Talk:Harvard–Yale football rivalry

Comments in 2005
Would not "Harvard-Yale football rivalry" be a better title for this article? "The Game" is awfully vague and, as the opening line grudgingly acknowledges, not restricted to the H-Y game. AJD 07:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we should replace a real name used by real people with a pale invented encyclopedia substitute; but of course you're right that that opening sentence does not inspire confidence. If there ARE other games with a real history of being called "The Game" in a widespread and semi-official way, then of course it's unfair for Harvard/Yale to usurp this name and the page should be moved to The Game (Harvard-Yale football); otherwise, if opening sentence is merely stating the truism that anybody can call something "The Game" but doesn't have any specific examples in mind, then it should be toned down to remove the present vague appearance of bias. Doops 08:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Harvard-Yale football rivalry" isn't an invented encyclopedia substitute! Would you prefer "Harvard-Yale football game" or "Harvard-Yale game"? "The Game" is a name used by real people, but it's a highly informal and parochial nickname that has no business being an encyclopedia title, any more than the article title Massachusetts Avenue should be moved to Mass Ave or Harvard Yard should be moved to The Yard. It's not as if people don't call it the Harvard-Yale game, just as much as or more than they call it "the Game". AJD 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're gonna make that argument, you could probably make a pretty good case for deleting the article altogether, since it's a parochial subject which has no business being in an encyclopedia in the first place. As long as the article is here, though, there's a very good reason why it should stay under some version of The Game: if the article were just about the "harvard-yale football game", then why isn't there an article about the "harvard-dartmouth football game" or the "San Diego-Yale football game"? The same intense rivalry which makes the article (marginally) encyclopedic gives it its nickname; the nickname is a concomitant part of what makes the Game interesting.


 * Now, I don't think anybody will be typing in "Harvard-Yale football game" or "The Game (football game)" into the Go field; this is one of those pages which is pretty much always reached by following a link; so I don't think confusion is really an issue as long as the first sentence makes quite clear what the article is about. Moreover, look at that college rivalry games category; look at all the other nicknames which title articles &mdash; calling this article "The Game" is entirely in line with the precedent set there. Again, though, if there are other serious examples of "The Game" out there, then the title should probably be changed to reflect this reality. Doops 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The raison d'être of this article is because the Harvard-Yale football rivalry is well-known, influential, and of historical importance in ways that are documented in the article. That doesn't mean the article should be entitled The Game any more than the article on Harvard College should be entitled The College. People at Harvard call Harvard College "the College" with greater frequency than they call the Harvard-Yale game "the Game"; when I was at Harvard, we called it "the Harvard-Yale game"; we might say "the Game", but only in the same way as we might refer to the Larz Anderson Bridge as "the Bridge". "The Game" isn't even a nickname; it's just an abbreviation. Nicknames like "the Iron Bowl" or "the Causeway Classic" are distinctive and unique; calling it "the Game" is just a reflection of the fact that it doesn't have a distinctive nickname. Furthermore, people who don't go to, say, Auburn or Alabama might still refer to their game as the Iron Bowl; do people with no H-Y affiliation call the Harvard-Yale game "the Game" and expect to be understood? AJD 21:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly you have something of a point with respect to the Alabamians, although I do suspect that most references to "the Iron Bowl" outside that state will need at least a parenthetical remark to explain what it is to the rest of the country. But with respect to your earlier point &mdash; you may have only used the phrase as shorthand; but there are certainly many people for whom "the Game" is a full-fledged nickname. Among other things, their view is reflected in the capital "G" and in the fact that at Harvard, e.g., a reference to "the Game" refers to the football contest with Yale &mdash; no matter the time of year or the speaker's favorite sport. This is different from "the College" &mdash; of course it goes without saying that an unqualified reference to "the College" in a Harvard context refers to Harvard College; but why should an unqualified reference to "the Game" refer specifically to Yale? (This whole argument works equally from a Yale perspective, mutatis mutandis.) And I don't think anybody thinks of the Larz Anderson Bridge as "the Bridge" with a capital "B" &mdash; if I say "the bridge" without further spcification, the reference will vary depending enitrely on context; the Larz Anderson Bridge, the Weeks Footbridge, or the Golden Gate Bridge could all get called "the bridge" depending on where I'm giving you directions to. Doops 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that the point is that while other major rivalry games have alternative names such as "The Big Game", "The Apple Cup", "The Red River Shootout", or "The Civil War", this game has no other name that I am aware of beyond "Havard-Yale Game" and "The Game", and that much of college football lore derives from the Ivies in general and these two in particular. All U.S. college football game rivalries could probably be said to be at least somewhat provincial with the possible exception of Notre Dame-USC, but this is one of the categories, I suppose, that emphasizes the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, and to use a relativistic arguement, is another category that is far more important to world culture than, say, every fictional town in Pokemòn, every minor Star Wars character, or every episode of a TV series. Rlquall 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the summary is too one-sided toward Harvard football history. There needs to be more balance. Further, why not come out and say that the rivalry is intensified by these being the two most prestigious schools in the country?

The "We Suck" prank from last year's game is clearly one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled off in sports. Getting 20,000 Harvard fans to hold up signs spelling out "We Suck" through the entire game while they believe they are spelling "Go Harvard" is classic and blows away the MIT pranks you mention.
 * Except that the prank 1) involved far less than 20,000 Harvard fans; 2) lasted for far less than the entire game (ca. 5-10 min?); 3) lacked originality, being based on traditional pranks played at the Cal-Berkeley-Stanford game; and 4) didn't require 'constructing a complicated technical mechanism and concealing it, undetected, underground. Nor, for that matter, did it stop everybody in his/her tracks with surprise for a few minutes. But other than those minor details, yeah, it was much more impressive than the MIT prank. Oh, wait. You were probably being sarcastic, weren't you? Doops |  talk 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, need more Yale stuff in the trivia section. It looks as if someone cherry-picked Harvard football tidbits and ignored Yale's traditions. One could make a strong argument that Yale has a richer college football history than Harvard (leads the series by more than 15 games, has more wins, has more national titles, etc.), yet the article gives it short shrift.


 * You have a point. Actually, though, I think the real problem is that the bar's been set too low too low in the trivia section. Rather than add more Yale stuff, I'm going to delete some of the less relevant Harvard-focused minutae. Doops | talk 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Doops--You have not followed through on the above.

Name
The Game (Harvard-Yale) would be more appropriate than the current one. As is noted, there are other schools with notable histories that have rivalries called "The Game." It is not an issue of which is the best, but clarifying that there are multiple uses of the phrase. An alternate claim is the University of Michigan-Ohio State University game. It was first played in 1897 (H-Y in 1875) and has been an annual event since 1918 (H-Y since 1945). There are 102 meetings of UM-OSU and 122 of H-Y.

Over the last 2 years there have been 73 uses of "the Game"+Harvard+Yale in headlines, lead paragraphs, terms of major papers on LexisNexis and more than 1,000 of "the Game"+Ohio State+Michigan. Looking at the teams and players in the game, one can see the importance of the UM-OSU side: 18 national championships (Ohio State does not claim an additional 7), 9 Heisman Trophies, both have won a national championship in the last decade, 72 Big Ten Championships (some shared), and a combined record of 1,623-581-89 (72.72%). They played in the famous Snow Bowl. ESPN as called the game the greatest rivalry in college sports. As I've said, I propose The Game (Harvard-Yale) and The Game (Michigan-Ohio State). Rkevins82 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually The Game is also used by the Lehigh University-Lafayette College game which is the most played rivalry in College Football, having been played 144 times since 1884.GCW50 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rkevins that this page should be broken up. I recommend making The Game (college football) a disambiguation page and The Game (Michigan-Ohio State) a redirection link to Michigan-Ohio State rivalry.  -TheMile 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur & agree with Rkevins and TheMile. A disambiguation page listing Harvard/Yale, OSU/UM, Lehigh/Lafayette, etc., would be the best use for an article entitle "The Game". --JD79 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article should be changed from 'The Game' to a title that includes 'Harvard' and 'Yale.' First, the Harvard-Yale matches were not always called 'The Game' - especially not during the time that these teams were rivals on the national stage. Second, 'The Game' suggests some universal familiarity with this football rivalry whereas, in fact, many more readers are immediately familiar with the university names but NOT with the nickname of their football matches. I vote to change the name to something like 'Harvard-Yale game (college football)'. 13 December 2006.

Why are people not familiar with the rich history of college football trying to change it? Anyone who is familiar with it's history knows Harvard-Yale as "The Game". Why do so many people have a lack of respect for tradition?


 * I don't think it is the case that people changing the name don't have respect for tradition, or lack knowledge of the history of college football. The concern is that there are different uses of the term, "The Game." Rkevins (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An Incident That May Have Happened in the 1968 Game
The first paragraph in the Trivia section talks about the 1968 Game. I was there, a freshman in the Harvard bleachers at the north end of the field. I am pleased with the article in reference [1]    I would like to add a bit of trivia related to this game, and I'm using the Talk page to ask whether anyone else recalls the event I'm about to describe.

As the article details, Harvard took a shellacking early, and the event seemed less a contest than a public whipping. At some point during the second half, I think Brian Dowling and Calvin Hill both pretended to be injured on the same play. They lay on the ground long enough for a shocked hush to come over the crowd. I mean, here were the only two stars in the game, both down on the same play! Then they both jumped up and trotted back to the huddle. I thought their behavior was a playful prank, and I was amused. But it also seemed to underscore the disdain that Yale felt toward Harvard's ability to put up a good game. (Yes, we were defensive.)

Does anyone else recall this mock injury?

Charlie Marlin 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone vandalised the page by changing Yale and Harvard to Michigan and Ohio State, I undid the vandal's changes.

192.147.57.6 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos
See Army-Navy, Alabama-Auburn, Duke-North Carolina, UCLA-USC, and Cal-Stanford for other examples of the use of logos in rivalry pages.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The status quo of this article for four years had been to not have the logos. The free license image conveyed the same information, showing the game was being played by Harvard and Yale. The logos do nothing to add to the article. Inclusion of the logos constitutes a violation of WP:NFCC #1 and #8, since a free license image was already in existence conveying the same information, and since not having the logos does nothing to detract from a user's understanding of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Text also conveys the information just fine. I'll get started on the other removals needed now as well. We cannot, under any circumstances, use nonessential free images. That is not negotiable, nonfree content must, per the Foundation's resolution, be minimal. If text alone suffices (whether or not it's as pretty), text alone it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Free v. Non-free
The RfC concerned non-free images. The images currently in the infobox are free images. Note that the Bulldog is no longer in the Yale image, it is now just a letter Y. Please see the information in the images themselves. One of the results of the long RfC discussion is that many of the college logos have free equivalents. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before just removing the images.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed them because there is no consensus to support that view from my brief overview of the numbers at the bottom, and that there is a mediation now open because of it. I honestly really completely do not care if they're free or not free; my only interest is that consensus is reached and that the issues are considered done and over with before readding them. Foresight stops edit wars, and overeager editors (from whichever side) from trying to enforce their point of view. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What I am telling you is the discussion is about non-free images. Free images are not at issue, so there is no concern about edit wars, except from you, who obviously is not participating in the RfC discussion.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Brief overview"? What are you talking about?  Those numbers are only about whether non-free images can be used if there is no free equivalent.  I have an opinion on that issue, but free images are unanimously accepted by everyone in that debate.  Please go do more than a "brief" reading of the discussion before you weigh in.  Let me quote the RfC:

If you read the proposal that garnered unanimous support from those that are opposed to non-free logo use, you will see that it read:

The other two proposals differed, but not about free logos:

The debate is only about what to do if no free alternative exists:

Ok, I've pulled out the pertinent points of the RfC. Is there anyone involved who is going to argue that the debate we are having about non-free images has anything to do with free images? If so, please post here so we can move on.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 13:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here as a favor to 2008 Olympian. Izno, I appreciate your enthusiasm to protect Wikipedia and your stand for honor with respect to refraining from using images that do not comply with policy.
 * That said, the matter of fact is that these logos are not eligible for copyright and are free images. Even if they were not free images, their copyrights would have expired long ago, since they were both created prior to 1920. So, while your motivation is laudable (even commendable), it just doesn't apply here.
 * The matter of debate here is preference. Is there consensus to include the images as a matter of what people like?
 * I would make the assertion that it does have that consensus. Accordingly, I'm reverting to the previous version. If anyone disagrees with this preference, then it should be reverted and further discussion should follow. Any discussion regarding Non-free images is a red-herring. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

External References
The second reference: "Yale Daily News - Tailgate relocated to 175 N. Harvard St" no longer works. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2016 stripping naked...
Whoever stripped naked in 2016 needs to be added. http://tamu.247sports.com/Bolt/Look-Yale-students-strip-nude-cause-delay-during-Harvard-game-49097694

Also, I was there for the 1992.... and part of the event. But I can't list myself as a citation. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6824:D8D0:FD54:E662:E0FA:1D67 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tone
This is H puff piece. Suggest massive edit. 127W111 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Link to list of Game results
Why was it absent from entry? This entry is wtitten horribly! 127W111 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pranks and Harvard Flag
Pranks is ripe for exclusuion. Only undergrads rather than a general reader might care.

The Flag might be appropriate in NOTABLE GAMES, w mention of first time Flag appeared; otherwise, this is poorly written pr for Harvard. 127W111 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of the Harvard-Yale pranks are WP:NOTABLE, having gotten coverage in local, and in some cases, national media. The claims made certainly need to be backed up by references to WP:RS. Reify-tech (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Little Red Flag
Section is poorly sourced and written. Suggest flag is a "little" rather than "big" deal. 127W111 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

POV
ENTRY appears to me to be balanced and improved since say Election Day 2016. What's your opinion? 127W111 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo size
Y is Harvard logo larger than Yale logo? 127W111 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harvard–Yale football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107121304/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/football.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/football.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807093945/http://www.kino.com/harvardbeatsyale/ to http://www.kino.com/harvardbeatsyale/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2019 Prank
A Harvard student managed to get the Yale Daily News to publish an article in which the first word of every sentence spelled out "EPSTEIN DIDN'T KILL HIMSELF A YALE GRAD DID IT" as part of a smack talk tradition between the YDN and the Crimson.

This was my proposed change. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:6CD9:2208:95DF:70D6 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2019
As part of a yearly tradition, The Harvard Crimson staff writer Cade Palmer’s smack talk column was published in the Yale Daily News. Unbeknownst to the Yale student paper, the first letter of every sentence in Palmer’s piece spelled out, “EPSTEIN DIDNT KILL HIMSELF A YALE GRAD DID IT.” The article was a clear reference to the popular conspiracy theory suggesting that Yale Law School graduate Hillary Clinton murdered Jeffrey Epstein.


 * I didn't see this talk page discussion, but I've just removed this from the article again because it's unclear to me exactly what it has to do with football rivalry, unless we're calling any and all "Yale-Harvard rivalry" incident(s) football related, which seems, to me at least, odd. If I'm missing some nuance (e.g. the alluded-to "annual tradition") then my apologies, but it would be nice if the football connection was clearer if it's re-added, because there are doubtless other readers as uneducated in the H-Y "traditions" as I am, who might be similarly confused. I've no objection at all to re-insertion if the connection is clear for the "layperson", no need to even ping me. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Nathaniel Curtis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nathaniel Curtis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)