inarticulate ceremonies of very humble folk. I am afraid, however, that I cannot follow them. [...] They are mysteries, and are therefore at least generically akin to religion. Moreover, they are held in the highest public esteem as of infinite worth whether in themselves or for their effects. To label them, then, with the opprobrious name of magic as if they were on a par with the mummeries that enable certain knaves to batten on the nerves of fools is quite unscientific; for it mixes up two things which the student of human culture must keep rigidly apart, namely, a normal development of the social life and one of its morbid by-products. Hence for me they belong to religion, but of course to rudimentary religion—to an early phase of the same world-wide institution that we know by that name among ourselves. I am bound to postulate the strictest continuity between these stages of what I have here undertaken to interpret as a natural growth."

Ernst Cassirer (1944) wrote:

"It seems to be one of the postulates of modern anthropology that there is complete continuity between magic and religion. [note 35: See, for instance, RR Marett, Faith, Hope, and Charity in Primitive Religion, the Gifford Lectures (Macmillan, 1932), Lecture II, pp. 21 ff.] ... We have no empirical evidence at all that there ever was an age of magic that has been followed and superseded by an age of religion."

In ancient Egypt, the religion held that the gods' actions maintained maat and created and sustained all living things. They did this work using a force the Egyptians called heka, a term usually translated as "magic". Heka was a fundamental power that the creator god used to form the world and the gods themselves. Magic (personified as the god heka) was an integral part of religion and culture which is known to us through a substantial corpus of texts which are products of the Egyptian tradition. While the category magic has been contentious for modern Egyptology, there is clear support for its applicability from ancient terminology. The Coptic term hik is the descendant of the pharaonic term heka, which, unlike its Coptic counterpart, had no connotation of impiety or illegality, and is attested from the Old Kingdom through to the Roman era. Heka was considered morally neutral and was applied to the practices and beliefs of both foreigners and Egyptians alike. The Instructions for Merikare informs us that heka was a beneficence gifted by the creator to humanity "... in order to be weapons to ward off the blow of events". Magic was practiced by both the literate priestly hierarchy and by illiterate farmers and herdsmen, and the principle of heka underlay all ritual activity, both in the temples and in private settings.

The English word magic has its origins in ancient Greece. During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, the Persian maguš was Graecicized and introduced into the ancient Greek language as μάγος and μαγεία. In doing so it transformed meaning, gaining negative connotations, with the magos being regarded as a charlatan whose ritual practices were fraudulent, strange, unconventional, and dangerous. As noted by Davies, for the ancient Greeks—and subsequently for the ancient Romans—"magic was not distinct from religion but rather an unwelcome, improper expression of it—the religion of the other". The historian Richard Gordon suggested that for the ancient Greeks, being accused of practicing magic was "a form of insult". Pliny the Elder seems to acknowledge that Magi are priests of a foreign religion, along the lines of the druids of the Celts in Britain and Gaul.

Connotations of magic have varied from positive to negative at times throughout history, Within Western culture, magic has been linked to ideas of the Other, foreignness, and primitivism; indicating that it is "a powerful marker of cultural difference" and likewise, a non-modern phenomenon. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Western intellectuals perceived the practice of magic to be a sign of a primitive mentality and also commonly attributed it to marginalised groups of people.

Intersections
Even in places and times where magic and religion are considered distinct, separate concepts there have been numerous historical intersections where aspects from one would be syncretized with or borrowed from the other.

Rituals
Both magic and religion contain rituals. Most cultures have or have had in their past some form of magical tradition that recognizes a shamanistic interconnectedness of spirit. This may have been long ago, as a folk tradition that died out with the establishment of a major world religion, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, or it may still co-exist with that world religion. Coptic Christians were writing magical spells from the 1st to 12th centuries.

Names of the gods as true names
There is a long-standing belief in the power of true names, this often descends from the magical belief that knowing a being's true name grants power over it.

If names have power, then knowing the name of a god regarded as supreme in a religion should grant the greatest power of all. This belief is reflected in traditional Wicca, where the names of the Goddess and the Horned God – the two supreme deities in Wicca – are usually held as a secret to be revealed only to initiates. This belief is also reflected in ancient Judaism, which used the Tetragrammaton (YHWH, usually translated as " Lord " in small caps) to refer to God in the Tanakh. The same belief is seen in Hinduism, but with different conclusions; rather, attaining transcendence and the power of God is seen as a good thing. Thus, some Hindus chant the name of their favorite deities as often as possible, the most common being Krishna.

Magic and Abrahamic religions
Magic and Abrahamic religions have had a somewhat checkered past. The King James Version of the Bible included the famous translation "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18), and Saul is rebuked by God for seeking advice from a diviner who could contact spirits. On the other hand, seemingly magical signs are documented in the Bible: For example, both the staff of Pharaoh's sorcerers as well as the staff of Moses and Aaron could be turned into snakes (Exodus 7:8-13). However, as Scott Noegel points out, the critical difference between the magic of Pharaoh's magicians and the non-magic of Moses is in the means by which the staff becomes a snake. For the Pharaoh's magicians, they employed "their secret arts" whereas Moses merely throws down his staff to turn it into a snake. To an ancient Egyptian, the startling difference would have been that Moses neither employed secret arts nor magical words. In the Torah, Noegel points out that YHWH does not need magical rituals to act.

The words 'witch' and 'witchcraft' appear in some English versions of the Bible. Exodus 22:18 in the King James Version reads: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." The precise meaning of the Hebrew word mechshepha (root kashaph) here translated as 'witch' and in some other modern versions, 'sorceress', is uncertain. In the Septuagint it was translated as pharmakeia, meaning 'pharmacy', and on this basis, Reginald Scot claimed in the 16th century that 'witch' was an incorrect translation and poisoners were intended.

title: Magic and religion