Talk:The Russell Brand Show prank calls/Archive 1

material removed

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

We do not include information about what someone "purportedly said" sourced from a UK tabloid. For goodness sake!--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Does this article really satisfy wikipedia notability? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't they should be deleted. This story just led the BBC news.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most people here don't consider the BBC to be a notable source! Bugsy (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This story is overwhelming the British news media, in preference to the global economic crisis, US elections etc. Some might say that we're looking for something - anything - else to report(!), and that the media is more likely to report stories about itself, but I think that demonstrates its notability. Halsteadk (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Editable User:Isonomia/Georgina Baillie Article

Using a bit of initiative I have resurrected what I can of the original Georgina Baillie article and put a copy where it can be edited. Unfortuanately I won't be able to do much tonight but if anyone else wants to contribute then please do edit the Article Bugsy (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "original" article is still in the edit history. Nothing was deleted. If you think it should be reverted to that, make the case. Don't create tabloidesque blps on userspace.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that, but how does that help produce an entry for Georgina Baillie? Bugsy (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It tells you that the changes to the entry on the victim have been accepted. If you want to revert to an article on her, then get a consensus.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this one. It helps by pointing out that you should grow up and make a proper, structured argument in support of your claims, and accept the outcome of any discussion, just like anything else on Wikipedia. RaseaC (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous, similar controversies; worth a mention?

"Northamptonshire Police: Brand was forced to apologise for making a hoax call to Northamptonshire Police during a stand-up show, claiming to have spotted a man responsible for a series of sex attacks...Rod Stewart: Two years ago the singer forced him to retract a false claim that he had slept with the singer's daughter, Kimberly."[1] Are they worth mentioning in the background section? Dalejenkins | 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• The background section already links to that article, as cited in Further reading. When I added it, I thought it best to just cite it as further reading, rather than include every single detail from it into this article. It's not what one would call balanced material. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Earlier controversy is relevant, and has been mentioned in much of the press reporting. It could be included in the context {"many of the press reports also noted that..."), with citations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Worthy?

Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic really worthy of an article all to itself? It's hardly the most groundbreaking news ever. Merge it or delete it, please! Pullshapes (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Director-General of the BBC just suspended an A-list British celebrity. Oh, this is pretty big.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it seems worthy for now. The article (and the news stories) could explain why the prank calls were made. I have been living abroad for years and don't understand why this actor was called and why these comments about his grand daughter were said - was there any background to it? --217.201.14.126 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

>> don't understand why this actor was called and why these comments about his grand daughter were

>> said - was there any background to it?

Sachs was apparently due to appear to talk about his appearance in a TV programme about actors who became famous after appearing in The Bill 193.201.135.244 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A merge makes little sense. This story will be relevant to the biographies of Ross and Brand, who have been suspended. It will be relevant to the article on the show, and to articles on criticism of the BBC. If we have an article on the incident, all can refer to it (with a brief summary on the respective articles) and we can keep all the information together.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it's worthy, if only for the public furore over the call. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

It seems relevant now, yes, but at the time it hadn't quite been blown up this much Pullshapes (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

Any thoughts on adding Jonathan Ross to the title? It could be argued that, as the one that mentioned the sleeping with the granddaughter, he is just as notable, if not more so, than Brand. Any thoughts? RaseaC (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how lengthening the title helps. The incident too place on the Russell Brand show, and he made the calls. Of course Ross is equally culpable, but lengthening the title just for fairness doesn't seem useful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that lengthening for the sake of fairness would be pointless, but I suggest lengthening it because as it stands it isn't a particularly good title. If it took place of the Russell Brand show it should be called Russell Brand Show prank calls row which now that I read it would be just as good as Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross prank calls row RaseaC (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection the the first of those. But I don't think it matters too much. The second would, I think we agree, be inferior.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Inferior is such a strong word. I'll wait and see if anyone else has a view (it would seem that at least 2 other people are in favour of including Ross in the title). RaseaC (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TITLE CHANGED. I've now included Ross's name and changed row, which is rather colloquial, to controversy. Also added telephone in to avoid confusion. Dalejenkins | 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted you. There's a discussion here, can you please participate in it before boldy moving. What's "colloquial" about "row" it is what the BBC were calling it earlier "controversy" is overused on wiki.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: comments below (let's try and keep this together). I feel the current title is better than the previous but should still be changed to Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross prank call row or something very similar. RaseaC (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that row is too colloquial and contorversy is the much more appropriate word. The defenition of Row is "a noisy dispute or quarrel; commotion"[2], whilst controversy is defined as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion"[3]. Now which is this incident more like? Therefore, I propose that we have a vote. I've added this into a new section below. Dalejenkins | 11:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that controversy is better. There's every chance that we'll reach consensus without a vote. risk (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the article on Georgina Baillie

Where on earth is the page for this Georgina baillie? I tried to find it, and to start one when I couldn't but it just keeps coming back to this article which has nothing to do with the lady who no doubt is known by most of the UK by now!

Bugsy (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• If i recall correctly it was (rightyl) voted for deletion. I would advise against resurrecting it. RaseaC (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Either it was deleted before the PM started talking about her, or you are just potty. I met a lady on the way to pick up the kids who knew her name and what she was famous for but somehow wikipedia thinks she is not worth an article. Come on stop being stupid and lets get the article going. Bugsy (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is that article, which has been renamed and refactored. Please read our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. Not everything in Wikipedia belongs in a biographical article, or should be presented as such. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone is so famous that they knock the US elections, the credit crunch, and just about every other story off the front pages, I would expect WIkipedia to have at least one perhaps several articles. At the very least 20,000 UK residents have complained to the BBC because of the abuse by J.Ross about this lady. If 20,000 UK people don't count for anything then it speaks volumes for the US-centric outlook of wikipedia! Bugsy (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While I completely agree with your sentiments re US-centric outlook, as a 100% Brit, I really don't think she is notable in her own right - she is surely notable only by being the granddaughter of a well-known and well-loved comedy actor in what is widely regarded as one of the all-time classic sit-coms? I do believe most of those complaints - which have come more than a week after the broadcast - are in support of Sachs, not specifically his granddaughter. The fact that they have come so long after the broadcast indicates that they have not come from listeners of the show, who are likely to be younger and hence may not be so familiar with Fawlty Towers, but from older people who are more likely to be more familiar with Sachs. The sheer volume of complaints is the reaction to the fact that people see this as two men who are already regarded by many to be overpaid from the public purse (especially Ross), getting a cheap laugh at the expense of an old, dearly loved, innocent man and his family. Halsteadk (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

She is not notable. RaseaC (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the comments and apparently everyone knows who she is - to be honest I just wanted to read what wikipedia said about her, and now I'm laughing at the rediculousness of people who know who Georgina Baillie is trying to say that she is not notable. For god's sake I've even sent a [[4]] picture of her to a friend without any comment because I know he will know precisely who she is.Bugsy (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• The relevant policy is people notable for one event only; Ms Baillie is notable, but not outside the context of the discussion of this event, so the article is about the event, and she is introduced as a participant in that event. If this coverage subsequently raises her profile so that she does other notable things, then she'd be an appropriate subject for a separate article. This article is all about the reason she's currently famous, so it's not like we're not covering it. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet you £100 that you'll be eating your words. But what do I care? It's the kind of attitude that stopped me writing for Wikipedia. I've got better things to do than discuss whether someone who is known throughout the UK is famous - it's just a silly conversation and if you can't see that you either don't live in the UK or have been hiding in a nuclear bunker without a radio. Bugsy (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fame and Notability are not the same thing, as you should be aware from writing here. Sorry, policy prevails. --Rodhullandemu 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• She is not notable, but I think we should get a pic of her for the 'those involved' pictures on the article, as she was blasting Ross and Brand for their misconduct. She can talk (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Impressive

Just to say that this article really does show what Wikipedia's about. I was on here this morning where it was a stub and up for deletion, and now its a substantial, informational and well referenced article, all in under 10 hours. I just wish I had the time to do more ;)

Well done Wikipedia! - sorfane 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We do what we can, the best that we can and await the results. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Vote for a re-name

As a result of a discussion above, the only way to settle the issue is to take a vote. Dalejenkins | 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree!

1. See WP:NOTVOTE
2. No "none of the above" option included.
3. No "no change" option included

I vote that we ignore this vote Mayalld (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose all options, it is neither a controversy, row or scandal. — Realist² 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

At present I prefer the existing title to any of the proposed alternatives, on the grounds that they are over-long, if anyone can come up with a more concise title than the present one it would help. PatGallacher (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this vote - it's badly set up, doesn't reflect any kind of fair choice, and is an attempt to force an issue being discussed elsewhere on this page. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three, the third one is a MOS violation, it should be a small v and small s. D.M.N. (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this - since I've suggested a choice that isn't on it. And I see no need to expand the title by including both names. Can't we discuss and not vote? --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The BBC itself is referring to this as a "prank calls row"[5] - is that not significant? Halsteadk (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

They actually call it "Russell Brand Prank Calls Row" which seems a good name for it. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher quote

I'm wondering if this wouldn't better precis'ed, if we quote in full there is maybe a copyvio issue. I think the gist is more important than a verbatim report, and he's one of many comentators. Thoughts? --Rodhullandemu 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I found it difficult to follow, when I read it. So I've refactored it, after reading the cited sources (only one of which turned out to be relevant), in the hope that it is clearer now. Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that it's been reverted. That's a shame, because the text that was there (and that has been reinstated) is incoherent. And I'm talking about the part that is outside of the quotation marks. I think that this edit did not improve the article in any way at all. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to have a block of verbatim quotation when Gallagher is only one of several people who have commented. Perhaps it would be better to remove it altogether, after all, what on earth makes him a reliable source? --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Neither did I, which is why I summarized it as I did. (Look at what was reverted.) It's not whether he is a reliable source that matters, though. It's whether the source in which his reaction is reported, in this case NME, is reliable. That is our source, not him. (I point out that there are now other sources documenting Gallager's reaction, including BBC News and Digital Spy. Feel free to add proper citations of those sources if you think that the one already there is not reliable enough on its own.) Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-recorded

Does the intro need to include mention of the show being pre-recorded? Doing this seems to imply, to me, that this is somehow noteworthy in itself - so either the show itself or radio in general is usually live, though this isn't stated. Is that so, and is that the reason for that wording? Or is there a further implication - that the row would not exist if the segment had been live? I know this sounds pedantic, but it just seems like an odd detail to include in the intro, and I'm not sure it's sufficiently expanded upon in the article. - Gregg (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unlike whether or not Brand actually did have (to borrow a phrase) "sexual relations with that woman", which the sources have barely touched upon, the fact that the show was pre-recorded has been a topic that sources have discussed. Several people have questioned why the show was considered fit to broadcast. That actually is a major part of the issue. So yes, the introduction should mention it, and the rest of the article should explain it. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very relevant, it goes to the issue of editorial failure, which is the nub of the ongoing debate and review.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Again: Is the clumsy wording needed in the intro, and why isn't it expanded upon in the article? I'm fairly sure it is relevant, but there is no indication in the article at all that any element of the aftermath would have been different if the show had been live. So we're left with a clumsy implication in the intro that isn't followed-up in the article. Mentioning it in the intro might be acceptable if it was pregnant of a chunk of the article, but as it stands it looks like a random fact shoved in what's meant to be an over-view of the article below. - Gregg (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Because you haven't written the expansion of the point that you want expanded, yet. ☺ As I wrote before, the reaction from politicians section is incomplete, and needs expansion. They are some of the people questioning editorial judgement. Why don't you hunt up some sources on the call for a Parliamentary debate that has been made, for starters? You could also help by finding sources for David Cameron's reaction, and the Liberal Democrat's reaction to his reaction. Uncle G (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Because I haven't seen any such sources. I have seen it mentioned on TV (along with that Lib Dem reaction - Don Foster was on earlier saying that Brand and Douglas's resignations were a step too far), so I think you're probably right, but not in any of the on-line stuff I've read. (Unfortunately, "I saw it on TV" is not an acceptable citation.) And, again, even if the point is expanded, I'm not convinced it needs to be noted in the intro, and the current wording is misleading. Do you really think it needs to be in the intro, and if so how can we word it so the reason for its significance is clear? - Gregg (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Here you go:
          • Brittany Peats (2008-10-29). "Tory weighs into Ross/Brand row". New Statesman. New Statesman.
          • Ian Darby (2008-10-30). "Tories mull responsible TV incentives". BrandRepublic. Haymarket Media.
          • Mark Sweney (2008-10-29). "'Responsibility contract' would threaten media freedom, say Lib Dems". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.
          • Owen Gibson (2008-10-29). "BBC on defensive and Ofcom steps in as 10,000 complain about Brand and Ross". Guardian News and Media Limited.
        • You'll notice that there's other stuff missing from the article that is in those, such as more on Jeremy Hunt's statements and a reaction from Nadine Dorries. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors

Has anyone like the beeb or otherwise blamed the editors for letting the show go out. If so, we need it in the article. I'll have a look. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

• Yes. The politicians have. There's an {{expand section}} on the reactions from politicians section for that very reason. Uncle G (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ross suspended for three months

As I can't edit the page this is a ref for the above statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7700816.stm Bihco (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll put it in. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

See #complaints record, #Pre-recorded, and #Noel Gallagher quote for more sources to cite in the article and more expansion to be done using those sources. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Andrew Sachs?

There have been huge amounts of calls for Andrew Sachs to be knighted for his extreme bravery during this whole fiasco, should this be mentioned in the article?

--92.22.205.97 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've not heard any such thing, but even if a source could be found, it still sounds like a breach of WP:CRYSTAL. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise! The only call for Andrew Sachs to be Knighted that I can find was at Talk:Andrew Sachs and came from this IP editor Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bravery"?!?! What are you talking about?

I really don't think he deserves to be knighted for this. If he had galloped round on a horse to Russell Brand's house, thrown down the gauntlet for a duel for questioning his Granddaughter's innocence then maybe.

... Hang on. Doesn't this happen daily around the world? Yes. Yes, I think it does.

Am I wrong to believe that this is only recieving media attention because of Andrew Sachs' involvement?

If Sachs deserves Knighthood for this, then ring up the queen and tell her she best knight every old person who's ever been harrassed by a weirdo or two.

Saachs does not deserve a knighthood for this. How is it brave at all? It's people like you who turned this into a media circus in the first place. Only 2 people complained originally, all the rest have come after the media blew it up, 10 days later!

JUST CAUSE HE DIDN'T TURN UP FOR AND INTERVIEW WHICH HE WAS MENT TO AND THE FACT THAT HIS GRANDDAUGTHER WORKS AS A STRIPPER this has got to be that most lamest sadded think i every heard REALLY OTHERS OUT THERE DESRVE TO BE NIGHTED WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MORE THAN HIM.Veggiegirl (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Baillie and Brand confirmed sexual relationship

The fact that Baillie has confirmed she did actually sleep with Brand three times in late 2006 is being removed for being "not relevant" and being against BLP[6][7]. This is frankly absurd, it has been confirmed by her herself in a source, so it is not a BLP violation, and whether or not he had slept with her is entirely relevant to the article. It is unnacceptable to censor this information in the name of BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, how is it relevant? As some sort of justification or explanation? Too much detail is outside the scope of this article. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One source says it is admitted, another say it is denied. But how the hell is it relevant? The whole point of this "scandal" was that you don't discuss the sex life of someone over the phone to their grandfather or on air. It is a private matter. So, what, we compound the victimhood by publishing the stuff again in an encyclopedia artice? And needlessly. One can understand what is notable and what is important without it. Do you think the BBC or Ofcom inquiry care?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevent, I was surprised it was reverted too. RaseaC (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see editors claiming relevance, but I see no justification for that contention. --Rodhullandemu 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It affects the question of how serious the actions of Ross and Brand are. Mayalld (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source say it makes any difference?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So it's somehow less serious an invasion of privacy because it's true? That, with respect, is bizarre. --Rodhullandemu 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

An invasion of privacy? The information is in sources already in the article, from the woman herself. This is not protection, this is censorship. If it never happened, then Brand broadcast a bare faced lie rather than an indiscreet piece of personal information. There is a difference. By ommission you are leaving out a massive piece of context from this whole article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse of BLP to fundementaly change the meaning of the article is clear:

The 'BLP protection' version:

In the calls in question, Brand and Ross claimed that Brand had had sexual relations with Sachs' granddaughter Georgina Baillie, along with further apparently lewd suggestions.

The sourceable version:

In the calls in question, Brand and Ross referred to a prior sexual relationship between Brand and Sachs' granddaughter Georgina Baillie, along with further apparently lewd suggestions.

MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, can you supply reliable sources that indicate the discussion of whether she did or didn't has any bearing on the issues that are being discussed?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to adding the fact that it is true, they did have a sexual relationship. I didn't know this at first, the fact that they did have a relationship adds an even bigger dimension to this "joke". It's almost as if Brand wanted to rub it the face of the old guy so to speak. Whereas when I didn't known about the actual relationship I would have taken this as a poor taste joke. The joke seems even worse given the fact that they apparently did have a prior relationship. It shows the chauvinistic side of Brands onstage persona. — Realist² 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Even worse? after learning about it I thought it made the "joke" seem much less worse. Seeing as he was actually telling the truth and not just being annoying and unfunny (he was still being that, but not *just* that). Either way of course it's relevent. --86.163.123.180 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we may all have opinions about whether it is worse to make it up to annoy him, or to betray an ex-lover's confidence to embarrass an old man, but whether we find such titillation interesting is beside the point. It would only be relevant for an article on the incident if our sources indicated that the actors in the incident were discussing it, or it had become a matter of mainstream media debate, or an issue in the official investigations. So unless we've sources that make it relevant, it isn't. No matter how much any voyeuristic wikipedian might care. People who want to write about such stuff to amuse can perhaps ask for a job editing elsewhere.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You want a source to prove that the sexual relationship with Brand is relevant and being discussed, why don't you look at the one that is already in the article? Seriously, quit the lawyering. I am bemused that your so called BLP concerns don't extend to clarifying the context with respect to Brand 'as an actor in the issue'. Despite sources, you would seemingly rather leave it totally open to interpretation as to whether Brand is a bare faced crazy liar or just an indiscreet idiot. That is a pretty huge double standard if you ask me. I will repeat, that distinction is quite obviously going to be considered part of the investigation. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ms Bailie, a burlesque performer known as Voluptua, confirmed she slept with him three times in late 2006 but said: "It was never going to be a serious relationship but I felt I could trust him as a friend. I feel utterly exposed and betrayed. [8]

Here's your source. See it's in the media. It was even already a source to this article. And of course it makes a difference wether someone is fired for speaking the truth or for making up lies. Common sense should be source enough for that. --85.146.181.187 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not show that it is relevant, only that one newspaper found it interesting. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Different thing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? It all reads more and more like The Sun these days. And just as much fucking mind control.

I must agree with those suggestions that this is completely relevant. Adambro (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly relevent. 'Brand claimed to...' (to paraphrase). See Wikipedia:WTA#Claim: The word "claim" does not always carry opinion, but it can be misused because it often suggests that a speaker is not being truthful. Why can't we clear that up (by confirming that he was being truthful)? It casts Brand in a negative light, rather than reporting the facts plainly and wholly. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we're nitpicking, I'm pretty sure that only David Baddiel (the show the week before) and Jonathan Ross ever claimed that Brand had slept with her. Brand didn't make any definite comment (that I can remember), except perhaps in the last two calls ("I wore a condom", "it was consensual"), but even that can be interpreted as a joke. And Ross said that he didn't actually know whether it was true or not. As for relevance, whether it was true differentiates between simple ungentlemanly behavior and slander, I think that makes it relevant. risk (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand how anyone can argue it's not relevant whether the central statement here was true or not. Given the muddy media coverage of this story, I would have thought it would be one of the main things people might visit this page to find out.

Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I came to the Wikipedia page to find out this very thing. It gives context to the story, and is obviously relavant. You can censor it if you want, but don't pretend it is information that people won't be looking for. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been reported beyond the tabloids, and Bailie obviously felt that it was relevant. There is a clear consensus emerging here for its inclusion; please stop removing it in accordance with your own wishes and discuss why it should not be there. The fact that they had sex is not salacious or trivial detail extraneous to the incident at hand. The uproar is over two things, as I see it: a lack of respect shown towards Sachs; and a lack of respect for Bailie's privacy. On the second count, how can the reader fully understand the issue if they don't know whether Brand is lying or invading Bailie's right to privacy? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it not also be considered relevant, in this context, that the Satanic Sluts website at one time actually linked to the viddycast for Russell Brand's previous show with the news that they "got a mention" and directing viewers to the precise point where David Baddiel described seeing Satanic Sluts with Russell in his underpants, including "Leonard Sachs's granddaughter"? The link has subsequently disappeared (as have all viddycasts from the BBC website though they remain on YouTube) but is reported from various sources (screen-grabs exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsdomicile (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Who slept with whom? (Removed)

I've repeatedly removed a line of tabloid crap about whether the victim's grand-daughter might have slept with Russell Brand or not. Whilst the information seems verifiable (although I've seen conflicting sources here), the discussion is simply irrelevant to any understanding of the scandal or it's implications. I doubt the BBC, Oftel or any of the investigations care either way. We are not a tabloid, and whilst titillation may be of interest to the celebrity voyeur, it does not belong in a serious encyclopedic article. Tabloids are tomorrows chip-paper, encyclopedias remain. Oh and before someone tells me it was the Telegraph, well, I call for us to have better editorial judgement. Just as one does not flippantly discuss the sex-life of an uninvolved individual on a radio show, we don't do it in an encyclopedia. Anyway, I ask that the material be not reinserted unless there is a consensus that I am wrong. Thus is the spirit of BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear your views, although disagree respectfully on this occasion as I believe such an admission by Ms Baillie is indeed relevant to the article. The fact that Ms Baillie acknowledges the truth of the liaison with Brand certainly highlights the fact that the conduct complained of to the BBC by viewers was the violation of her privacy and her grandfather's privacy. If Brand's statements had been false then it could have been his lying (or wishful thinking) which was being complained of - but this was not the case. Just because the whole subject matter of the article reflects "populist" tastes does not make the article any less encyclopaedic - and likewise, just because the sweaty and steamy stuff rates a minor mention, does not make it tabloidal. I have not made any adjustments to the article to restore the deleted material as I see that others have already done so.--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One may have an opinion about whether this stuff is interesting. But do the sources indicate it is significant? If the sources indicated that whether she did or didn't would matter that would be one thing. But I see no evidence.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not whether it is "interesting", it is whether it is relevant. The point that it does matter both to the claims being made and the subsequent investigation has been explained to you repeatedly, even in the post you just replied to, you are just willfully ignoring it. You see no evidence but it is there, in the sources. The fact that he revealed it to sachs offending her has been discussed, the fact she believes it was a breach of trust has been discussed, that fact he mentioned it has been discussed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You claim it is pertinent to an understanding of the incident and it's consequences. I have repeatedly asked for sources that support that contention, you have supplied none.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding below. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion or otherwise of the fact that Baillie and Brand did have sex

We appear to have an embryonic edit war in the making, with a couple of editors insisting that it is not relevant, and a significantly larger number saying that it is.

The upshot is that several people have added that information back into the article, whilst one is repeatedly removing it, citing BLP concerns.

It should be mentioned at this point that the user concerned has recently revealed that he is actually the Admin User:Doc glasgow, who claimed that he was leaving WP some months ago, and that he has already stated that he is prepared to re-assume his admin powers to bring this article under the Arbcom special BLP provisions.

He has repeatedly stated that not only do we have to have reliable sources for the fact, but that we must have reliable sources that prove that it is relevant.

Mayalld (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point in discussing it further? Look above at the past sections, every one of his supposed BLP concerns has been rebutted above, by multiple users. He merely ignores it and rinse-repeats his arguments. He has the most bizarre ideas of what consensus is, what the word relevant means, and what you put in an encyclopoedia that actually does insist on including current affairs content that people expect to be factually accurate, and not misleading in any way. He is totally behind the curve, special measures or no special measures. God knows how he thinks he is protecting the privacy of a person who has just sold her story, however, the material was justified even before that happened. MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be a good dollop of WP:OWN in the equation here. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I seldom respond to Ad hominem--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you might consider "he ignores replies and repeats the same argument" is an ad hominem. I think its just an accurate description of your behaviour on this article, and is something you don't actually need to respond to, but it is usefullfor everyone to see you were made aware of it at the time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What is in dispute is not the relevance of certain information, its whether that information complies with wp:BLP, and whether this site is WikiNews or Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is irrelevant, that was settled by Afd. And for evidence of relevance, just read the talk page and sources, it is all there being ignored. In fact, if you want to talk BLP, wy don't you explain how not including it is not a violation of BLP with respect to Brand. Again, you can see all these points made and ignored above. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There is a virtual consensus for its inclusion. Claiming that Wikipedia policy is the reasoning for removing it does not stand up, as many have directly countered this interpretation of it. It is not your job now to remove it - it's inclusion is supported by most. You can, however, try to convince users that you are right and try to change the consensus being built. If you try going against the majority then of course there will be an edit war. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus. And with BLP issues we keep discussing in the absence of the material under dispute, until consensus is reached. If we can't get agreement here, you are free to take the thing to dispute resolution. But this is a wiki, so I don't see any rush here. I'd like to hear more opinions. So far we've heard about three opinions each way.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush? In about two weeks after the official investigation, the entire episode will have run its course, and the number of people coming to this article for factual and uncensored information about the incident will drop off markedly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not writing a newsreport, we are writing an encyclopedia for the long-term. If the article can't be justified as a long-term record (and I think it can) it should not be here. But really, you think there's a rush to tell people whom Georgina Baillie slept with?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And we're back to relevance. Again, see all the above sections for clear explanations of why it is relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record if it is reverted under BLP, this [9] is the relevant information in dispute, which in this form no longer contradicts the already existing portion further on, "Reacting to the incident, Baillie said that her relationship with Brand had been brief and she now felt betrayed that he had revealed it to her grandfather; she called for both Brand and Ross to be sacked by the BBC, and stated that she and her family would be considering whether to make a formal complaint to the police". MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the full details of their relationship are relevant, but clearly the fact that they did have a sexual relationship is pertinent and, as per the above reference to Wikipedia:WTA#Claim, it would be unacceptable to use any phrasing from which someone might infer that Brand's reference to the relationship was untrue. Given that Georgian Baillie is (or was, last time I checked) a redirect here, it might be worth including biographical details such as her profession and stage name. I don't buy the line that this is "tabloid crap" - the whole faux outrage covered in this article is tabloid crap, so we've already set the bar on that. - Gregg (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"but clearly the fact that they did have a sexual relationship is pertinent" - . I have repeatedly asked for sources supporting that contention that the information is pertinent to any understanding of the incident. None have been supplied.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a hypothetical example of what you would expect these demanded sources to say, because I think this demand for a source to back up a discussion point is total nonsense, and an excuse to ignore basic logic and reasoning. There is nothing you have said that justifies it not being included bar your personal opinion. Your claim of privacy protection, while weak at the start, was totally blown out of the water today when she sold her story. Hell, criticism of her for doing that is now also within scope of this article. The relevance is so obvious no source would ever discuss whether it was relevant in the manner you are insisting on. What they do instead, as shown to you repeatedly, is state that Brand claimed it happened, state the fact it had happened, and state that she was offended by its revelation. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical example? A serious source saying that there would be more/less criticism of the BBC Brand or Ross if this or that were true. Some indication that anyone thinks it relevant to the debate? Whether she sold her story to the papers has nothing to do with an understadning of why this happened or what it's significance was. If you want to create an article or her life and loves, feel free, and I'll see you at AfD. This isn't an article about her.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there we are. You actually do want a source to tell you that the fact that either Brand told a bare faced lie, or was indiscreet about a sexual relationship, is relevant to this article, or whether that would make a difference to the reactions. I'm speechless. Flip it on its head, she denies it ever happened, would there be no change to the reactions or consequences then? I'm sorry, but this is utter utter nonsense. And I want an article on her? We are disputing less than ten words, two of which are her name and Brand's name. Get some perspective. 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(above unsigned comment was mine) And I thought of something else - the article also mentions that "she and her family would be considering whether to make a formal complaint to the police". Now, do you or do you not agree that the form of that complaint and relevant law would be different depending on the material fact of whether they did or didn't. I am sure it would. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But then, this article isn't based on what you think follows, or what I think follows. That's original research. We base it on what the sources are discussing as relevant. Can you provide the source I asked for or not? I'm suspecting you can't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources suitable for proving relevance have been asked for, answered, and ignored (along with most other points). Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. And it is not original research. We are not attempting to prove notability for an article topic Discussion of the sexual relations between Brand and Bailie and how they relate to the Brand-Ross prank calls row, or advance original theories, or push fringe topics. If you don't (or won't) get it, you don't get it, but don't even attempt to paint us out as loons or cranks. I think you are on the wind up to be honest, nobody could be this deaf surely. MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Insulting me doesn't really help your case. No, no sources have been supplied for relevance. None whatsoever. If I've missed them, please link below.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed, I don't get the impression you are all that interested - you honestly seem to think that we are justifying a completely different article topic here. On current form, I see no reason to waste time pointing out posts and sources that already exist on this page and in the article, already ignored by you many times now. Definitely a wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, true. This is what, to Bailie, makes it an issue of privacy rather than slander. It is a minor piece of background that provides some perspective; you call it tabloidy, I'd call it's exclusion censorship, and it leaves open the idea that Brand is lying. If we are going to delete everything that is potentially irrelevant to the case (and this is entirely relevant), then the background must go for a start, linking it to the case is original research and a desciption of who Brand and Ross are will suffice (personally, I disagree with this stringent approach, but if this is the way it's to be done). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If we do this, then we have to do that, is always a poor argument.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(responding to above) It's relevant by virtue of the fact that many media outlets have felt it necessary to supplement the story with information about it, and Wikipedia has no reason to exempt itself in this regard. However, I see now that that information about a brief relationship has been admitted to by both, and is contained within the article. I think that's enough, and am not really sure what you are opposing here (the minutiae of it?). The only things I now propose are included are a) possibly the date of their relationship, 2006, to give some perspective, b) what Baillie is (professionally) and does (see below). Anything less would be the repression of the facts. If Sachs is "best known in Britain for his portrayal of Manuel", Brand and Ross receive the introduction that they do in the background, and everybody else is mentioned along with what they do, then Baillie should be too, however distasteful anybody may find it.

You said irrelevant information cannot appear anywhere, so I think it's a fair argument. My point was, I believed you were picking and choosing what was "irrelevant" to tailor your own wishes, when the majority opinion on here should carry greater weight. All the issues I had though, such as that it could leave open the interpretation that Brand was lying, have been dealt with. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"decided to publish to supplement" is not the same as evidence that it is relevant. I keep asking: can you give me a source for the contention that information about who the victim slept with is somehow relevant to an understanding of this event or it's significance? For all the assertion of "it is obvious to me" no sources have been provided. If no source sees this as enlightening, then why should we?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us what would constitute acceptable evidence that it is relevant? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done. Any source which states that the truth of the claims matters to an understanding of the incident.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you now please point to a couple of examples of such evidence, in other articles? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The papers would not have printed it if it was not relevant, Baillie is of no interest outside of this case...why it's relevant, under these circumstances, is plain; it's a basic inference that the newspapers have neglected to state, because they needn't print something so obvious. I ask in earnest: where is the Wikipedia policy that states that relevance is the only criteria for including something within an article (this, to you, might seem obvious). If it's not relevant in your eyes, but potentially interesting, where is the Wikipedia policy that prohibits us from adding it on these grounds? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"The papers would not have printed it if it was not relevant"?? I'm sorry, but I fell of my chair laughing at that. Papers print what sells. Fortunately, we don't require to follow their editorial standards, we even try to have higher ones that the BBC. "Potentially interesting" is not good enough either. I'm sure the love-lives of others in this article might be "interesting" too, but we'd agree to exclude any mention of who Jonathan Ross might have once shagged. Why? On what grounds? Oh, yes, relevancy. So, is it relevant. Well if the sources don't say so, neither do we.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why we're here, because the papers print what sells, and what sells is the demonization of a figure many people don't like. It is not any poorer an editorial judgment to include that they had sex within the article. It's natural that some more focus, in the papers, and in this article, should go towards Baillie, as she's the only party no one knew of before the incident. And because the love-life of Jonathan Ross was not brought up in the calls, that would render it irrelevant (this is also reflected in the sources). I don't even know why I'm discussing this, as I already stated, I'm happy that it no longer leaves it open as to whether Brand is a liar or not. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact they did have a relationship should be included, it's clearly relevant. I'm also inclined to have the fact that she is a member of a quartet called Satanic Sluts Extreme, which is apparently "four of the sexiest depraved London jezebels" who put on shows which include "blood, guts, gore, sexy striptease and slutty activity." -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What you think, or I think, is POV. What do the sources say?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)