Talk:2004 Harvard–Yale prank

message: 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)
thread_title: My issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not NPOV 

message: thumb|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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Controversy

message: "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)
thread_title:  Eyder Peralta 

message: does anybody know who won the game?71.38.187.51 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard won the game. That used to be in the article.... --Habap 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Who Won 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this article for real? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 2