Talk:Russell Brand

Overly positive POV

The current state of the article, and the lead in particular, is rather one-sided, as it mainly focuses on Brand's past as an actor. For several years already, Brand has made his name mainly as one of the more extreme conspiracy theorists, flooding social media with a range of downright ridiculous and bizarre conspiracy theorists. Some of the conspiracies propagated by Brand are openly political, such as his strong support for Putin and his repeated falsehoods about the war in Ukraine. Others are just deluded, such as giant lizards controlling humans. In short, Brand is in every sense a younger version of David Icke, who also first rose to fame as a media personality but whose article now (accurately) focuses on Icke as a conspiracy theorist. Given Brand's heavy involvement in propagating conspiracy theories for years already, and the coverage of this activity in WP:RS, having an article so strongly focused on Brand as an actor seems hard to reconcile with WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

All of this is just your opinion, it isn't worth putting in the article. Britannic16 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well he’s about to be announced as a serial sexual assaulter in the UK and he has already denied it on his Twitter feed saying that mainstream media are out to get him. Feels even more relevant to talk about the fact he is a professional conspiracy theorist now. 148.252.132.235 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Brand's chief notability is due to his comedy and acting work, so the article should focus on that. His support for unlikely conspiracies theories should be mentioned in a neutral fashion but not dominate the article, I think. Ashmoo (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Brand remains a very polarising figure, particularly in Britain. He has a significant fanbase who think he's wonderful, but everyone else thinks he's a monumental wanker who just got lucky. Given that, maintaining NPOV is always going to be difficult. --Ef80 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a podcast 'On Brand' which covers Brand's conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies. The most troubling thing seems to be that while Brand has millions of subscribers on YouTube and Rumble, very few people outside of his ecosystem are aware of his newfound role as conspiracy guru, through which he is making millions. I concur that there should be a larger part of this article dedicated to what Brand has become, rather than almost exclusively focusing on what Brand was. 90.241.219.141 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: I don't see how this could be at all controversial, for years now (maybe even pre-pandemic) I've been seeing news articles calling him an outright conspiracy theorist and far-right grifter. It seems his acting and stand-up days are mostly behind him, replaced with interviewing the likes of Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson, and any coverage he now gets in WP:RS reflects this shift.

From just a quick Google News search we have The Guardian calling his conspiracy theories "far-right" and referring to "his fellow populist online conspiracy theorists" and Prospect calling him a "major voice of the alt-right". GhulamIslam (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's starting to look as if RB is about to face his own Jimmy Saville moment: Guardian piece. 90 minute documentary airs on Channel 4 at 21:00 BST this evening. --Ef80 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Note how he's being described in today's articles:

Sky News - "Former comedian and actor-turned internet personality"

The Independent - "comedian-turned-conspiracy theorist"
"Conspiracy theorist"
"Where once he positioned himself as a truth-teller, these days he trades in fake news, broadcasting live from a shed in Henley to his viewers on the right-wing streaming site Rumble. His YouTube videos have shouty, alarmist titles like “Bill Gates Has Been HIDING This And It’s ALL About To Come Out” or “The FBI Have Been Harvesting Your DNA?!” He has falsely claimed that drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin can be used to treat Covid, is avowedly anti-vax, and has espoused the “Great Reset” theory, which alleges that global elites are using the pandemic to usher in a new world order."
"Brand’s celebrity means that his platform is much, much larger than the average conspiracy theorist shouting in a garden shed"

The Guardian - "the Forgetting Sarah Marshall actor has drifted from being a mainstream comedian with leftwing views to something of a figurehead for the online alt-right in recent years." GhulamIslam (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sexual allegations now emerging in WP:RS: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse --Ef80 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. My english isn't great but i've added the conspiracy theory angle to the lede and i believe there should be a standalone section somewhere about his ramblings especially regarding the ukraine! Daikido (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The POV flag dates from March, is it still relevant? PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is. The section "2020–present: COVID-19 pandemic and YouTube channel" seriously understates some of the craziness of his "theories" as does the lead. See Jeppiz's criticism at the beginning of this thread. But with today's news this article is about to be subject to a tsunami so it's going to be hard to sort it out. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking a while back about when it becomes appropriate to describe someone as a conspiracy theorist in the lede. Presumably there will be more reliable sources giving this attention in the coming days. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Would it be a conspiracy if everyone said you are Jimmy Savile protégé 2A00:23C4:359A:3E01:245C:8F2C:87A9:8BA8 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A Hollywood trade full on said that he is starting to lean heavily into right-wing conspiracies on his YouTube channel. A statment from 2021 so this has nearly all he has been kown for for 3 years. Before the alligations of course.

The "2020–present" section should at least mention this in it´s headline as that is all his YT work now is. 77.64.147.13 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

His switch to being primarily a consipiracy theory influencer has been pretty widely documented for a while now (particularly since his theories started intersecting with COVID), so example potential sources might be

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Below is a rough proposal for lead adjustment including the sources found by Evo&Evo. Obviously this will need to be elaborated on in detail in-article:

"Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English alt-right conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."

GhulamIslam (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The alt-right is white nationalist; Brand shows no signs of being a nationalist, let alone a white nationalist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

References

'One of the women was underage'

'One of the women alleging abuse was underage being 16 at the time'

The age of consent in the UK is precisely 16, which would mean that the woman was not underage (for the purposes of consenting to sex, which is what the reader would expect it to mean here). The cited source (the BBC) only says she was 16, while her categorisation as 'underage' would seem to be an original synthesis by a Wikipedia editor, presumably based on a false premise of a higher age of consent in the UK. It's probably important that this should be corrected, considering BLP and all that. Anonymous44 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Number of accusers

Someone keeps changing the number of women to four. But near the beginning of the Dispatches programme it says: "Five women have agreed to share their stories in this film. Four have asked to remain anonymous." Richard75 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, NBC reported five, but issued a correction today saying that it is only four. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

2007 Jimmy Savile call

The section '2007 Jimmy Savile call' presents the offer to send an assistant to Saville for sex as being a serious proposal. But the Guardian - in an article which otherwise definitely sides with the allegations and against Brand - says it was a joke: 'Dispatches plays the audio of him ... conducting an interview with a celebrity guest where he joked about sending his (named) female assistant to visit the star, stripped naked'

And indeed, judging from both this description and the laughter in the background in the recording, it would seem he did this on air, in public, which would mean that it was a form of comedic performance and that it can under no circumstances be interpreted as an offer made in earnest. Comedic performances with crass humour obviously can't be considered a form of sexual misconduct or evidence of such. (Also, Savile himself is the one who starts the joke by proposing such a thing: 'Well, if you've got a sister, you could meet me by bringing her along'.) This would mean that the section is grossly misleading. Again, per BLP, I think that this should be corrected urgently. Anonymous44 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a "joke" on air but it's still sexual misconduct - in this case harassment. It was a specific named woman that was to be "sent" to Savile in the "joke". That was the context of the incident in the documentary: alleged humiliation and harassment of a sexual nature of co-workers. That's what needs to brought out in that section. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, jokes can be forms of Sexual harassment.The One I Left (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, I hadn't thought of that angle. Well, if that's what the idea is, it should be done in a way that does not suggest that it was an offer made in earnest, as the section did until now - I certainly interpreted it in this way when I first read it. I'll add mention of the fact that he named a specific assistant, which is the decisive thing that gives the interpretation as 'harassment' some plausibility, IMO. Apart from that, I think that it's still relevant that the whole thing was a joke - the fact that everyone understood that the assertion was neither true nor pretending to be true and was simply intended to provide comedic entertainment arguably weakened its potential to 'humiliate'. After all, comedy shows often feature various teasing 'allegations' or 'disparaging remarks' between participants, which, if taken outside of a performance and as serious remarks, you could categorise as 'emotional/verbal abuse'. I can see how naming a co-worker that wasn't in on it was still a bit over the line, tasteless, insensitive and intrusive, even as a joke, but it's hardly a clear-cut case of harassment or something that I'd expect to be illegal. I think it's partly the case that the culture specifically around sexual mores has been changing rapidly and people consider more things unacceptable than they used to. --Anonymous44 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but given its context in the reporting as to how he acted around women, who he worked with and in general, it seemed rather duplicitous than carefree. Yes it was a joke but its also connected to a pattern of behavior. The "joke" is a form of sexual harassment.The One I Left (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't clear from the text that the point wasn't he was actually offering a woman to Savile. It was that he was humiliating live on air, in a mysoginistic manner, one of his female co-workers. If you watched the Dispatches program (which I did) that was clear. I'll look for a source we can use that clarifies that point explicitly. However, your view that it is "hardly a clear-cut case of harassment" is somewhat WP:ORish. It's not how we do or do not interpret it - it's how the RS are reporting it. I recognise I haven't yet presented the RS supporting what I saw on the Dispatches program so, yes...pot/kettle/black etc. But I'm confident that I'll find RS backing up what I said since it was fairly clear in the program. will be back.... DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I get that this particular claim is being repeated by certain publications, but a longer version of the interview in question is readily available online. It's quite clear from context that Brand was aware of the rumors surrounding Jimmy Saville, and was not offering the assistant for sex like is being presented. Brand was clearly goading Saville throughout. In the interview, Brand says of Saville: "You were the defining voice of the BBC back in the day... As well as passing down information, you should be passing along other things, people could argue." Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that WP:OR? We shouldn't be drawing our own conclusions from analysis of WP:PRIMARY material - just reflecting the RS opinion on it. DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

2012 accusation

In light of the recently published allegations against Brand, is the alleged incident detailed in the following article also worth adding to this page?:

https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-gossip/connolly-blasts-brand-over-inappropriate-behaviour-ng-ya-303873 JellyfishReflector (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to our attention, it has now been integrated into the article. PatGallacher (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I've also since seen this article from 2014 that may also be worth mentioning within the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/sep/11/russell-brand-jemima-khan-masseuse-court-order-harassing?CMP=share_btn_tw JellyfishReflector (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-gossip/connolly-blasts-brand-over-inappropriate-behaviour-ng-ya-303873

is a copy of:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20120803030243/http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4469260/Russell-Brand-refuses-to-film-What-About-Dick-until-wardrobe-girl-flashed-boobs-at-him.html
• The Sun (United Kingdom)

• not WP:RS

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:0mtwb9gd5wx Stop Edit Warring, and let's gain consensus before we start removing sections.The One I Left (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP WP:RS needs consensus before slander/libel....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

PatGallacher and JellyfishReflector It looks like User:0mtwb9gd5wx has objections to the addition of the 2012 incident. What say you all? Any opinions on the matter as to keep or remove?The One I Left (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx seems particularly inarticulate in explaining their objection. But they do seem correct: The Western Australian story seems only traceable to The Sun so is non-RS. As a BLP it should therefore come out immediately. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism".... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

How traceable is it? Assuming Western Australian picked it up, must have been verified before republishing if thats indeed what they did? The One I Left (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

look at both URLs, the story is practically copy/paste....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I found reporting from International Business Times. https://www.ibtimes.com/russell-brand-rumored-have-sexually-harassed-wardrobe-assistant-738778 The One I Left (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

International Business Times isn't RS either - see WP:RSP. The West Australian is clear it is only quoting The Sun. I've looked and can find no RS to have run the story. I'm afraid this is looking like a BLP violation and should come out immediately unless an RS can be found for it. (And because it's BLP it works that way round). DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:IBTIMES, also not a reliable source. In any case, it's all sourced to the same Sun article, using the same description and quotes. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That was why I didn't make the changes myself, I wasn't sure about the criteria for what should and shouldn't be included in this sort of situation. If the source doesn't reach a standard, then I suppose it can't be added, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on other publications to see if it gets brought up again in a more reliable source in light of the recent allegations.

Is the allegation and surrounding legal situation detailed in the Guardian article I linked appropriate to add? That seems more reliably sourced than the "breast flashing" allegation. JellyfishReflector (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidents with photographers classed as "political activism"

There are two paragraphs relating to altercations with photographers in the first section of the "political activism" section. I don't see how these relate to political activism. They would fit better into the personal life section Rotatingastrothing (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Defended by" lists deliberately provocative public figures

Article mentions Brand has been defended by "Elon Musk, Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate, Tucker Carlson, Laurence Fox, Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones, and Michael Barrymore". It appears that more public figures than those listed have defended Russell Brand, but that only the most provocative/ controversial figures have been included in this list. Granted that some of these names are major figures worthy of note in their own right (Elon Musk) but others appear to have been selected for either possessing extreme-right political stance (Tommy Robinson, Tucker Carlson), possessing "provocateur" status (Lawrence Fox), having been involved in similar highly-publicised scandals (Michael Barrymore), or a mix of all three (Tate). An overly-positive slant towards Brand should be avoided in the article, but equally tilting the scale towards "guilt by association" also compromises neutrality. e" 2A00:23C8:A801:4501:F713:A90D:112E:79DD (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

TV and live shows coincided

In:

That same night, Brand performed at Troubadour Wembley Park Theatre in London to a sold out crowd who gave him a standing ovation.

we should clarify that this was before or while the TV documentary aired. Does anyone have a source we can use, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)