Talk:Joke theft

message: 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.  Hatch68 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Qabala 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you're doing great so far.  Hatch68 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: original research?

message: 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.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Mad 0905.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Para Thinking

message: References 2, 10, 16, 19 and 21 are all dead.
I'd remove them myself, but I don't know how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanology (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need updating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since these two articles have closely duplicated content, and that content originated at Joke thievery, I've boldly redirected Hack (comedy) to this page. Robofish (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: there's this blog
http://ntvox.blogspot.com/2008/02/luttazzis-plagiariezed-jokes.html
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 links to mainstream newspapers' websites talking about this but they're in italian so i don't know if this makes sense
189.140.64.231 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ["Scum" slander. Comment deleted for BLP violation] Tony Reed (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed material from  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.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Sum (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  you may be interested 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2000s and 2010s section could use improvement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joke theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120103154727/http://exmypa.blogspot.com/2010/07/fuck-someone-ugly.html to http://exmypa.blogspot.com/2010/07/fuck-someone-ugly.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221013725/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-et-joketheft24jul24,1,6252669,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=5&cset=true to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-joketheft24jul24,1,6252669,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=5&cset=true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007092111/http://media.www.ucdadvocate.com/media/storage/paper538/news/2007/05/02/BonusBytes/Is.Carlos.Mencia.A.Thief-2891990.shtml to http://media.www.ucdadvocate.com/media/storage/paper538/news/2007/05/02/BonusBytes/Is.Carlos.Mencia.A.Thief-2891990.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612084318/http://video.unita.it:80/media/Politica/Luttazzi_copia_Parte_1_1395.html to http://video.unita.it/media/Politica/Luttazzi_copia_Parte_1_1395.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians.
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.
Cheers
85.4.100.109 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Luttazzi's so-called "plagiarism case" 

message: The claims about amy schumer need to be backed by new sources, preferably articles and not videos from youtube and dailymotion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations #32 and #33 were deleted on their sites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Transcreation- the old switcheroo" is confusing and completely unnecessary