Talk:Shanghai Fugu Agreement

Need a media source

The only quoted source for this is from the Green group themselves, and the only additional sources I can find with Google appear to be a few personal blogs, not counting Wikipedia and its mirrors. This applies in both English and German -- although I don't really speak German so am willing to be corrected on this. In the absence of better sources, all we really have is a single article from the Green group (which I can't read, but I suppose it makes the same claims given here), but no independent corroboration. Please can someone provide a media source. If no response then sorry but I'll take this article to AfD. Thanks. Arbitrary username 11:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have added a note on the talk page of the German version of this article, inviting people on de: to add sources here if they know of them. Arbitrary username 11:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in this obituary for Holger Börner from August 3rd, too ("Im schließlich beschlossenen Vertrag verpflichtete sich die Koalition, am internationalen Kugelfischabkommen festzuhalten. Ein Abkommen, das sich die Grünen - damals noch eher spontihaft veranlagt - ausgedacht hatten und das es in Wahrheit nie gab. Unterschrieben wurde der Koalitionsvertrag dennoch, weil die SPD nicht merkte, was ihnen der Partner da untergeschoben hatte.")

As the "Gießener Anzeiger" is a respected local newspaper and the author Christoph Discher seems to be a journalist accredited with the Landtag of Hesse [1], I think he didn't just rely blindly on Wikipedia or the article in the magazine of the Green parliament group.

Also, it should be noted that the story is decribed in a second publication available on the same web site of the Green parliament group, with a named author:

Priska Hinz: 1983 - 1987 – Erste Verhandlungen zur Regierungsbildung durch Tolerierung

("Im GRÜNEN Druckwerk der Vereinbarungen haben wir in der Bleiwüste auch die Übereinkunft zum „Shanghaier Kugelfischabkommen“ erfunden und aufgenommen, was niemandem sonderlich auffiel und noch heute zur Erheiterung führt.")

Priska Hinz, who is saying here that she was one of the people responsible for the hoax, was a Green Landtag member back then, afterwards briefly a minister and today is a member of the Bundestag.

regards, High on a tree 12:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the translation of the German article to en:wiki. To the best of my knowledge the quoted source is a genuine online newsletter by the Green parliamentary group. As for other real media sources there is the obvious preoblem that the whole thing was news some 20 years ago when Internet played no role (at least in Germany). Nowadays it is just nostalgia so who would want to remember it outside the Hesse Greens as such pranks were quite common then and everybody in Germany knows thet Fischer was a "Sponti" and had a wild youth. I thought about his Students in the US where he is going to lecture now for a while and who might love some background about their new prof. --Kipala 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments. I guess from your description that the Giessener Anzeiger quotation will be what we need. But because my own understanding of German is so limited -- I can't read the bit you quoted -- I won't update the article myself. So I would be grateful if someone who understands German could please add the source to the article with a little explanatory note in English of what the source is. Thanks. Arbitrary username 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the joke?

Many obvious jokes referred to on Wikipedia are horribly over-explained, but this one I don't get at all. boffy_b 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a cultural problem (its about something German) - or what else?? wikipedia is a bold endeavour trying to bridge abysses of global differences. Existence means suffering. --Kipala 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the jokes is the WP-EN classification as "low importance Germany articles". So why should anybody (german) contribute either in the EN article or in this discussion when another (better) joke could be that Texas (for example) is a country of approved lack in civilization (proved by the huge number of death penalties)? So better the "green" german politicians insert jokes like a coalition contract paper for a written support for the famous nonexisting "Shanghai Kugelfisch Abkommen" than supporting countries with proven lacks in civilization. IMHO. Regards 77.11.227.57 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW an "over explanation". The "green" politicians insertet the written support to the nonexisting "Shanghai Kugelfisch Abkommen" as a joke to put shame on their "red" coalition partners for the "freeness of fun and jokes", and because the partners took themselves as very very important and were unable to feel pleasure to work together in the future. "Spassguerilla" means to insert a joke or some fun on anybody else´s "accounts" but don´t really harm them. A joke with a smiley. ;-) The "reds" were not the tough and strong politicians, as they did not know that this "Shanghai Kugelfisch Abkommen" never had existed (nut they underwrote that passus..), so that a written support did not make any other sense than to put shame on persons without fun. Like here, to read the shame on Texas politicians and ugly gouvernement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.227.57 (talk) 15:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Now I get the impression that you guys are attempting to explain this cultural joke with another cultural joke about death penalties? Basically, what the OP (and myself) want to know is, what is funny/prankish about a law that addresses employment regulations? I understand there is a cultural difference in humor here, but could someone at least explain what the Germans think is funny? For example, in the US, this would have been a prank if the law mandated something ridiculous like granting reparations to wrongly imprisoned fish. From the article, it doesn't seem like the law itself contained anything that might be considered absurd -- indeed, it seems to address a reasonable, if not terribly important, labor issue. So the assumption is that there must be something "about" the law that makes it funny, which anyone who is not German doesn't seem to understand. Please explain what that is. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The law grants chefs who prepare fugu special greencards ... the joke is that it's illegal to serve fugu in Germany.

It is correct that Fugu is presently not allowed as food or to be imported in Germany. But this was not the joke because I just learned it from the previous post (and checked it!). I have no idea if it was already illegal back in 1985. The joke is (at least obviously by German Standards -DIN 0815-) to make someone solemnly agree to something which does not exist. Imagine you get G.W. Bush to declare publicly that the US will always stand by Prussia or Atlantis. Or threaten them (i.e. Prussia or Atlantis) with reprisal if they don`t stop supporting Osama. Whatsoever. I would laugh about that. You wouldn't??? --Kipala (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: As a Northern German I find it additionally funny that the fictional agreement was labeled "Shanghai". Besides Shanghai being in China (and I never heard about fugu in China) Shanghai used to be proverbial for "hijacking" at the coast. The verb "schanghaien" meant the practice to make a sailor drunk in a bar, carry him to your ship if you are in need of some additional labour and let him wake up outside the harbour so that he has no choice but to work for his new boss. In that sense the Greens "shanghaied" the Reds. But I am doubtful if anybody from Hessen (which is in western-central Germany far away from the shore) would get the point so I rather keep this for my private enjoyment. --Kipala (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai_(verb), http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schanghaien Elvis (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another Shanghai link

Deletion request

I object to the deletion request placed on the page at 2008-10-24 13:31; if there are still few links it points rather to weaknesses of the English wikipedia concerning the articles on Joschka Fischer, Green Party etc which so far do not show the role of "Spontis" i.e. the anarchistic trend which was so important in the German Green movement for considerable time and for which this lemma is a fine example. Without explanation nobody would understand a mentioning of the fugu agreement; eyplanation would unduly blow up the concerned articled. --Kipala (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]