Talk:The Yes Men/Archive 1

HUD
i'm sorry i don't have time to write this up at the moment (at work), but i've added links to their most recent jam on the page. probably not going to make any editors happy, but hey, it's there.

gba 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done-ish. I wrote up what I found on Reuters, but like you, don't have time to read up more. I left in your links, feel free to expound. Janet13 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cleanup on this section! 139.84.112.18 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

more...
wasn't the "Barbie Liberation Organization" started prior to their affiliation?

and isn't it part of "RTMark"?


 * http://www.rtmark.com/legacy/blo.html I guess it is. I'll move it to RTMark. Clubmarx | Talk 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RTmark is another earlier project/vehicle/brand created by the same people. 139.84.112.18 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Names
Regarding some of names: the movie IDs Andy Bichlbaum as a former Maxis employee who inserted the queer easter egg into Simcopter...an incident that is attached to Servin's name. So I'm fairly certain that's him. . As for Mike Bonanno, the film IDs him as a New Media professor, and most Google searches point to Igor, but too many news articles are down and I can't seem to find a decent link. If you want to change until a citation can be found, go right ahead.--Weebot 11:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mike Bonanno and Igor Vamos are the same person. 139.84.112.18 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Survivalball
Aren't these guys behind Survivaball too? --68.40.0.189 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Yes02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the episode in the introduction...
In the episode that is being alluded to in the second paragraph of the intro, the comments were not "enthusiastically received". The "Yes Men" were giving a speech in front of an apparently important meeting. The only thing that they could point to was that people were not jumping out of their seats in furious indignation and offense, but lets face it, these were educated professionals who would naturally want to keep their composure in front of their peers, we really cannot take that as an indication that anyone present actually supported what was facetiously being proposed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is showing too much bias in favor of The Yes Men. I have two primary concerns. Firstly, this line: HUD has called this prank, which brought attention to the lack of affordable housing, a "cruel hoax". It seems to me that a better way of phrasing it would have been something to the effect of "which was intended to bring attention to the lack of affordable housing". Otherwise, the sentence is making a positive statement without anything to back it up. My other problem has to do with their Bopal Disaster prank. No mention is made of the criticizm and backlash that resulted. The people of Bopal heard the news from the BBC and rejoiced, only to be crushed when they found out it was all a prank. There was a lot of criticizm over the fact that The Yes Men got their hopes up for nothing. Unfortunately, I'm lost the links to cite that fact, but I know it to be true. Maybe somebody more informed than I can add that. In general, there really should be more criticizm of The Yes Men in this article. They are a controversial group whose actions specifically INVITE criticizm. There needs to be more mention of that.

Notes in answer to the above: there is no question that attention was brought to the issue of housing in New Orleans, if you consider mass media as a force for bringing attention to an issue. There were hundreds of news stories about the action that explicitly discussed details of the housing crisis and HUD lockouts of residents. As to the false hopes in Bhopal, you can find BBC coverage of that, but that does not mean that it is accurate. Better talk directly to the Bhopal victims if you want to find out the real story behind that: they actually were very supportive of the action. - Mike from the Yes Men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.14.78 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability? Disambiguation?
I came here looking for an article on the term "yes men," and got, essentially, an advertisement for an unknown comedy group.

I'm not sure this is what Wikipedia should be about. 71.131.225.239 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unknown to you, but after pulling the stunts they have on New Orleans and BBC, causing a considerable if temporary stock loss to a multinational corporation by their lonesome, infiltrating top-level financial conferences repeatedly and receiving international media attention, they're likely known to a whole lot of people. I'd say that this is exactly what Wikipedia should be about - with ridiculous amounts of manpower and negligible "printing costs" (says everyone except those who are trying to finance the site), there are few restrictions on the scope of our coverage of noteworthy things. As for ambiguity, that's a good point. A disambiguation link should be added as soon as the article on actual yes-men is rewritten into something less embarassing. --Kizor 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd think criminal activity would be notable, wouldn't you? 64.134.144.161 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't think that. Criminal activity pours through the courts in hundreds of thousands of dull, repetitious cases each year. The standards applied by tabloid journalism to earn a buck have nothing to do with the goals of an encyclopedia. 24.130.145.204 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't have any mention of the holocaust on wikipedia, I mean is wikipedia really about the killing of jews now? Also need to remove any mention of the blue collar comedy group, their just some comedy group nobody cares about. 209.40.209.76 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a majority of subtle advertisement to the best of my ability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwangfilm20c (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bhopal
It's interesting that the article on Bhopal refers to this particular 'prank' causing some distress to victoms of the Bhopal disaster (as well as the results mentioned above) but it seems an important point to add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.54.14 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the golden cock suit
How come the most memorable and the single most famous accomplishment by The Yes Men merits no mention in this article? Surely it can't be due to innotability -- it was covered by media world wide. 194.187.213.95 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

International Herald Tribune
There is one more: http://iht.greenpeace.org/todayspaper/ International Herald Tribune.--Ferreiratalk 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pranks ≠ Fraud
The word "fraudulently," an accurate characterization of the acts being committed, has been repeatedly removed. Pranks ≠ Fraud, and these are acts of fraud, which should be taken seriously. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the big deal? Fraud's what they they do right?  So why not come out and say it? 64.134.144.161 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fraud it's not: Fraud is a term generally and legally reserved for intentional deception made for personal gain. There is no substantive personal gain in this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.14.78 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that common law fraud requires no element of personal gain; while the party relying on the misrepresentation must be harmed to constitute fraud, there is no corresponding requirement that the party responsible for the misrepresentation receive any benefit. That being said, it is unnecessary to categorize the Yes Men's activities as fraudulent.  The current article provides enough facts, presented neutrally, for readers to draw their own conclusions.  Sgwheeler (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * to prosecute for fraud requires proof of intention, which is very difficult to do. Also its clear from this article and otherwise that their intentions are idealistic so one would have to sucessfully construe those intentions as harmful. In short their actions are very much in the realm of political speech and hence "prank" is a better descriptor with less baggage.Rusl (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It may require the intent to deceive, but not generalized malicious intent. It's still illegal to defraud someone out of $1M if you're planning to give it to orphans. This is a pointless distinction to make and I think fraud and prank can be used interchangeably, since their explicit goal is to fraudulently represent brands and organizations of which they are not a part. 0x0077BE (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Shell-Niger Delta video
The section regarding the Shell-Niger Delta video currently contains no information regarding the involvement of the Yes Men. It is unclear, by its text, how it is related to the topic of the article. Sgwheeler (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me. It's implying that the video was made by the Yes Men, without giving a source for the allegation. I don't know if this would technically count as WP:OR, but I move that it's close enough to be taken out. 166.147.101.84 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Collin237

Neutrality
Perhaps it is just me but this article appears a bit skewed, especially with regards to its introductory paragraph and background information, almost to the point of appearing to be an advertisement for the group, The Yes Men. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 22:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just you ;-)Rusl (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope it's not just him. 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.204.155 (talk)
 * no, it's just you. 198.62.88.89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with EVILGOHAN. It does seem quite skewed. ie, There is no criticism section, and there is no doubt this group has received a lot of bad press for their stunts. The pair could very well use this article as a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.83.101 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding
Where do the yes men get their funding? All the stuff and trips they do is very expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.57.169.170 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

2012/13 Apple and conflict-free mobiles
Has anyone sources on this latest action?84.152.19.64 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting incorrectly with Javascript disabled.
This article looks wrong when Javascript is disabled in my browser. Other articles are fine. My browser is Abrowser for Trisquel GNU/Linux 43.0.4 with the NoScript extension. The top of the article page has horizontal yellow or red stripes across it, each the height of a line of text; I suppose these would be the info boxes that are usually on the right. On the left, text overlays text. Beneath this, the article body displays correctly.

I've tried different zoom settings on my browser, and purging the page as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge but the only thing I've found to work is enabling Javascript from wikipedia.org. I suppose I'd best put a note at the Village Pump, too. Clark42 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Yes Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521050904/http://nytimes-se.mayfirst.org:80/NYTimes-SE.pdf to http://nytimes-se.mayfirst.org/NYTimes-SE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)