Talk:Brady Haran/Archives/2016

Future Projects
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. — raeky  t  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  . 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)

Tagging "multiple issues"
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. — raeky  t  14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've only been editing this long (haha, since before Civility and long before 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. — raeky  t  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. — raeky  t  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... — raeky  t  01:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Some references
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.
 * Bringing science to life: Brady Haran’s approach to science communication. A blog post by Brigitte Nerlich from January 22, 2013. Yes it's just a blog but there's some background info that could maybe be sourced from elsewhere.
 * "From Test Tube to YouTube: Martyn Poliakoff and Brady Haran pay tribute to Ron Nyholm". Education in Chemistry. Vol 50, No 1. January 2013.
 * "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."


 * Usborne, Simon. How to explain absolutely anything: Academics pick apart mysteries of the cosmos on YouTube. The Independent. January 30, 2013.
 * "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." http://www.iop.org/about/awards/education/kelvin/medallists/page_67620.html 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)

Pronunciation of Brady Haran
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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412175502/http://www.webbyawards.com:80/webbys/current.php?media_id=97&season=16 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97&season=16

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

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

add pronunciation
/ˈbreɪdi/ or /ˈbrΛdɪ/? - this is an encyclopedia. We learn stuff here. We aren't supposed to hide information or to play savvy by claiming we have hidden knowledge. Read what the phonetic alphabet is and please be analytical. Ask Brady how he calls himself and write it phonetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. It's /ˈbreɪdi/, as can be verified by listening to an episode of his podcast Hello Internet. Thanks for the suggestion! —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)