Talk:Böhmermann affair

Tone of ‘General misunderstanding’ section
I do not believe that the General misunderstanding section as it is currently presented is in an unbiased and encyclopaedic tone. My edit to this effect was reverted, so I post this here for comment. The section currently presents only one perspective, and implicitly attacks without reservation the press and Angela Merkel for failing to agree with the intended interpretation. Furthermore, I do not believe that the tone of the section - with phrases such as 'Apparently', 'juicy phrases', 'things that everybody knows are ridiculous', and the like - fits with the factual tone of Wikipedia.


 * I came here from the German article and immediately had the same thought. The section reads like someone was trying to justify the poems' contents. Not that I'm opposed to the current idea of the section, but I don't think it is the Wikipedia that should be commenting/interpreting Böhmermanns poem. I've added a Neutrality dispute box. RumpelSchwabbel (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed it. It's totally partisan! For which side, I don't know; it sounds like it's trying to trivialize the whole thing and sweep it under the rug. It has a finger wagging tone, like some fussy person who doesn't get the conflict but is embarrassed at the scandal. Let's stick to the facts in Wikipedia. We can all generate philosophy by ourselves, good or bad. 67.170.236.50 (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't speculate that far TBH, but I also can't say I'm too fussed about the section being gone. RumpelSchwabbel (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a source. Rewrite it using this or other sources, but don't remove it. The general content about satire is factually correct, only the tone may be not appropiate.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Intention of Böhmermann
[...] Böhmermann announced he would try to figure out what is the line between legitimate criticism [...], and "abusive criticism" As far as I understood, he announced to "illustrate" or "clarify" the difference between the two. He said multiple times before, during and after reciting his poem that this would not be covered by freedom of speech and that it would be illegal even in Germany. Trying to figure out the difference may have been his actual intention, but that was not what he announced in his show. Please read the full context at (page is in German only). --91.17.252.192 (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

First court ruling is in
--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/erdogan-poem-court-bans-german-comedian-jan-boehmermann-from-repeating-sexual-verses-a7035896.html
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36317006
 * http://www.dw.com/en/court-grants-erdogan-injunction-against-comedian-jan-böhmermann/a-19264350

The poem (and translation)
Sources:, The Dirty German Ditty That Got Erdogan So Angry That He Sued Dirty ditty about Turkey’s leader creates diplomatic row [http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/3470030204 Does Anyone Speak Germanglish? I Need Help With A Poem About Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan]

''This translation avoids rearranging words. Although awkward in English, subject-object-verb order ("I water drank") is natural in German grammar and commonly used for emphassis.''

71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason that this isn't included in the body of the entry? It's already very verbose and adding this would improve the article. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, I just left this here for comments and never got any, so it fell off my radar. Thanks for noticing it!  I'm not thrilled with the multiple links and annotations on "Recep Fritzl Priklopil".  Any suggestions?  And should translation notes be on the English or German side?  71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the annotations are distracting. But they're informative, too. I think the links could go somewhere in the body of the text where the poem's meaning is discussed. Translation notes should probably go on the English side, but I've never seen this done on Wikipedia before, so not sure what is protocol. But good of you for putting this together, even if it never gets out of talk. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Yes I think the annotations are distracting." Could you expand on that? Which ones should be moved to the text, and which ones deleted entirely?  E.g. I could move the Fritzl and Priklopil links to the text, and move the hover text to the English side. Or do you think something should be outright deleted? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well when I read it, I'm confused if I should click on the link or just pay attention to the translation. One way to do it, rather than links, is to make footnotes, or annotations. They're different from references but appear similarly in the text. I've seen that done on some entries that have additional explanation but don't want to disrupt the text. Yes, as you point out, another alternative is moving explanation of the references to the body of the entry, but one might argue that its not significant enough for placement there, but I'd disagree. I won't object to however you do it. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Name of co-host is Ralf Kabelka
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Kabelka

"Better English" translation
made a change that I disagree with, which has the description "better English". Oxenflesh seems not to be a native English speaker, neither am I, maybe a native English speaker can chime in. My disagreements are that I think it is all right to use "Kurds" without article (like Christians, which Oxenflesh did add an article to). Also "the man who beats girls" is the actual literal translation. AFAIK, it is also permissible in English to use a "the", simply making it sound like a superlative. I don't see how English is different from German in this regard. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Boris Johnson's poem
Of course, Boris Johnson also famously made up an offensive poem about Erdoğan in response to the Böhmermann injunction. JezGrove (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I've just seen that the article already has a sentence mentioning this. I guess Johnson's effort eventually paid for a roll of Downing Street wallpaper...! JezGrove (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Böhmermann sentenced to pay Erdogan's litigation costs and not to repeat the poem in public
This may be an afterthought, but this January, 2022, Erdogan's *CIVIL* suit, instigated after his criminal suit against Böhmermann had been unsuccessfull, has now succeeded and Böhmermann was sentened to pay 80% of Erdogan's legal costs in the affair, and while the criminal case on whether he had insulted a foreign head of government had been dropped, he is legally barred from repeating the poem in public.

The difference is basically that the original criminal suit dealt with Erdogan's rights as a foreign head of state, while the civil suit dealt with Erdogan's rights as a private citizen. Now, in Janaury, 2022, the German Federal Constitutional Court has affirmed the former ruling of the Appellation Court of Hamburg, dating February, 2017, that Germans may poke fun at foreign heads of state, but not at private citizens, thus fining Böhmermann and barring him from ever repeating parts of the poem in public, imposing an infringement fine of up to 250,000 Euros if he does not desist. Source:, original FCC decision: --2003:EF:1702:2733:A819:A366:774B:D375 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)