User talk:JohanFranzBrady
Welcome!
[edit]Hi JohanFranzBrady! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Damien Linnane (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Citations needed and credentials
[edit]Hi Johan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Just a couple small pieces of advice to help get you started. Firstly, if you think something is doubtful and needs a reference, rather than writing that in brackets like you did here [1], please instead place a tag on the article as per the instructions at Wikipedia:Citation needed. Secondly, as per MOS:CREDENTIAL, typically don't refer to people as 'Dr.', on Wikipedia, even if they are a doctor. So write 'Richard F. Brady' instead of 'Dr. Richard F. Brady'. Have a great day. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dr. Richard F. Brady was a medical doctor. In fact, he was Chief of Staff. This is the entire reason he was a recipient of the incredible honor, the Order of Brilliant Jade. Ten years ago, I personally held this medal. I will again in less than three weeks, at the Stanford University Library.
- The list needs many corrections, but my research continues. 1) I did not know how else to question the validity of a listed honoree. They does not change that it is doubtful. My research indicates this listed name was probably placed there in error. I don't recall which name, though. I welcome others to challenge my assertion on that other person. As for Dr. Richard F. Brady, I have a video on Youtube, interviewing my aunt (c. 2014) holding her father's Order of Brilliant Jade medal, as well as close-up photographs of same medal. I know my grandfather was awarded the Medal! I am unsure why Wikipedia feels it should not use the proper prefix as society, journalistic style, and the professional/scholar communities. Why alienate Wikipedia from more respected formats?? JohanFranzBrady (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Erhard Milch does not even seem associated with anything in China. I certainly did not mark it correctly, but not seeing the correct option, I brought it to attention. I'm not interested in causing problems, but rather correcting important errors. JohanFranzBrady (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm certainly glad you want to help correct errors; pointing out how to format it correctly was just my way of helping you with that.
Why alienate Wikipedia from more respected formats?
- Because there are hundreds of 'respected formats' all over the planet that style things differently, and Wikipedia is written for everyone; we don't revolve the entire encyclopedia around the format typically used in one country. If you were mentioning the person in a sentence and the fact they were a doctor was relevant to the sentence, you could definitely say something like 'medical doctor Richard Freeman Brady', but it would be less ideal to say 'Richard Freeman Brady, MD' as outside the US the postnominal MD can refer to different things (in the UK and many other countries, it refers to a post-graduate research qualification, not a standard medical degree). Likewise, we use different postnominals in my country to confer someone has a medical degree, which won't be familiar to people in other countries, and "Dr." can mean many things, including an honourary doctorate. Hence why it is better to say what someone is a doctor of (assuming it is relevant to say based on the context). If you're writing something in a sentence and it's relevant to do so, you can clarify what the persons job or qualification is, but this is only a list of names, and the titles and postnominals are not part of a person's legal name. Many people in the list of recipients of the Order of Brilliant Jade have titles and postnominals. We don't include them either, regardless of whether they were relevant to the reason they were given the award. This is a long-standing precedent and I'm not the person you have to convince about this if you disagree. If you want to attempt to overturn decades of precedent for how we format things on Wikipedia, you'll have to go through formal channels elsewhere. I don't like your chances of being successful.
- Also, something we definitely do not do under any circumstance on Wikipedia is integrate a persons professional title into the name of the Wikipedia article about them. So if an article for Richard Freeman Brady is ever created, the article will be Richard Freeman Brady. It will not be 'Richard Freeman Brady, MD or Dr. Richard Freeman Brady, which are the two links you've attempted to add. Look up any imaginable person on Wikipedia who happens to be a doctor of any kind if you want to verify this. Accordingly, the link you should be making is simply 'Richard Freeman Brady'.
- I don't doubt Richard received the award, however, see WP:RS for what you can and can't use as a reliable source for that. And see WP:RSPYT for information on why you cannot use a Youtube video as a source. It doesn't matter whether you know something was true or not. It doesn't matter whether something is true of not. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, if it cannot be verified by a reliable source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I hope this is helpful. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are quite incorrect that a Youtube video is my source. I personally witnessed the medal in my hands. I will see it again in three weeks, from the Special Collections at Stanford University. I don't need to source anything to you or anyone else. It is the truth! I am the witness!! If your standards are so off beat, then don't worry about it. The truth is the truth. Keep making mistakes if you must. Just be advised the truth was in front of you, clearly made available. I welcome any and all to research/source the facts. Others listed are incorrect. Several have been left off the list. Several reliable, primary sources are available. Why allow such a questionable list of a very important historical event stay incorrect???? Don't take this personal, take it as an imperfect system that you are defending. Because Wikipedia does not list professional titles does not make that a correct policy. Follow journalistic style. Being wrong about your policy is not a justification to tout it as a solution. Don't shout, "We are incorrect, but our policy says we are doing it right!" A fly on the wall would be interested in hearing the discussion room's justification for going against society's standards. The fact he was a medical doctor saving thousands of innocent lives in war zone is EXACTLY the reason he was bestowed the award! Quite important that the public knows he was a physician. In the subject "Youtube" video, that was a post-grad assignment in a Journalism History course. (Wikipedia), be better! JohanFranzBrady (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You were the one who felt the need to point out that the video existed, and I was just pointing out that you can't use that as a source, because it's clear you (understandably) don't know a lot of the rules here yet and I was trying to be helpful. You seem to have ignored me when I said this the first time, so let me repeat that nobody is doubting the medal was awarded. Again, please read WP:RS, and then read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can't cite YouTube, and you definitely can't cite yourself. You can't cite the fact you have witnessed the medal, you must cite something that meets the threshold of WP:RS, and if no such source exists, then it shouldn't be put in an encyclopedia. It is literally that simple.
- I was just trying to give you friendly advice. I won't be returning to your talk page again, but I'll leave you with some more advice: Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you have a personal connection to Richard Freeman Brady, then you shouldn't be editing about him. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are quite incorrect that a Youtube video is my source. I personally witnessed the medal in my hands. I will see it again in three weeks, from the Special Collections at Stanford University. I don't need to source anything to you or anyone else. It is the truth! I am the witness!! If your standards are so off beat, then don't worry about it. The truth is the truth. Keep making mistakes if you must. Just be advised the truth was in front of you, clearly made available. I welcome any and all to research/source the facts. Others listed are incorrect. Several have been left off the list. Several reliable, primary sources are available. Why allow such a questionable list of a very important historical event stay incorrect???? Don't take this personal, take it as an imperfect system that you are defending. Because Wikipedia does not list professional titles does not make that a correct policy. Follow journalistic style. Being wrong about your policy is not a justification to tout it as a solution. Don't shout, "We are incorrect, but our policy says we are doing it right!" A fly on the wall would be interested in hearing the discussion room's justification for going against society's standards. The fact he was a medical doctor saving thousands of innocent lives in war zone is EXACTLY the reason he was bestowed the award! Quite important that the public knows he was a physician. In the subject "Youtube" video, that was a post-grad assignment in a Journalism History course. (Wikipedia), be better! JohanFranzBrady (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)