Talk:German humour

message: I think this article needs to be expanded, how do you add that tag again?
88.196.9.53 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too short

message: It could be included that Schramm, Pispers, Rether are all part of the extreme left. The left parties control the public media and have set up this kind of "fake socialist opposition" in order to ensure their own political hegemony.
It is hard to explain, but should be added, since it is one of the reasons, why many Germans are still obsessed with communist or environmental movements  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.53.209 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah right, all Germans are communists. So much for neutrality! --89.204.139.238 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Extreme Left in Germany has little to do with propaganda and supposed media bias and comedians like Pispers and Rether. The extreme left parties and groups in Germany are actually not something you fear in public media, it's people who have controlled an entire German state by force for decades. And they had other ways to make you laugh than Kabarett in the political-correct state-owned channels. -- 92.231.45.160 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  socialism, public tv 

message: Why is the Guardian article referenced four times in the beginning? Lee Stewart might be a comedian, but he lacks any objective credibility to be referenced. The article is a subjective reflection on his visit to Germany, during the localization process of one of his shows.
In which context does this qualify him to... anything?
it is a widespread stereotype outside the country that Germans have little understanding (or a distorted understanding) of humorous situations
This statement is certainly true, but more or better sources are needed.
English-language jokes do not translate well because German grammar is less flexible.
He is neither a linguist nor a native speaker. How many years has he spent in Germany?
He even admits that his humour is driven heavily by language/word play. Translating word play from language x to language y is difficult? Thats news? There are many many books on this topic.
It does not always allow for a sentence to be reordered so as to delay the punchline, one of the most common joke formats for English speakers.
Same as before. Additionally:
- "one of the most common joke format" (vague, without source)
- "does not _always_" (vague, highly generic as in "People do not always like Star Wars"... this has no information gain at all.)
New entities are named by creating compounds, sometimes resulting in extremely long words.
Again: Lee Stewart is not a linguist. Why reference him? Referencing him is just his POV and thus as good as yours and mine.
This means that fewer words have multiple meanings, so there are fewer opportunities to create puns.
This is just him being ignorant. (and thats why it is important to check the sources for credibility!)
Just two examples out of my head:
'Schicht' can be translated as: shift, layer, coating, tier, seam, deposit, lamination, social class, ...
'Läufer' has 24 meanings: armature, rug, runner, bishop, carpet, halfback, ..., ..., ... (try it out: 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4ufer )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.78.76 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would even go so far as to completely delete the paragraph "language" and rework it from scratch. Stewart Lee's half-baked theories about language and humour in Germany lack every linguistic evidence whatsoever, yet have become almost viral in internet discussions about German humour. There are all too many discussions on the internet that unreflectedly reference Lee's article. As this alone gives the article some significance, I added Liebermans criticism on Lee but did not dare deleting the whole paragraph. But taking into consideration that Lee's article is that of a lingusitic layman and was heavily criticized the day after its publication already, it has no place in a serious discussion of the role of language in German humour. The man is a comedian who very briefly got a glimpse at the German language and that glimpse he got from the biased point of view of a native speaker of another language who doesn't even speak ANY German at all. Of course he doesn't know an awfull lot about the possibilities that German offers to its more eloquent speakers and therefore he just isn't a reliable source of information.
--79.232.80.153 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: This paragraph is just wrong, it doesn't carry a single piece of meaningful information. I recently came across a discussion about German humor too and that paragraph was one of the first arguments risen. Which is funny, as a little while ago the argument would have been the exact opposite - German humor being too reliant on wordplays as to anyone not speaking the language could possibly comprehend the puns. I personally believe the latter is true, then again, I don't have any sources to back that up. Neither does Lee Steward though, it's his personal opinion. The Guardian article only talks about how English humor translates into German, quote "The peculiarities of German sentence construction simply rule out the lazy set-ups that British comics rely on ...". Well duh! And I've seen German comedians translating their programs into English, some of which *very* heavily relied on wordplays, like Christian Kokols "Beim Bäcker". Almost all puns got lost in translation, it's a universal problem. The gems of German humor are based on wordplays though, leading in part to the impression of a lack of humor in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.252.249 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Guardian Article/Lee Stewart?

message: Wikipedia is missing an  tag for "articles" like this one. --87.79.176.62 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmitigated disaster 

message: It's funny how the Germans don't seem to care too much about their humour so far. ;) Let's create the article  :de:Deutscher Humor! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article [[:de:Deutscher Humor]] 

message: This article seems to have an awful lot which is not verifiable to sources but is merely things that people have added themselves. --John (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly true, as is shown by the fact that most of the “references” given are to primary sources. IMHO the article itself is a joke and needs a complete re-write. LiliCharlie (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Are you up for it? --John (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don’t have the time to bury myself in German humor studies. LiliCharlie (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Why are Otto Waalkes and Heinz Erhardt not mentioned in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.93.248 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otto / Heinz Erhardt 

message: This section provides absolutely no references for its claims. There is a Wikipedia page on Schadenfreude, which neither describes it as a type of humour, nor as typically German (the page lists synonyms in various languages, the only link to the German language being that the most commonly used English term is a German loanword). The author's claim that is a particularly German form of humour is rather dubious, as are his or her claims that this stems from Germany's history of Nazism.
Another major point of contention is the example of a "Schadennfreude joke" (whatever that may mean) given in that section: "enters through door, exits through chimney". This "joke" would likely be classed as hatespeech by mainstream German society, as well as the legal system. Providing this as a typical example of a German joke, without providing any further context, is just wrong on multiple levels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B07D:7E00:E0E3:4AEE:DD65:4378 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. While the whole article shows a certain lack of quality, that particular section was outright wrong and cringeworthy. I'm not even sure whether Schadenfreude deserves an extra section as being a characteristic kind of German humor. 2001:16B8:489B:8A00:3811:64EC:4875:25A (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Schadenfreude" section