Talk:Hack (comedy)

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.

Sources

This article is pathetically undersourced and poorly composed. The content which was recently removed (even though it fell under the definition of "Hack" as stated in this article) also contained the lions share of the references. The Artie Lang and Judy Carter sources are superfluous as they don't seem to be relevant to the article and the remaining three sources are the exact same reference. In the interest of maintaining the quality of the article I have added only relevant and sourced information from the "Joke Thievery" article. There is now some overlap between the two articles, but they are still separate topics.Tony Reed (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I diddled around with the examples of hack topics as well as added a reference to the dreaded, "I know what you're thinking, he looks like what would happen if ________ and ________ got together and ________________."--Pink-thunderbolt 06:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the reference to Opie and Anthony being commonly cited examples of hack comedians. I haven't seen any references anywhere to either being a hack comedian by any unbiased source, so I would suggest that if someone is going to add them back to the list, they should have a citation to support it. Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with [joke thievery]. They are the same topic. The Joke thievery article concentrates on the history of Hacking and is more definitive on what it is and how it effects performers. This article is essentially a series of examples. Both articles are valuable resources on the topic, but they really are the same topic.Tony Reed (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the contents of "Joke Thievery" with this article. I'm perfectly happy to put a remove on the other article, but I don't know how.Tony Reed (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hack comedy and joke thievery are not the same thing, and I think that merging the articles may create confusion. Reading the first paragraph, the first two definitions are of hack comedy and the third is of stealing, but the article almost entirely concerns stealing. There is a big difference between not being creative and being a thief; most hacks don't steal material, and some people that steal material (as the article insinuates Louis CK may have done) aren't considered hacks. Confusion arises because some people do use the term "hacking [so and so]" to mean stealing a persona, egregiously emulating that person, or even stealing material from them...but I think that conflating these terms causes confusion for no good reason. I would recommend separating the articles but putting see also links in both. Hardtospell (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is wrong and Hardtospell is right. Hack jokes and joke theft are not the same thing. Sometimes the term is used interchangeably owing to the fact joke thieves frequently tell hack jokes, but this is usually by those outside of the field. These articles should be separated. I can say this for sure because I am a stand up comedian, and the overwhelming majority of comedians do not use these terms interchangeably.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be apt to agree, but "joke theft" falls under the definition for "hack" as it appears currently in this article. Furthermore, the article, other than what I added, consists mostly of examples of Hack premises, but no history or insight. The portions I added were, in fact, applicable. My recommendation would be to expand this article further. Tony Reed (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joke theft should not fall under the definition of "hack" as in this article. The fact that this article doesn't have much info in it and needs expansion doesn't mean we can redefine another topic entirely just to include it here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the definition for "Hack" as it is currently defined in this article: "a joke or premise for a joke that is considered obvious, has been frequently used by comedians in the past, and/or is blatantly copied from its original author." - In what way is Joke Theft not a form of hacking according to the definition of "hack"? In the history section there is quite a bit of info that refers to alleged hacking that is NOT Joke Theft, and yet that was removed as well.--Tony Reed (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I wrote the original definition in the article, and apologize for the confusion. I would suggest rephrasing it to something to the effect of "a joke or premise that is considered obvious or has been frequently used by comedians in the past. Accusing a comedian of 'hacking' another comedian can also be used to indicate joke thievery." Then I would consolidate the material that is specific to joke or persona theft in that section. Hardtospell (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prop Comedy

Is prop comedy, in and of itself, hack? I would grant you that Carrot Top and Gallagher are basically hack, but are they the same genre as Heath Hyche? Is it possible, that comics (including myself) might simply be frustrated that the visual stimulation of prop comedy gives comics an advantage not afforded by a simple spoken act? Does the use of a guitar for performing silly songs qualify as hack, also? Although I am not a fan of prop comedy, nor the comics who win all the contests with their guitars, I am not so quick to malign the use of either. Tony Reed (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that prop comedy is hack. If you can only name two or three people that do it (that's all I can), I don't think it's fair to say it's been done to death. Hardtospell (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artie Lange

Someone posted a blurb about Artie Lange that was both biased and unsourced. Further, the way it was phrased, it was neither "Hacking" nor "Joke Theft" so it didn't really belong. To the author of that bit of info: Take a few minutes to find acceptable sources and then rephrase and repost.Tony Reed (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Mad 0905.jpg

The image File: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. --02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

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. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

No. You gotta keep em' separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.74.94 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be kept separate because it is possible to be a hack or use a hack premise while at the same time not steal anyones material.

A joke or bit might be stolen but may not be hack, they are distinct concepts which can exist without the other being true.

Hack has less to do with thievery and more about just a tired, worn out, old premise.

Where the confusion comes is when being called a hack also means being called a thief, it's a way to call someone a thief without using the word thief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.70.224 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the content of this article mostly duplicated that of Joke thievery, I've redirected this page to that article. Robofish (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams needs to be included

It was an uphill battle just to get it mentioned on Williams’ page. Any time it was mentioned, it was deleted by Williams fans who would find some issue with the source, despite there being multiple claims in print and on video of several comedians claiming Williams stole their material, including Playboy magazine. Williams was just as notorious for thievery as Mencia, Cook, and Schumer in the 70’s.

I get that he was beloved and he has many fans. However, that doesn’t mean his controversies should be swept under the rug by his admirers.

I’m willing to bet there will be similar resistance on this page because his mention has previously been removed 8.40.179.173 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]