Talk:Brady Haran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tagging "multiple issues"[edit]

Why is putting up that giant box of "multiple issues" not vandalism? user:Raeky and user:Eduemoni clearly think that this article should be deleted, which is fine, and I have no objection to them arguing to that effect. But while the AfD discussion is ongoing I don't see any point in adding a list of objections longer than the article itself, except to discredit the article further. This is especially true considering at least one of the objections isn't even accurate (the article is no more like a resume than is any other biographical stub). Furthermore, the drive-by tagging style where a user brings up multiple issues without expanding on any of them on the talk page does not seem to me to be useful at all. As a stark example, the "expand this article" tag explicitly references "some suggested sources... given hereafter" of which there is no sign, either in the tag box or here on the talk page. Yes, I understand that people are making suggestions in the AfD discussion, but why not wait until it's concluded before adding the tags? squibix(talk) 12:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:TAGGING, and for someone who has been editing this long should know what WP:VANDAL means, and WP:CIVIL. — raekyt 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've only been editing this long (haha, since before Wikipedia:Civility and long before Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems) because I sometimes manage to ignore the ever-increasing levels of in-group bureaucracy, and so I had actually not read any of those fine essays before. Even having done so now, I continue to think that sentences with multiple links to policy essays and drive-by tagging are both terrible for wikipedia, because to my mind both lead to automatic thoughtless "discussions". To quote WP:TAGGING: "Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and 'drive-by' tagging should be prohibited." (Emphasis in original.) In light of that (and of common sense and civility) I feel it would have been useful for you to have said something like, "Hey, I think Eduemoni was really trying to improve this article by putting all those tags there, because..." and I don't know how to finish that sentence, but presumably Eduemoni does, and perhaps you as well.
I do admit that I shouldn't have used the word "vandalism", because I didn't mean it the technical wikipedia sense; as I see that to you the word in this context has another meaning, I withdraw it unreservedly. squibix(talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, I see I didn't read far enough about tagging before writing my response. Could perhaps WP:OVERTAGGING apply in this case? That is to say, "[i]t is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is "tag-bombing", disruptive, or may be a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." squibix(talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:POINT and WP:TE maybe, but not WP:VANDAL. — raekyt 01:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that was a joke; and I did chuckle. But I'm not going to read those right now! I see that I brought out the POINT one first with my quote there, but for now I'll keep guessing about TE. squibix(talk) 01:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Not vandal, just childish. It is pretty obvious that they weren't here to help. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Again I need to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. — raekyt 05:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for making this personal attack with no purpose at all. It won't happen again. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The multiple issues tag was done by User:Eduemoni, not me... — raekyt 01:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Some references[edit]

I don't know if folks already know about these but I wanted to throw them up here. I know nothing about Haran or filmmaking or science or youtube so I'm struggling to create sensible prose that adds to the article; if someone else can take this stuff and do something useful with it before I manage it so much the better.

"In 2007, Brady began doing things differently. He started filming scientists and engineers carrying out their normal work at the University of Nottingham. The resulting videos were uploaded to a YouTube site, Test Tube,4 showing the trials and tribulations of real scientific life: grant proposals succeeding or being rejected, apparatus being switched on for the first time, etc."
"The chemistry videos are undoubtedly successful and several articles have discussed their impact."
"With filmmaker Brady Haran, Poliakoff and his team have now made more than 450 films that cover topics beyond the elements. Their YouTube channel boasts more than 35 million views. The most popular film, shot inside the Bank of England's gold vaults, has had more than two million hits alone."

Per the EiC piece, Haran also has authored a couple of papers published in Nature (10.1038/nchem.990) and Science (10.1126/science.1196980), for what that's worth. squibix(talk) 01:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Haran is one of three named recipients (the others being Professor Michael Merrifield and Professor Philip Moriarty of the UNiversity of Nottingham) of the 2016 Kelvin Medal and prize of the Institute of Physics. The citation says of Haran that "The success of the project is due to Haran’s skill as a filmmaker and his unerring ability to judge what works well on video, in combination with the commitment of academics like Merrifield and Moriarty, who have played a critical role in shaping the project and provided accessible and engaging explanations of many physics concepts." Baldwin Clere (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Brady Haran has recently been awarded Doctor of Letters honoris causa conferred by the University of Nottingham with the oration by Professor Michael Merrifield, in recognition of his work. While I cannot find the text of this, the information, itself, is confirmed on the University of Nottingham's own 'nottinghamscience' YouTube channel, which shows film of the award: Doctor of Letters Baldwin Clere (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Future Projects[edit]

Brady released a video today talking about the possibility of starting a Computer Science channel. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To save time in going through all the discussion of the subject below, it was confirmed with this video: Welcome to Computerphile! as to what it is about, the Computerphile Facebook pgae simply says "Computerphile - videos about computers and that kind of stuff." I think that that is enough. As with the other channels, the films are made with academics who discuss a variety of issues, historical, theoretical, topical and so on. Baldwin Clere (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I modified the section in the article & added a editor's note. 1. WP:CRYSTAL may apply. 2. This was a quote and MOS:QUOTE discourages links in quotes. 3. As this was an interview, how do we distinguish that he was talking about a proper noun? As in Computer Science verses computer science. (Compare: Biology and biology) – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not a speculation, as he really said that. I didn't know that there was a difference between "Computer Science" and "computer science" (and still don't know and don't care), but the transcript is "computer science", so there is no ambiguity here. As for linking, it says it "may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader" What??? How does it clutter the quotation, how does it change the original meaning and how does it mislead or confuse the reader? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There is reality and Reality. Capitalization of proper nouns and non-capitalization of non-proper nouns makes a difference. The editing it to make it a non-capitalized non-proper noun, when that is what he meant, clarifies the sentence. The guidance on quotes you cite has 3 elements. It is a short sentence, so clutter is not a problem. But the principle of unchanged quotes is violated. Also, it was confusing to the reader, because it linked to a non-existent proper noun target. Delinking and decapitalizing was the way to go. (But I'm glad that you care enough to comment.) As for CRYSTAL, it is pure speculation. He's been thinking about it. No plans, no schedule, no nothing. Now if he said: "We are planning a series on computer science, a McArthur Grant has been awarded, SciFi TV is scheduling it, and Nobel Prize for Computer Science Professor Scaterbrayn will host it." that would work. (There is no dispute that he really said it, so speculation does not apply in that sense. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Saying that it might refer to a proper noun is just ridiculous. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not unsourced, it is not speculative material and it is not an account of events that might not occur. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are these words of Haran's notable? Two years from now, if he does start a Computer Science channel, will these words have been significant? If he does not start a Computer Science channel, will these words have been significant? He's trying to run out the clock rambling in front of the webcam responding to a series of trivial communications from fans. He rambles on about "soccer" vs. "football" ... his plans for Valentines Day 2013 ... "hello Israel"... The response to the computer science channel is polite and he says nothing about his thoughts or plans on the subject. This does not belong in a WP article and should be expunged. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The notability of Haran's comment is not the issue. Notability deals with evaluating topics as articles. (Compare, is his particular date of birth a bit of "notable" information? No, we do not ask that question because it does not help us evaluate the article as one with a notable topic.) I'd prefer if we can determine if his thoughts about the possibility of a video on computer science (the non-proper noun) is CRYSTAL. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not not WP:NOTABLE, just not notable, not important, significant, meaningful, and so forth. He's not expressing any thoughts, he's just politely and awkwardly saying he's given it some thought. He doesn't even say whether the thought was pro or con. There's no substance to his remark. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, not notable as in not helpful to the reader or project. But I see "notable" as a term of art WRT WP editing guidelines. In any event, Raeky has (hopefully) resolved the matter. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A video of him speculating about thinking about something is not definitive enough to make it not WP:CRYSTAL, we'd require something more definite. Also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, we don't have to report something before it happens. — raekyt 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Coming from 3 folks who actually want the whole article to be deleted, it's not that much of a surprise that you wouldn't consider it significant. There is so much nonsense on those comments...
"He's trying to run out the clock rambling in front of the webcam responding to a series of trivial communications from fans. He rambles on about "soccer" vs. "football" ... his plans for Valentines Day 2013 ... "hello Israel"..." What does the context and adjacent talk has to do with it?
"computer science (the non-proper noun)" This guy is not serious. Discussing whether Haran was referring to some "Computer Science" as a proper noun is embarrassingly stupid.
"him speculating about thinking about something" about maybe speculating about thinking about someday, I don't know, considering... no, he said he has been thinking about doing it. Plain and simple. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1. You have no basis for the assertion, nor would it be relevant if true, that I want the article deleted.
2. Please respond to my statement above: He does not identify his thought, state whether it's pro or con, or refer to any prospective action. His words are entirely without reference to the world of facts, past, present, or future. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Why Spinelli would conclude that I (or any other editors) want this article deleted mystifies me. Consider:
  • I did not participate in the AfD (and if I had, I would have said keep).
  • I contributed to the article and tak page with minor copy edits, Persondata, and WikiProject assessments.
  • My edit history WRT Martyn Poliakoff and The Periodic Table of Videos goes back to December 2011 [1] [2]. I think the Table of Videos is great and I applaud Haran for producing them!
  • My commentary (above) deals solely with proper grammar, linking words in the quote, and whether the CRYSTAL info is appropriate.
  • I engaged Spinelli regarding the future projects section with what I thought was a polite intercourse. His response was less than ....
Perhaps Spinelli has to much WP:OWN which is clouding his judgment WRT these comments. Characterizing them as "nonsense", "stupid", "not serious", does not promote CONSENSUS or answer the question of whether Haran's thoughts about future projects should remain. – S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, if Haran has, in fact, stated his thoughts about future projects, Spinelli should cite them here on talk so that editors could consider their suitability for the article. Spinelli's initial statement above, "Brady released a video today talking about the possibility of starting a Computer Science channel." is a gross misrepresentation of the video linked in the citation. In fact, Haran stated no thoughts. We do not even have anything mooted for inclusion. "Hello Israel!" SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

EL as linkfarm[edit]

As was set up, the listing of videos in a bibliographic type section would (or might) work. But putting them into a subsection of the external links section creates a WP:LINKFARM. Each of the listings is available through his official site, and thus they are now redundant. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I did at first, but User:MichaelQSchmidt moved it to the external links section. It's much better that way. Also, deleting that list or removing one or more entries (as you secretly did) would be extremely damaging to the overall quality and usefulness of the article. If that's your intent, stop WP:GAMING. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is that WP:NOTLINK applies to that list because the single WP:EL [3] has a link to all of his projects. We don't need to mirror all that information here. Accusing people of acting in bad-faith when clearly they're not is a violation of WP:AGF and not WP:CIVIL, you've been repeatedly warned about that behavior, and continued uncivil actions by you may result in penalties. I think it's starting to be clear that you may have an WP:OWN issue with this article, and you are acting very negatively to anyone who has a differing opinion about it. For your sake, you should take heed of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, you probably won't be warned again. — raekyt 21:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If I may give the impression of ownership over the article, it is because there has been multiple disruptive edits by users who want to shred the article apart in order to justify its deletion. That's why I accused of WP:GAMING. Now, rightly accusing others of not following WP's main policies does not configure a violation of WP's civility policy. I think I've been respectful enough with other editors and I'm only trying to improve WP. I know I don't have ownership over the article, but deleting the list is so disruptive it can only be categorized as vandalism.
"[1] has a link to all of his projects." No, it does not. Even if it did, it wouldn't be a mirror, since "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article", with the exception of "excessive lists [that] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia", what it certainly does not. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A content guideline (which is on-point) regarding this matter is available at WP:ELOFFICIAL. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it's far from "on-point". Do you mean that the YouTube links were official websites? Because it is clearly not. Do you mean that the official link covers that information? Because it doesn't and even if it did, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article", with the exception of "excessive lists [that] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia", what it certainly does not. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on EL section here[edit]

You can get to all his channels through the single EL — raekyt 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would NOT include a huge "list" of youtube channells under the external links section. It is not helpful or encyclopediatic or "standard" operating proceedure. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The link to Haran's official site is sufficient to allow user to find his videos. WP does not list the complete bibliography of authors or academics, even when there may exist no single external source for such information. The inclusion of a long list violates WP policy and, if it purports to be complete, would need continuous maintenance which itself would constitute WP:OR Reading of the comments here, there is clear consensus for omission of the list. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Unneeded because more than sufficient coverage and linkage is available through his official page. (Now an enterprising editor might add individual video links in the various discrete articles that the videos pertain to. For example, what if Haran and The Professor did a video on Unobtainium? That would be interesting.) Please note that I was the one who moved the listing into a bibliography section IOT save the listing. As it was moved back to the EL section by the article originator and another editor, I will relent in my effort to save the listing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Deleting it will be extremely harmful to the article's overall quality and usefulness. "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article", with the exception of "excessive lists [that] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia", what it certainly does not. Srich actually wanted to keep the list, but changed his mind because of some personal revenge against me. I would suggest moving it to the body of the article, which is what I did at first, but User:MichaelQSchmidt moved it to the external links section. Also, more information can be added to each of his channels. It is not simply a link farm, it is a list of his projects, but leaving the list without external links just to avoid some obscure policy wouldn't make much sense. Also, removing the links, but keeping the list would definitely not configure linkfarm, since there would be no more links. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person arguing for it's inclusion. — raekyt 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:VOTE, read my arguments and refute them. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this is approaching WP:IDHT and WP:TE, everyone here has made solid policy based arguments for not including this list. — raekyt 22:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I have presented new arguments and you are simply ignoring them. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Because they're erroneous, and MANY editors now have presented reasoning why it should be removed. WP:CONSENSUS is clear. The writing is on the wall here... — raekyt 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"You can get to all his channels through the single EL" That is not true. PsyFile and PhilosphyFile are not there. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Clicking "Full list of Brady's channels and websites (with explanations)" which is CLEARLY right at the top of the page and evident to anyone who's read it, leads to a page that lists ALL his channels with descriptions and videos. — raekyt 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards and nominations[edit]

Moving "Haran's YouTube Channels"[edit]

I suggest moving the "Haran's YouTube Channels" section to the body of the article as previously done by User:MichaelQSchmidt and User:Srich32977 and maybe removing the links so it does not configure WP:LINKFARM. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All the links need to be removed, they're not adding anything to the article and are against policy. The single EL is more than sufficient. — raekyt 22:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
But what about removing the links, but keeping the list? Also, we could include a brief description of what each channel is about. "they're not adding anything to the article" I think it is pretty obvious that they are. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A biography of someone here isn't an absolute complete CV of their life, all his channels do not need to be directly referenced in his biography... if he's received coverage for one in reliable sources then the information could be included, but just because he operates a hundred channels doesn't mean they all need to be here listed. It's not entirely impossible a list would be unhelpful in a larger article, but I don't see the need for it in the article at it's current size barely more than a stub. — raekyt 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"but just because he operates a hundred channels doesn't mean they all need to be here listed" Agree, but there are only 12, not a hundred. Compared to the size of the article, a list with 12 entries doesn't create a mess or "dwarfs" the article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The list is longer than the prose on the article... at least on my fairly normal monitor and graphic settings. — raekyt 23:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hugo, this has been resolved. There is consensus. The list does not belong on BH's Wikipedia page. If you are still concerned about this, please review all the policy and other reasons why your view has been rejected. The next time BH makes a new [video correction:] channel your proposed list would be incomplete. Your view has been rejected. Please move on to your next improvement idea. Thank you.
I'm not talking about listing all his videos, only the channels. And the title doesn't say it's a complete list, but users will try to keep it complete, of course. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixing my slip-up above, thanks for catching it. Same facts apply. The issue has been resolved. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not make it like this list: Smosh#Channels? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • That's a 1051 word article compared to the 210 in this one, not a fair comparison. — raekyt 23:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
But you won't let anyone add anything to the article (and you have deleted significant amount of it), that's why it still has 210 words. Also, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I said "Why not make it like this list: Smosh#Channels?" --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Noone is preventing you from adding content that is backed up by reliable sources, and doesn't violate policies. Only thing I deleted was a small paragraph that clearly violated WP:CRYSTAL and the consensus was clear for it's deletion on the talk page. I hope I don't have to remind you of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL again? — raekyt 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"Noone is preventing you from adding content that is backed up by reliable sources, and doesn't violate policies." Yes you are (Proof) and User:EdJohnston is too: "wait for consensus before making any more edits at Brady Haran" (Proof).
"and the consensus was clear for it's deletion on the talk page" which I did not object to (Proof). --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think that is evidence that we're preventing you from "adding content backed up by reliable sources and doesn't violate policy" then there's no help for ya. The AN3 was obviously because you was wp:editwar and the admin's offer to unban you was an attempt to keep you from edit warring in the future because he (probably accurately) deduced you probably will again. — raekyt 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Official website in the External links section[edit]

"Haran's website, which includes links to his various YouTube channels and videos." I think this sentence is unnecessary. It is obvious that it is his website, since it is the "official website". And saying that it "includes links to his various YouTube channels and videos" is redundant, since the list of his channels is right bellow that. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And since there is redundancy, i.e., that his website contains a listing of his videos, etc., there is no need to provide an individual listing. The description was added as a step towards removing the listing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And the page does not have links to his channels, this page does. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The second link is redundant since it's quite literally at the very top prominently featured on his main page that anyone reading it or looking for it can find it. — raekyt 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep it! It's a compromise that might/should end this matter. – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Compromise?? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The overall consensus is to remove the listing, which would include all links but the official one. You provided a link that has a separate listing. We include what you provided even though there is a certain overlap. You can be and should be happy with it. And then you could, if you desired, post links of Haran's video links on pages that are related to the particular topics. Moreover, you get to post Brady Haran as a link which expands his exposure in the project. But if you like you can continue in this debate. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the sixth time I say (yes, I'm counting) that I will not make any more reverts regarding this issue. I'm not satisfied with deleting the list (I think it is vandalism), but I respect consensus. My main complaint was that users were making disruptive edits without debating first. Now that we have debated and consensus was reached, I will not complain. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes for example if you busted your butt and expanded the article from it's current 233 words to about 1165 words (5x expansion) within the next 5 days, you can get it listed on the front page as a WP:DYK. — raekyt 00:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What?? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


User:Srich32977 has deleted content without debating it first. His summary: "remove 1 per day video because we don't know how long he kept up, has kept up, or will keep up that endeavor (e.g., article will age but will his output continue at the same rate?)". So I will change it to "has made an average of one new video a day in the first 5 years". That will fix the issue.

Also, his changes from "After moving from Australia to the UK, and being employed by the BBC, he began to work with film" to "He then moved to the United Kingdom and was employed by the BBC where he worked with film" made it worse. I suggest "After moving from Australia to the United Kingdom, he was employed by the BBC and began to work with film." --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You expecting people to double-check changes with you beforehand, whereas you can add stuff without having to discuss it first? Noone is required to discuss changes beforehand. WP:BRD exists for contentious edits or featured articles. But a reasoned WP:ES is all that should be neccessary for a change. If you object, you can take it to the talk page, but noone is required to get changes approved beforehand? — raekyt 00:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"WP:BRD exists for contentious edits" Exactly.
By your response I think you don't have any objections to my suggestion. I will make the edit. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RS for article[edit]

A search on HighBeam Research for "Brady Haran" came up with 67 quality RS articles about or by Haran. There is a lot of material out there with which this article could become a DYK or GA. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They're not all him, though. ;-) But yea this article can be improved. Not sure theres enough for a GA, but probably definitely enough for DYK. — raekyt 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If these are him, then theres a BUNCH of them written by him, but not really about him so we can't use it to improve the article. — raekyt 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Those are the ones that I think MIGHT be usable, the rest are probably not. — raekyt 00:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I provided HighBeam as a starting point for more research, and it looks like you've culled through them. His name and location seem unique enough to verify it's him writing. Not that we would use his articles in this one, but they serve to verify that he did write in Australia. Enterprising contributors can use the other material as they see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Ya... if anyone wants access to one of those articles and doesn't have HighBeam account, I can provide it (via e-mail) and I assume Rich can too. — raekyt 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Or use Google. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Not everything on highbeam can be got off the internet for free.. — raekyt 17:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
True, but nothing in WP:V says it must be free. We cite books that are not on the internet, or our local libraries. They might cost us some money to purchase or to drive some distance to find. But we rely on the GF and editorial judgment of editors who post such references to do so accurately. The more important point, I think, is that this article is getting well fleshed out. I'm happy with its' progress and re-classed it from Start to C. Some more work is needed to B-class it or to DYK it. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, I was just saying if someone, who doesn't have access to it, wants it for improving the article, we could give it to them, if we don't have time add the info/reference ourselves. — raekyt 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry, you had mentioned supplying the HighBeam stuff off-line. (And I was unclear on what you ment after the Spinelli Google comment.) I did not intend to imply that my comment was directed to you as a criticism or debate, Raeky. (To the contrary, I thank you for your work, contributions, and comments.) As I added to the end of my comment, I think a very nice article has been produced. Face-smile.svgS. Rich (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Why is this article on WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Education? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

These projects and their members will be interested in what Haran has produced – educational videos on subjects related to chemistry. Listing on the projects themselves won't improve the article, but members of projects look at articles and can bring in their contributions to improve where they can. (The more editors who look at an article, the better. The more page views, the better.) If there are project members who really don't think the article pertains to their realms, they can remove the templates. But I doubt that will happen. – S. Rich (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why then not physics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy, theology, etc? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments on user talk. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comments are bigger than the article. I'm interested in debating, not reading a book. Please, be concise. Why then not physics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy, theology, etc? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
May I remove it? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Remove what? The 2 projects – why? – S. Rich (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Then you don't understand WikiProjects. They are social constructs. Members in these two projects may or may not have an interest in this particular article, but posting the project page gives the article more exposure to those editors interested in chemistry & education. WP:PROJGUIDES. Rich (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Why then not physics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy, theology, etc? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That's FAR to many. Chemistry seems somewhat reasonable since PTOV channel is his first and I think most popular. You can post on those other projects and see if the WANT to add it.. but generally I think that would be too much. Not sure if there is some maximum project rule. — raekyt 03:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Spinelli does not want to add the projects. He has some problem with the addition of the existing projects. In any event, the project banners are collapsed, so they won't pop out to the casual reader of this page. On the other hand, they will be visible on the project page assessment tables and contributors in those projects can seek out and improve this article. Jeez, why has this subject taken up so much space? Misc-tpvgames.gifS. Rich (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
"PTOV channel is his first and I think most popular" Nope and nope. His first was Nottingham Science and his most popular is Numberphile.
"Jeez, why has this subject taken up so much space?" Because it's annoying to see an article about a YouTube film-maker when you're looking for chemistry stuff. This article has absolutely nothing to do with chemistry. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you even know what wikiprojects are? No average reader will "find" this page by looking for chemistry articles by having it in that project. All it does is puts it on the radar of a lot more qualified editors to improve it. It's a process that's usually very hidden from most users who are not delving into the guts of wikipedia's inner workings. — raekyt 04:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
"Do you even know what wikiprojects are?" Yes, I do. You're avoiding the main point that this article has absolutely nothing to do with chemistry. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Then take it out of chemistry, but it belongs to the others. — raekyt 05:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

Please see my comments on user talk. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, revert that edit. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IBX it's best not to put citations within the infobox, add the information to the article's body and cite it there is the preferred way. — raekyt 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

March 6, 2013[edit]

  • 22:04, 6 March 2013SPECIFICO: "Delete assertions not supported by the two citations." You don't need to delete, just flag as "citation needed". I provided the source.
  • 22:10, 6 March 2013‎ SPECIFICO: "Conforming article text to the statements made in cited source." Actually, the statements are in the cited sources. I don't know what he is talking about. Anyway, I removed the "later" because it says he uploaded it from the start. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 19, 2013 -- Test Tube as RS[edit]

  • 03:57, 19 March 2013 SPECIFICO: "Undid revision 545346124 by Hugo Spinelli (talk) Removing unsourced content." The content is sourced. I undid the revision, since SPECIFICO didn't present a valid reason why the content should be deleted, didn't leave any comments on talk page and didn't answer my previous comments. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hugo Spinelli: Do not edit war. The self-published test tube citation is not WP:RS as to whether Haran was awarded a fellowship. That statement must be deleted. The second cited source does not discuss "initial plan" with a subsequent change to immediate uploading. Your text misrepresents what's in the source and constitutes your own unsourced narrative of what happened. You've cut and pasted my March 6th edit comments above, but you have not stated why you reject them. The next step is for you to discuss your concerns, not to state that you are correct and to edit war. Content that is not properly sourced may be deleted. You may state your reasons if you believe that the content is properly sourced. The purpose of talk is to resolve the disagreement, not merely to amplify it. Please undo your reversion of March 18 removal of the unsourced content, and state why you believe the text to be properly sourced. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Test Tube" citation, while a creation of Haran, actually features numerous other people and is done in collaboration with UoN. Presumably they exercising a degree of editorial control and/or are sufficiently satisfied with what he is producing. With this in mind, dismissing Test Tube as SPS or non-RS is not well founded. It satisfies the 5 SPS criteria for inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What does the following statement mean? "He was appointed filmmaker-in-residence for Nottingham Science City in 2007, as part of a fellowship agreed between the BBC and the University of Nottingham." "Fellowship" could mean anything from 'he received an academic honor' to 'BBC continued to pay his salary' -- its meaning is imprecise in a weasel/promotional way. It adds nothing to the description of Haran's work. If there is more detailed information or information from any source that describes the relationship, let's look at using that. The way it's currently used, it is not encyclopedic content in my judgment. Do you have a view on the "initial plan" text? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Promotional language removed. Not sure what you're referring to WRT "initial plan", but will look further. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see. Next paragraph! I'll look at it later today.15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Having looked, I see that Impact Magazine says "Originally, the idea was to produce a long documentary." In light of this, the language "initial plan" looks acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But did he abandon that project and just post the pieces individually, or was the long version completed in which case it's not clear there was a change of plan? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I see the ambiguity. Take a look at the re-write. – S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The source says:

"Brady had always intended to embark on a journalistic career and studied journalism for a year at university. He was then taken on board by The Adelaide Advertiser. But it was only after moving from Australia to the UK to work for the BBC that Brady was given the opportunity to work with film. “They quite liked things I was doing and thought I should be making films for TV, so I was sent off to be trained as a video journalist. I always had a bend towards doing science stories.” His strong passion for science saw him start a side project called ‘Test Tube’ through which he met Professor Martyn Poliakoff. Originally, the idea was to produce a long documentary. “I was always of the mind that that [the documentary] was not the best way to go. Who would watch a 2-hour long film? So right from the start, I decided to put all my raw footage on Youtube.”

It sounds to me as if he never liked the sponsor's idea of a documentary, so he posted his raw footage. If this is what he means, the current text does not convey that meaning. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Brady Sequence[edit]

There seems to be a back and forth over having a section on the so-called "Brady Sequence", but it fails WP:UNDUE. The section, as most recently formulated, summarizes (incorrectly) the content of a YouTube video where, in part, Matt Parker asks Brady to name two numbers, and uses them as a seed for a Fibonacci sequence, and then demonstrates that the ratio of consecutive terms still approaches the golden ratio, so as to demonstrate that one has the same result for a different seed that of the standard Fibonacci sequence. It's a rhetorical / pedagogical device to refer to this as the "Brady Sequence", not an indication that naming two numbers off the top of his head was a noteworthy achievement in Brady's life. (It wasn't.) (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Brady's current residence is Bristol. Please change. (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Again confirmed in latest Hello Internet podcast - H.I. #31 at the 1 hour 6 minute 7 second mark. (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Peridic Videos Blog93.191.37.132 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Brady Haran[edit]

add phonetic characters please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:CC00:91A4:4B3F:AB89:B94C (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brady Haran. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)