Talk:2004 Harvard–Yale prank

My issues

Some claims in the article still need sources and there are POV words used in many of the edits (humorous, sizable, brilliant, etc). In order to maintain NPOV, we need to both find sources for all of the claims and to refrain from adding POV words. I think it was a brilliant prank, but we need to state the facts and let readers determine brilliance on their own.

I find it annoying that most of the edits of the article are not, in fact, edits. It gets saved every 5-20 minutes by some users without any changes. This always makes me check the history and compare several edits back. I keep expecting that it will reveal some edits that someone was trying to hide, but it doesn't. It's just a minor annoyance, I guess. --Habap 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This really reads like a promotional piece on the prank. If the pranksters wish to tell the story of the prank, they should do it elsewhere; this should be a neutral summary of material published elsewhere. --William Pietri 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not even close to NPOV. Basic facts (e.g., when in the game the prank occurred) have been sacrificed for every single boastful detail. I propose that the article be reorganized into three sections: planning, execution, and response. The subpoints that start with "major points" can be pared down substantially. If no one else is willing to, I will. 140.247.240.157 00:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Since that anon edits it about every 20 minutes, I have only removed the most grevious violations of NPOV. I suspect the anon will eventually get bored or find something else to spend his/her entire day editing and we can trim it to be encyclopedic. --Habap 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a far better and more detailed telling of the prank than exists on the prank's own website! --Habap 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Habap, This is the most definitive aricle I have read on the massive prank. People have told me that the New Haven article is great also. I first saw the prank on Mexican TV during a soccer game. I have sent your work to all my friends. Thank you very much. John Simone, May 31, 2006

POV tag added to page. Agree with William Pietri's comments. 71.240.88.200 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please advise which statements are still POV. Note that the article has changed noticeably since 30 May 2006 - check the diffs. Feel free to edit the sections that seem POV. --Habap 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire "planning and execution" section gives excessive detail and uses a triumphalist tone, and the overall effect of that is POV. Much of the rest of the article gives a similar impression, but the effect is not as great. 71.240.88.200 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, by nature, telling how the prank was pulled will seem biased toward the prankster. But it looks like NPOV to me, for the most part. There are some diction choices that are obviously not NPOV, so I corrected that, and I took down the POV tag. If someone disagrees, feel free to put it back up, but it looks fine now. — ShadowHalo 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

File:Wesucksidebyside.JPG

A side-by-side comparison of the most placard-filled moment of a film clip of the event (top) and a supposedly unaltered still photograph (bottom) appears to show differences in the number of placards visible.

Some observers have claimed that the photo of the event distributed by the Yale group has been Photoshopped to include more placards than actually were held up. These observers point to differences in the imagery between the most placard-filled image from a film clip of the event and the Yale group's photo.

I removed the above text pending citation of the "controversy." PRRfan 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As the video fades towards the end you can clearly see that more placards are still being held up, and positioned properly above their heads. Now, If I was going to be selling posters and memorabilia of the event, I obviously wouldn't initially release a video containing the final product. I believe they also had this common sense. Note the iFilm link that you provided is also just a copy, more than likely a re-encoded copy of the video they released on their own website listed in the article. Anyhow, that's just my two pence. Btw I'm English, with no links, ties, etc. whatsoever to anyone in Harvard or Yale. Steve pd 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the picture on the page because it's from the poster that was clearly photoshopped. In no video from the "prank" can you really make out "WE SUCK" unless you're really looking for it. This is why no Harvard students knew that they were being duped, because it was illegible. I've modified the article accordingly. Hpanic7342 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone put the obviously doctored picture back up on this page. I've removed it again. I will continue to remove it until someone can articulate a really good reason for putting the picture on there. Hpanic7342 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is only arguably doctored, not obviously doctored; see, for example, Steve pd's 18 Dec 06 comment above. In any case, this article cries out for an image of the event. Perhaps a frame of the video can be added. Or we might use the poster image itself, above a caption that calls it "An image taken from a poster sold after the event; some have suggested that this image has been altered with Photoshop." PRRfan (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: relevant note posted to WP help desk. PRRfan (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On August 2020‎ Super Goku V simply removed the entire controversy section without discussion. This seems to me a very heavy-handed move. The reasoning was that the main source for the claims came from a satirical magazine that ran other articles that were clearly satire. This claim is akin to claiming that such outlets as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver cannot be sources of information because they too are satirical shows, airing some absurd articles. This is simply wrong, as evidenced by the millions of viewers who claim that these shows are their main news source. It is expected that a reasonable viewer, with above average intellect, will be able to easily delineate between the core truths of an article and the comedic flourishes added for entertainment purposes. In fact, I would argue that the Harvard magazine is no less reliable than Jimmy Kimmel Live!, which is directly quoted despite also being a comedy show with satirical articles. --Jonathan (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyder Peralta

"To pull a prank now, [one must] consider ... the whole terrorism thing."

Is this guy for real? If so, should such a kooky unrelated thought really be included?

shirk 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Who Won

does anybody know who won the game?71.38.187.51 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvard won the game. That used to be in the article.... --Habap 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't make sense abou this prank -- if Harvard sucks so much, why did they win the game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.150.64 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this article for real?

This reads like some kind of strange promotional piece. Also, despite the game attempts to cite sources to demonstrate that the event did indeed happen, the article was clearly written by insiders. I am going to reduce it down substantially, and if anybody thinks they can build it back up again go ahead.... Gohome00 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On further consideration I think it makes the most sense to merge this article into one about the 2004 game itself, or about the Harvard-Yale rivalry. It seems like this article was written by the prank's organizers as a way to regale the world with their genius. It is not necessary for it to be its own article, despite the presence of some independent press coverage. All that coverage could just as easily apply to an article about the 2004 game, or the rivalry itself. Any objections to this? Gohome00 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. First, Wikipedia's not paper. Second, replicating the info contained in this article at, say, Harvard–Yale football rivalry would unbalance the host article. Better just to have one sentence and a link to this article. PRRfan (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not paper (that "rule" gets my goat!) This exact issue is where wikipedia and I part ways. But I don't see this article as an article - it's a story. Even with the recent edits, it's still just a story. This whole article could be boiled down to 1 paragraph and put in Harvard-Yale Football Rivalry with no problem whatsoever - that article already has entire paragraphs devoted to other harvard-yale pranks.Gohome00 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why so determined to erase collected information? Perhaps, somehow, you could just avert your eyes from this article. PRRfan (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. How does this event warrant its own wiki entry? It definitely belongs as a footnote of the Harvard-Yale rivalry, unless there are more Harvard/Yale pranks that can be incorporated to extend this article, balance it, and demonstrate that it is significant. The detail included feels excessive, self congratulatory, and I suspect exists almost as an extension of the prank itself. FYI — I'm a neutral party on this one... did not attend and do not support either school. Sidenote: The prank itself is brilliant. StickerMug (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The photograph

I just posted this on the help desk to get some advice but I'll post it here too.

The picture used in the article is taken from a website set up by the prank's (evidently self-satisfied) organizers. The picture was obviously doctored, and without much sophistication. For example, it was clearly altered so that there wouldn't be any gaps where the stadium's aisles are. Furthermore, this article -- http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsp/index.php?id=120_YaleWeSuckPrank -- has a side-by-side comparison of different pictures.

I think the picture should be removed from the article, for the above reasons. Additionally, the uploading of the picture not from a real source but rather from the prankster's own website is inherently POV.

The thing is, I can't "prove" any of this, and wikipedia is not a forum for discovering new information or debunking hoaxes. It's supposed to just be an encyclopedia. I think deleting the picture would be the most prudent way to avoid "controversy." The article contains a link to the website featuring the doctored picture as well as the article comparing the two photos. Both of these external sources are partisan, and that's fine - the reader can make a more informed judgment when s/he sees the context. That should suffice. Wikipedia should not implicitly endorse the photo that is currently in the article.

Does all of that make sense? Gohome00 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is only arguably doctored, not obviously doctored; see, for example, Steve pd's 18 Dec 06 comment above. In any case, this article cries out for an image of the event. Perhaps a frame of the video can be added. Or we might use the poster image itself, above a caption that calls it "An image taken from a poster sold after the event; some have suggested that this image has been altered with Photoshop." PRRfan (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is another, higher resolution, image here: http://yaledailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/media/img/2004/11/29/11_29_2004_1171511513.jpg via http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2004/11/29/elis-outsmart-harvard-with-prank-at-game/ Matthewlmcclure (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion after a few years...

The photo with the clear "We Suck" text is quite possibly doctored, and there's something written about it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20090808134607/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsp/index.php?id=120_YaleWeSuckPrank , although the archive doesn't include the actual photos (thanks to Gohome00 for the original link).

It is also uploaded as "fair use", and the source for it is no longer available. I won't bother nominating it for deletion just because of that, but it is a bit problematic.

More importantly, it's quite clear that the photo here in the article is quite different from what can be seen in the video that the pranksters themselves posted.

I'm not sure how to can I do it myself exactly because I don't have any external sources that are more reliable than https://web.archive.org/web/20090808134607/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsp/index.php?id=120_YaleWeSuckPrank , but perhaps the article should clarify that the prank probably didn't go nearly as well as planned. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This is my first wikipedia editing talk, so please bear with me.

I was an eye witness to this event, so I can perhaps help out with answering questions related to it. Indeed the photo being shown on the wiki page was doctored.

I can provide high-resolution (undoctored) photos of the prank, which I took myself. Unfortunately, the prank organizers heavily promoted the doctored photo, and got it published in a few places, while no one (except for a now-defunct Harvard student paper) published an undoctored version. So as I see it, this whole article hinges on a single source - the promotion of the pranksters themselves. And as already mentioned, their own video directly contradicts their photo. --Jonathan Devor(talk) 17:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you perhaps upload your photos? This will be very useful. The best place to do this is in Wikimedia Commons. The same username that you use on Wikipedia is supposed to work there, too.

Use the "Upload file" file link in the sidebar and make sure to fill all fields in the wizard, especially description, date, and license. After you upload it, the photo will be usable here in the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Please see the following two photos --Jonathan (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The "We Suck" placard prank during the 2004 Harvard-Yale game

The "We Suck" placard prank during the 2004 Harvard-Yale game - zoomed in

Thank you.

I added the photos to the article.

Now the question is whether the older photo should be deleted because it's fair use and can be replaced by the new ones, or whether it should be kept as a demonstration of what was published as opposed to what actually happened.

I'm not sure... --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep the original photo. However I feel strongly that we need a "controversy" section to explain why there are conflicting photos of the event. --Jonathan (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.harvardsucks.org/video_hi.html
  • In 2004 Harvard–Yale prank on 2011-05-25 07:44:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 Harvard–Yale prank on 2011-06-11 08:20:15, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.maximonline.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=6214
  • In 2004 Harvard–Yale prank on 2011-05-25 07:44:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 Harvard–Yale prank on 2011-06-11 08:20:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)