This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Note: relevant note posted to WP help desk. PRRfan ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On August 2020â 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)
"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)
does anybody know who won the game? 71.38.187.51 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
Note: relevant note posted to WP help desk. PRRfan ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On August 2020â 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)
"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)
does anybody know who won the game? 71.38.187.51 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
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!