Talk:Daniele Luttazzi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

concerns about the controversies section[edit]

I'm updating the info concerning plagiarism, which is currently gaining a lot of attention by the media in Italy, thus providing a lot of official references. Please note that the Italian page for Daniele Luttazzi is currently in a bad non-NPOV state, and in particular there is a lot of controversy about the plagiarism accuse. Most of the debate is undermined by the fact that primary sources used to be blogs and (supposedly) copyright-violating videos. I am adding

  • (one) Officially verifiable sources, which are backed up by a newspaper being legally responsible for them, and using the content as the base of articles in the printed version.
  • the content hosted there is (almost obviously) not in violation of any copyright law: it goes under fair use and it is publicly available from the newspaper web site. Previous debate about the copyright violation was propelled by public video hosting services like youtube promptly removing the content on request by Luttazzi's own agency, without verifying the claim. Any discussion on the topic is clearly void now that the very same material has been shown to be legally distributable.

Sorry for the long discussion, but I don't want any of the Italian wiki page NPOV-related flames to get there, so it's better to be clear in the beginning. Changes: Re-added Carlin, and added Rock to the list of (supposedly) plagiarized actors, as the movie I add shows them. Added the legally available source for the video comparing Luttazzi with Carlin and Rocks. Caveats: English is not my first language, someone please check my grammar and style :-) --Max-CCC (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: the second reference I put in is from a blog archive; although the article is a reproduction from the one originally published on Il Foglio, I'm not certain that this is acceptable. In case it is not, you should not remove both citations, only the second one (and possibly the linked text ofc). Reason I added the second reference as IMHO it needs to be explained that many people refuse(d) to even consider the plagiarism accuse, in the aftermath of the Editto Bulgaro and even today. Besides, the situation is complex, and I believe it is relevant that Luttazzi was censored for political reasons, and not because he was believed to plagiarize at that time. I'm adding a few wiki cross references to reduce redundancy of the article. --Max-CCC (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made other improvements reducing duplication between intro and biography. Now I believe the issues related with censorship and plagiarism are both more balanced, but I think that for an NPOV article the biography is too short and doesn't list all it's required (while the italian page goes way too far in the opposite direction). Help wanted I do not know how to collapse two identical references in the article (3 and 8 are the same). --Max-CCC (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to erase the sentence regarding "il Foglio" in the "plagirism" section. "il Foglio" never found more than a handful of jokes being copied from more famous authors and only claimed that many of Luttazzi's shows were heavily inspired by some americans comedian (i.e. David Letterman). The research which brought to us more than 500 jokes which were "borrowed" (plagiarised / cited, depending on how people see it) was not made by "il Foglio", thus this newspaper is not that relevant in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.21.102 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the reason for removing the "Il Foglio" comment. It is ok to remove it if not properly sourced, but there is good reason to mention this as a precedent to the current plagiarism discussion. As it is relevant for the bio that Luttazzi was the subject of a political banning, it is also relevant that the political nature of the first attack impaired any discussion on the plagiarism issue for years. (This is obvious to any one reading the flames on fan's blogs, although they are not a valid source for wikipedia.) The matter IS relevant IMHO, I am re-adding to the extent I can find valid sources. --Max-CCC (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current formulation is basically well documented and reports only well-known fact and opinion of respected commenters from a national newspaper. I still believe we miss information concerning the other works from Luttazzi mentioned by Wu Ming, but I'd rather not copy from the Italian wikipedia page now, as I have not time to check the information. --Max-CCC (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to comment my last edit on the "Foglio" part (Plagiarism section). I managed to get some articles regarding the alleged plagiarism back in the days: I didn't find enough to link that with the recent controversy: basically, if we were to sum up in a sentence, the Foglio journalists were saying "you're are heavily inspired by a popular USA format and some jokes are ripped of from the material of famous stand up comedians". This is more an artistic judgement ("don't act bold, there's nothing new under the sun"). The new accusation is much more serious, and can be summed up in "you have plagiarised hundreds of jokes from other comedian, without giving them any credit).
I also find meaningless to quote bloggers or to summarize their thoughts. How many bloggers? Why? The only people who should be quoted here are, in my opinion, Writers' guilds, other supposedly plagiarised comedians (and not quoting them from a facebook page, like I did before), very important comments found in newspapers.
I don't want to sound harsh, but if we don't stick to that we risk following the same path as the .it wiki (--> NPOV, gigantic page).
One more thing, I'm pretty new to wiki and my wikinetiquette might be a bit rusty. I don't want to start an edit war, if you have more thoughts on the question feel free to share. As I previously said, if I'm behaving like a grumpy old man it's only because I see what the .it bio page on Luttazzi has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.140.13 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might still be wrong, but I have been through a lot of wikipedia policy pages before adding the material. I expressed the same worry about the status of the Italian page (although recently some editors improved its NPOV-eness), and this is why I am not simply translating it, all facts should be verified and NPOV - checked. But this is not a reason to refuse all opinions on the plagiarism that are not from Luttazzi and the plagiarized artists. I this case we would have no plagiarism, as the accuses did not come from the plagiarized. We are missing one important point: in any other country such a situation would have lasted for a few months, while In Italy this has lasted under the ashes for years, until it got attention in the media. There is an obvious connection (which needs to be documented properly, of course) between the political censorship suffered by Luttazzi, years without appearing on television, and the strange reactions of his (former) fans to the plagiarism accuses. This is obvious to people living in Italy, and now it is also starting to be documented in the media. Limiting the scope of commenters to the Writer's guilds is nonsense, this is no tribunal and we are documenting facts, reactions of Lutazzi and of the public opinion. On the contrary, Wu Ming's opinion reported by a national newspaper is a valid source, as well as a balanced and deep analysis of the facts, as they are authors of international level (writers, although not of satire) and performed an extensive search on the subject (which wikipedia is not allowed to do) before writing their article; they are quoting and discussing fan reactions, you just need to read the reference to check it out. Please note that, at least concerning my contribute, you removed references to online archives of printed newspapers. The one I tagged as uncertain, it was because the archive was from a blog (that is, I am sufficiently certain that the content is from a newspaper, but I warned everyone that the authoritative source needed to be found and retrieved.) --Max-CCC (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the edit: almost perfect I say. Now it's clear and pretty encyclopedic. I'll try to add some more references tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.140.13 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; i fear that also dagospia may not be a valid reference. (I hope it is at least in this case, I personally hope to soon read a full article from Molinari on a newspaper or magazine). In my experience dagospia posts revert from public to private after some time (happened with posts related to Raiperunanotte). Any similar experience or knowledge available?
We still need the original source, or someone who has the material newspaper, for the "Il Foglio" accusation from 2007, I don't like having second-hand archives (this one was put in question on the italian wiki). --Max-CCC (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, especially for Dagospia. Il Foglio has a nice "search" function on its site if I recall correctly, I'll look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.16.222 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readded the "plagiarism" tag (a bunch of other comedians who have been accused of doing so have the same tag, like Carlos Mencia). I hope to have more sources on the thoughts of other UK/US comedians soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.28.69 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following text about "La Repubblica" from the plagiarism section: 

  (Repubblica) had criticized the 2001 Luttazzi-Travaglio sensational interview about 
  the mysterious origings of the Berlusconi empire, accused Luttazzi of "inappropriate" 
  and "vulgar" satire, and censored Luttazzi's criticism of the Democratic Party

(1) Is that true at all? As far as I know Repubblica has never criticized Luttazzi's satire for hitting also on the leftwind parties.
(2) It is out of topic with the plagiarism accusation to report Repubblica's attitute about Luttazzi and an interview (not a sketch) who had absolutely nothing to do with plagiarism.
(3) If it was true and relevant, previous statement must report the source, per wikipedia policy; is still should be placed in another section, about the (lack of) support for Luttazzi in the press.
I shall stress that the mention about the political alignement of the two newspapers is only needed as early accusations were made, but were often dismissed by the fans (and also in wikipedia discussions) as mere political attacks. Things are even more complex IMHO, but no original research in the page. --Max-CCC (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Max-CCC has obiouvsly an agenda against Luttazzi. 87.10.209.55 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is not alone. Don't forget Christian Rocca. Who is Rocca? At the time, a journalist from Il Foglio. In 2004, Luttazzi wrote about the role of SISMI (Italian Military Secret Service) in the so-called Nigergate scandal and fiercely attacked Rocca's pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war/anti-Nigergate articles. In 2007, when Luttazzi's tv program was suddenly canceled (lame justification: a joke against Giuliano Ferrara's Iraq war warmongering), Rocca accused Luttazzi of "plagiarism". In 2010, it was revealed that Rocca and Ferrara (director, Il Foglio) hanged out at the SISMI's offices in via Nazionale, Rome. Ferrara had to admit that Rocca "aveva assunto la guida delle operazioni pro-Bush e pro SISMI" ("took the lead in the pro-Bush and pro-SISMI operations") against journalists who wrote about Nigergate. [1] [2]79.26.229.116 (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luttazzi's one of the most famous and beloved and hated satirist in Italy. His libertarian satire hits rightwing and leftwing Italian political parties, and the Catholic Church. During his 2001 tv show "Satyricon" Luttazzi talked about Berlusconi's links with tha Mafia: his tv show was canceled and Berlusconi banned him from RAI (Italian national broadcasting company) and sued him for defamation (see Editto bulgaro). Luttazzi was sued for 160 billion Lire. That's correct. After 10 years, Luttazzi won all the trials but he's still banned from RAI (June 2013). Since the banning, the few Luttazzi tv stints ("Decameron" tv show in 2007 on La7 and "Raiperunanotte" 15' monologue in 2010 on Sky) stirred up controversies: smear campaigns from rightwing and leftwing newspaper immediately targeted him, accusing him of "plagiarism". But journalists and bloggers always "forget" to say Luttazzi himself wrote about his ruse in his blog in 2005, years before any allegation of "plagiarism" against him. Luttazzi inserts calques of famous comedians' material in his monologues to defend himself from defamation charges. Nothing is "hidden". He even listed the calqued comedians on his blog. And when La7 broadcasting company sued him in 2010 for plagiarism, Luttazzi won the trial: it was not plagiarism and Luttazzi got 1 million and 200 thousand Euros in compensation. Here's a link to the original blog of this very unusual, funny and clever comedian: http://danieleluttazzi.blogspot.it/ 87.10.237.159 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies section sounds more like apologetic material by Mr Luttazzi's press office... A controversy section, by definition, should be controversial or otherwise erased. Moreover, Mr Luttazzi's defence was obviously pathethic. In the blog below (one of the many) an anonymous user posted the jokes that Luttazzi copied word for word from other comic actors, mostly American, without quoting the source. He reports also the book and page of the book in Luttazzi's version. http://ntvox.blogspot.it/2008/02/luttazzis-plagiariezed-jokes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.228.129.211 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ntvox.blogspot you refer to just lists English jokes by USA/UK comedians, with no translation at all. It simply states that Mr. Luttazzi plagiarised them, without proving this claim. In 2014, this academic article explained why Luttazzi's jokes are new jokes, not "plagiarised" ones: http://newkoh.blogspot.it/ Stop the smear campaign against Luttazzi. Enough! 85.4.100.109 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniele, Welcome to the English Wikipedia!93.63.29.2 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2012/10/07/spioni-a-mezzo-stampa/368226/
  2. ^ http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2012/10/06/news/le_miserie_del_sismi-44116697/

Il Foglio[edit]

I’m pretty sure that “Il Foglio” does not “belong” to Berlusconi. It’s a limited liability company composed by several members/partners. Now I ignore if Berlusconi has the majority and couldn’t find it anywhere on the internet, so if someone has sources to say that then fine, just saying that I’m not sure that it “belongs to berlusconi” is an accurate description.189.140.64.231 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True ideed. According to information to Giuliano Ferrara's public statement on television (referenced in the Italian wikipedia page for "Il foglio"), as of 2006 the property of the journal was 38% of Berlusconi's wife, Veronica Lario, and 15% of Denis Verdini (PDL national coordinator). Another 20-25% of the shares was said to be in the hands of Sergio Zuncheddu (which is often called the "Berlusconi from Sardinia" and is reputed to be a political ally of Berlusconi -- see for instance http://www.avvenimentionline.it/content/view/2534/656/ ).

Summing up, while we cannot say that Berlusconi was the owner, it is accurate to say that: "Il Foglio was at the time firmly controlled by the family and the political party of Mr. Berlusconi." Can please a native English editor proofread this sentence / add it? --Max-CCC (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown source of Berlusconi's money[edit]

It should be specified who considers the origin of Mr.Berlusconi's money to be unknown or mysterious. AFAIK no one proved that Berlusconi's money is unknown or of illegal origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.220.98 (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First, in my opinion, it is quite clear that it was the thesis of Travaglio's book. Second, the link to Travaglio's wikipedia already provides enough documentation, as there it is reported that - for the statements made in that show and reported in the book, Travaglio got sued by Berlusconi, and Travaglio won as all his statements were shown to come from official documents or were confirmed by the outcomes of previous Italian trials. Many more newswriters since then have questioned the early origins of Berlusconi's fortune, but Luttazzi's page is not the right place for such a topic. --Max-CCC (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some facts about Luttazzi work recoverd[edit]

Were erased for mistake during an addition in late 2009 (see history).--95.250.82.172 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV editing about to be reverted[edit]

I have spotted several NPOV editings listed as "improvements" which are traced to anonymous users, or italian wikipedia users which have been detected to be fake accounts thought to be Luttazzi himself or people working for him. I'l log in shortly revert unjustified and NPOV changes, and log the action in the discussion page. 5/10/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.48.82.79 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Bruce trick[edit]

Can someone provide a source on the "Lenny Bruce trick"? I mean, not on Luttazzi stating that, on Lenny Bruce actually talking about it (or maybe one of his lawyers or biographic authors). Otherwise I will reword the sentence (as the claim iss unverified). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.216.26 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Albert Goldman's "Ladies and gentlemen, Lenny Bruce!!" Luttazzi got the idea from that book. 87.10.209.55 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniele Luttazzi. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Luttazzi's so-called "plagiarism case"[edit]

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 article (2014) explaining why Luttazzi's citational jokes are new jokes, not "plagiarised" ones: http://newkoh.blogspot.it/ 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) 06:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniele Luttazzi. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniele_Luttazzi&oldid=1208632914"