While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
I'm inclined to put a prod template on this article for deletion, since it appears to be original research and has no references to back it up. I'll give the author a few days to add some references before doing so. Hatch6822:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this one. It isn't original research at all. I'm only using published sources. Anywhere you want to see a citation, you can help me by requesting one.Qabala18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this article needs to be expanded. It only covers stand-up comedy. There are other media where jokes are stolen. Any help would be appreciated. Tony Reed23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Mad 0905.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Some of this isn't joke theivery but just parallel thinking, like if i think of a joke, there is aboslutly no reason that one out of the other 6+billion people in the world hasn't thought about it already, or will in the future. Especially when its observational humour.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain exaggerations that Eddie Murphy was the first to use. You do realize that most impressions are caricatures, right? Tony Reed (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of both articles Hack (comedy) and Joke thievery is either duplicate or closely parallel content. There doesn't seem to be a clear basis for two separate articles. Please discuss at Talk:Hack (comedy)#Merge discussion. 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I've been pushing for that for about a year now. Many people here insist on keeping the two separate. I was the original author of the Joke-Thievery article and the majority of the historical and sourced data in the Hacking artyicle. I, personally think they should be merged because joke-thievery falls completely under the definition of hacking in the Hacking article.Tony Reed (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which has a video linked where a famous italian comedian has been found to copy hundreds of the most famous jokes by all famous english and american comedians (hicks, carlin, izzard, etc etc) which may be good material for this article.
I have removed material from Talk:Joke_thievery#you_may_be_interested that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
The 2000s and 2010s section contains poor grammar and formatting issues. In particular, content is merged or split across paragraphs multiple times throughout this section. Manic0892 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Joke theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified one external link on Joke theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Joke theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I'm writing from Italy to help you understand what happened in 2010, when Mr. Luttazzi (who is one of the top satirist in Italy) was the target of a smear campaign. In 2010, just two months after one of his monologues was aired in which Mr. Luttazzi bashed both Mr. Berlusconi right wing politics and the inept political opposition by the left wing party (PD), someone put a video online with jokes by Luttazzi to prove his alleged "joke thieving", without telling that those jokes were part of a citational game done by Luttazzi for his fans, a game that was openly described by Luttazzi himself in his blog since 2003. Those citations were also a legal trick by Luttazzi to defend himself in defamation trials: he called it "the "Lenny Bruce trick", because Lenny Bruce hid jokes by Aristophanes in his monologues to defend himself in the obscenity trials put on against him. Background: In 2001, Mr. Luttazzi was banned by Mr. Berlusconi from national television because he talked about Mr.Berlusconi's links with the mob. Mr. Luttazzi was the host of a cult late night show called "Satyricon". Let's say he was the Italian David Letterman. Mr. Berlusconi, the Prime Minister, sued him for defamation, asking 40 billion lire (about 20 billion dollars) for compensation. After a trial that lasted 15 years (yes, 15 years!), recently Mr. Luttazzi won the case. It was not defamation at all: Mr. Luttazzi was right. BUT: since 2001, the few times Mr. Luttazzi got on tv, he was the target of some smear campaign: in December 2007 and June 2010. Mr. Luttazzi is a libertarian, a fierce defender of free speech and a wonderful comedian, he didn't cheat anyone, his citational game was openly described in his blog, but he still has many powerful enemies in Italy, and a lot of people who are against him for ideological reasons, as you can tell by the entries above. An interview by The Times (2009) tells everything about the background (English version at the bottom): http://temi.repubblica.it/micromega-online/luttazzi-io-al-confino-mediatico-nellitalia-di-berlusconi/ Here's a recent academic paper (2014) explaining why Luttazzi's citational jokes are new jokes, not "plagiarised" ones: http://www.cultusjournal.com/index.php/archive/16-issue-2014-v-7-transcreation-and-the-professions The so-called "plagiarism case" was put on to damage Luttazzi's reputation. That's why I think the entries on Wikipedia about the so-called "Luttazzi's plagiarism case" are part of the smear campaign against him. This is not NPOV at all, I guess. Last but not least, Mr. Luttazzi won ALL the trials, even the one accusing him of plagiarising Bill Hicks: this time, he got 1 million euros as compensation. Good for him.
This entire section has very little to do with the topic. It's more about a specific series of court cases that include joke theft as one allegation, and it's far too long and rambling. It frankly feels like someone adamantly defending Luttazzi from allegations of joke theft that have since been removed from the rest of the article. Without this context, and especially given the disjointed way the section is written, I really don't see any reason this section should still be there. Jalphark (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.