Talk:Yale's "We Suck" prank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: CNN. "'We Suck' Football Game Prank", 2007-08-31. (details)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Controversy

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)