Talk:Brady Haran/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Examples of racism
I recently ran across an episode of Numberphile in which Brady made a casually racist joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHhnh-1Obyc at 2:25) against an asian person. I'd like to know if this was just a one-off joke in poor taste or if there are other examples of anti-Asian racism coming from Brady. — X S G 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is a reference to Kim Jong-il's portrayal in Team America: World Police, right? Anyway, unless there is any RS discussing this as racist there is nothing to discuss here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- It is in no way racist and it was not in poor taste. Baldwin Clere (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Radio Times
To the unregistered and newly registered users fixated on this topic: please stop adding the claim that Haran won a Radio Times award unless you have a source that actually supports that statement. The source that keeps being added only says that Haran got more votes in the poll, not that he won an award, which they very well might not give him considering the digital ballot-stuffing mentioned in the article. Please stop adding it to the "Awards" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017
 | This edit request to Brady Haran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Dr. Brady Haran's title of co-host of Hello Internet to vice-host of Hello Internet as he believes the term "co-" to be demeaning and wishes to be known as the vice host, per ep 86. TheStarMiner (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Can people please stop taking their jokes so damn literally? We don't want people to think that all the Tims are like Mr Logic from Viz, do we? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I must admit that I am not a regular listener to HI (as it is just way too long for me to find time for), and I mostly know them via their excellent short videos, so I have not heard them do this. If they are deliberately encouraging vandalism then that is a really great way for them to damage their own reputations and I'd be much less inclined to work hard to keep crap off their articles if they are deliberately bringing it on themselves. I'd also be genuinely disappointed because I have always regarded them as being good guys firmly on the side of making the internet less stupid. Turning on us is just a double victory for Team Stupid as it not only makes it harder for us to write an encyclopaedia but it damages their reputations as internet educators. There really is no shortage of stupid on the internet already.
- Maybe indefinite semi-protection is the way to go for their articles and for HI? That way we could keep disruption to a minimum without too much work on our part. Anybody with sensible suggestions could leave them on the talk pages. The articles would probably grow and improve more slowly like this but that seems like a reasonable price to pay for less disruption. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a Wikipedia editor and a listener to the show, I will try to share my perspective on the situation. While they never "encourage" vandalism, they do not discourage it and bring it up on occasion. This of course causes some listeners of the show to vandalize Wikipedia articles related to things discussed on the podcast. However as people who vandalize these articles often show the vandalism to other listeners of the show, there are usually some listeners of the show that revert the vandalism. While this is not positive for Wikipedia, the hosts of the show from what I can tell do not wish harm to Wikipedia, and have on several occasions discussed Wikipedia's importance. While my view on this issue may not be entirely neutral, I think it would be wrong to believe that the hosts of the show wish to cause permanent damage to Wikipedia. CoolieCoolster (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for that. That is much more in line with what I hoped than what I feared. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am a listener too. But IMO they saying "we would not encourage vandalising Wikipedia" will have and had the opposite effect, and I believe when they said it themselves they are well aware of it. Of course, bringing Wikipedia vandalism at all on the table on the show at all will motivate some listeners that perhaps what to catch the hosts' attention, or to make a joke, to vandalise Wikipedia. That is why in my view they are consciously encouraging vandalism. Emphrase - 💬 / 📝 16:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, them bringing up times that listeners vandalize Wikipedia encourages vandalism, and at this point they know that them bringing the vandalism will encourage further vandalism. But they also know that some listeners of the show will follow the vandalizers to the Wikipedia articles to remove the vandalism. CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Or people like me, who while listening to the show already know that this page is/is going to be vandalised without even viewing to see if this page is. And sure enough there is over the past view days. At this point, vandalising Wikipedia have become an element of the fan culture of the show. Sigh. Emphrase - 💬 / 📝 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, them bringing up times that listeners vandalize Wikipedia encourages vandalism, and at this point they know that them bringing the vandalism will encourage further vandalism. But they also know that some listeners of the show will follow the vandalizers to the Wikipedia articles to remove the vandalism. CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would say they encourage vandalism, sometimes with a wink and a nod along the lines of "We would never encourage Wikipedia vandalism, but it would be incredibly funny if someone added the phrase 'love lions' to this article." I think indefinite semi-protection of Brady Haran, CGP Grey, and maybe Hello Internet would probably be a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. I agree with that and I note that your comment has sat here for a few days without anybody disagreeing which tentatively suggests a degree of assent. Lets leave things for now but the next time any persistent trouble kicks off I think we should request indefinite semi-protection. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- As a Wikipedia editor and a listener to the show, I will try to share my perspective on the situation. While they never "encourage" vandalism, they do not discourage it and bring it up on occasion. This of course causes some listeners of the show to vandalize Wikipedia articles related to things discussed on the podcast. However as people who vandalize these articles often show the vandalism to other listeners of the show, there are usually some listeners of the show that revert the vandalism. While this is not positive for Wikipedia, the hosts of the show from what I can tell do not wish harm to Wikipedia, and have on several occasions discussed Wikipedia's importance. While my view on this issue may not be entirely neutral, I think it would be wrong to believe that the hosts of the show wish to cause permanent damage to Wikipedia. CoolieCoolster (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Request to listeners of the podcast
Please post a comment on my talk page if Wikipedia is brought up on the podcast in the future. I'm curious. Thanks, Enigmamsg 15:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)