Talk:The Russell Brand Show prank calls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.190.148.115 (talk) at 09:42, 27 August 2019 (→‎Georgina Bailie: Curse of Lono article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved lacking consensus in support of doing so. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row → Sachsgate — The common objection to '-gate' titles is that they are tabloidish, yet I think, if The Guardian of all things is, after nearly two years, referring to this as Sachsgate, then I think it's surely fine as a title reflecting what sensible media refer to it as.| Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) | MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per the nominator. While I personally think it is a very ugly name, "Sachsgate" does appear to be the name being used for this controversy in the mainstream press as well as the tabloids. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's entirely that cut-and-dried - yes, there are 364 Guardian articles that use the term, but there are 1460 articles that don't. And it looks as if around half of the usages of "Sachsgate" are in scare quotes. --McGeddon (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.I think the convention against using -gate is still applicable here, although the current name is unwieldly and should be changed. How about: Russel Brand Show prank telephone controversy or "Russel Brand Show prank telephone incident", plus a redirect from "Sachsgate". A useful comparison would be Climategate, which is a redirect to the proper term, even though the -gate version also was used in the media. Ocaasi (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you look at those interminable Climategate discussions you will see that the crux was that media like the Guardian did not simply use it as a name, as they do with this. And if you look even harder, you'll see Jimbo had no issue with calling that article Climategate, and I trust his opinion on NPOV over the hundred and one Scienctific Consensus uberfans that defended an arbitrary and borderline useless descriptive title in that case, albeit for rather stronger reasons than are ever likely to come into play here I would think. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we've discussed this several times already if you check the archive and there was no consensus for any alternative title, and certainly not for a "gate" (how is this, in any way, like Watergate? Where's the cover-up?). "controversy" is also overused - and I'm not sure what was controversial. That two people made remarks that many people objected to, and which they later admitted were unacceptable, and there were consequences for those individuals and for the broadcaster isn't really a "controversy". It's an extended media newscycle with lots of people commenting. It isn't an "incident" either, any more than one would collapse the consequences of the assassination of JFK into "Kennedy shooting incident". No, "row" isn't great (although it was what the BBC called it), but I can't find anything better (and nor has the discussion on these pages).
How about Russel Brand Show prank telephone calls. Period. Incident is a pretty neutral term at worst. It is used to make clear that it's not the entire subject (the show) which is described in the article, just a particular part (the prank calls) and moreover the ones which received attention in the media. That's what incident, like -gate, does, only without the hype. Per your critique, JFK assassination row doesn't seem to support your claim.Row is also worse because it is a regional term for conflict rarely found outside of the UK (or at least not in the US). Since it's a UK article, that's not terrible, but a more generic term would be better. Ocaasi (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, I should have made account of the fact that those prior discussions months and even years ago would have had foreknowledge of what The Guardian would be calling it a week ago. Come off it. You fully acknowledge what this isn't, so how about you acknowledge what sensible media are now calling it, presumbaly for the exact same reasons that if not using Sachsgate, that this is doomed to be called 'that thing where Ross and Brand called up Sachs and left some messages and it all got a bit of negative attention in the media for all concerned', or whatever pot luck description people want to attempt, without factoring for example the UK use of the term 'row' which didn't come up till years later, or any and all of the other flaws with these near page long descriptive titles bring. Instead of that line of reasoning, which I did and do already know intimately, please give an actual reason that adresses the actual nomination as given, which is phrased by no accident, and say why the Guardian's apparent decision to instead just use Sachsgate, no scarequotes, two years on, is ignorable, in preference to this manufactured long title which takes longer to read and understand than the first line of the article itself, if ignoring the fact that bizarrly, as a descriptive title, it is still mos:bolded in the lede anyway. And as an aside, to describe this whatever it is as just an article about an extended media cycle, is to me, ludicrous by the way. This thing is probably the single reason why Brand is now and established Hollywood film actor rather than just an eccentric fringe British stand up comic, and is certainly a permanent milestone/millstone in both the career of Ross and the perceptions of the BBC's pay and talent policy. Even last week this was brought up in the serious media as they discussed why the BBC have become, since Sachsgate, (another direct sensible non scare quote usage iirc), in relation to The One Show farce, so utterly incompetent at handling and retaining talent. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started the article in its current form, and argued for its retention, I'm hardly trivialising it. My point wasn't it was unimportant, merely that the "cycle" or after effects were as much the focus as the incident itself. As for the Guardian, I'm not sure it's naming should be given the weight you wish to attach to it. It seems it doesn't usually refer to it as "Sachsgate". It would be interesting to examine, perhaps, what other quality sources call it. But for the moment, I'm not seeing any gain in renaming it to "gate". A redirect is perhaps justified, though.--Scott Mac 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the issue is not the notability of the incident. I think there is a concerted attempt to avoid sensationalist language in titles. Even if this case might be borderline, many other incidents are hyped by adding -gate to the event. Ocaasi (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's entirely plausible that the Grauniad uses "Sachsgate" because it's shorter and thus more difficult to misspell. :) On a more serious note, while "row" is problematic, I don't see strong evidence that the nickname is the most commonly-used form. As Ocaasi points out, "Climategate" sees some use in reliable sources but not enough to warrant using that nickname, and is a useful comparison. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's got nothing to do with Climategate, which is infact an almost completely different type of 'scandal' - I have given evidence of usage two years on and without scare quotes, when the common objection in those mad Climate discussions, in which opposers quite ridiculously seem to think Jimbo of all people has no idea about NPOV, is that somehow Climategate is a flash in the pan term, which is only ever given in quotes in media like the Guardian. clearly, neither is true for this case. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific consensus on what is the final proposal. Relisting for a week to give time for a consensus proposal to emerge. billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Guardian is entitled to call this incident what it likes, but we are an encyclopedia, writing for an international audience and an audience which could be reading this some years after the event, when not everybody might be aware what we are referring to. PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are suggesting the Guardian does not write for an international audience? Do you honestly think the current mash-up of a title means anything to anybody who, for whatever reason, and not being British could be one, would not similarly also not have a clue what Sachsgate means? Even from that stand-point, that the reader knows absolutely nothing about this incident (begging the question, how did they arrive here anyway?) then this current title is actually quite horrendous - 'Russell Brand Show' - who not knowing Sachsgate would know that that referred to a long cancelled BBC Radio show? 'prank telehone calls' - this has been raised before, but these were not 'prank calls', certainly not in the sense any reader not having a clue what Sachsgate means would know, and then we have the problematic 'row' bit too, which, if we are to assume the people who have no idea what Sachsgate means are Americans, is also problematic. If this is to be a descriptive title, it would have to name all three parties, the phrase 'answerphone messages', and some combination that conveys media outrage and or 'lewd' or 'offensive' nature of the messages. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And to repeat the point, this is The Guardian wiritng about it two years after the event. If that is not 'some time after the event', then what is? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is how the BBC refers to it two years after the event. Granted, they refer to is as the 'so called "Sachsgate" affair, but even the BBC in all their compartmentalisation are not going to be 100% neutral in that regard, and may even be a bit bitter that the whole thing did escalate into an 'affair' which meant they lost Ross. However, here is the long form description that they use for what the 'Sachsgate' name is supposedly short for, which for the people who supposedly know nothing about it, are supposed to recognise the event (assuming they don't just do the perfectly normal and logical thing of typing in Sachsgate into Wikipedia, and be instantly gratified by reaching the Sachsgate article):

[the scandal] in which Jonathon Ross and comedian Russell Brand left lewd messages on the answer machine of actor Andrew Sachs

  • On that evidence, then I'm sorry, but I disagree utterly that the current descriptive title is doing any kind of a job in being reflective of the BBC's description in any way at all, sharing as it does only one common term - Russel Brand, which is hardly the keyword for this. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the remarks were made on the Russell Brand Show, by Russell Brand and his guest, led to widespread criticism of Russell Brand and his eponymous show, and resulted in the said performer's resignation from the BBC, I'd say "Russell Brand" is a fairly appropriate keyword, certainly more so than a sensationalist reference to the name of the hapless victim. We can certainly discuss the merits of row/incident/scandal/or simply "calls", but a reference to Brant or Brant and Ross certainly seems the way to go.--Scott Mac 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already said above, "If this is to be a descriptive title, it would have to name all three parties, the phrase 'answerphone messages', and some combination that conveys media outrage and or 'lewd' or 'offensive' nature of the messages". My mention of keyword in the above post was to convey that it is the ONLY one in common with the current crappy title and what the keywords used by the BBC seem to be. I can't cee any more logic to you complaining about this, than as an argument to call it 'Russell Brand Sachsgate affair/incident/controversy'. I'm fine with that, for the record. MickMacNee (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sachsgate as being too tabloid. No prejudice against another rename, but not this one. --John (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure why The Guardian should be the arbiter of what we call this, but MickMacNee seems to be missing the key part of his search of their site. Search Russell Brand with Sachsgate and you get 525 hits; search Russell Brand with Sachs but without Sachsgate and you get 1,040 hits. In other words, The Guardian may sometimes refer to the incident as Sachsgate, but more often than not, they don't. Sachsgate is not the most common name even in The Guardian. Perform that search without confining it to The Guardian, and excluding Wikipedia, and the result is even more overwhelming: 62,100 hits with Sachsgate; 492,000 without. That is pretty convincing evidence that Sachsgate is most definitely not the common usage in English. I would however, support a move to Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls, as I think the word row is pretty superfluous. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I never said it was the common name, that is not the reason for the RM. And while you've done really well to demonstrate it might not always be mentioned in articles that mention Russell Brand and 'Sachs' (which is also a department store no?), what I don't see is you offering up any kind of alternative common name at all - 'Russell Brand Sachs' is presumably not your idea of an alternate common name. If you would prefer 'Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls', then how about you address all the things wrong with that, that I've outlined above? If people want to strenuosly assert that 'Sachsgate' is a minority term for this incident, so trivial that nobody knows what it means (and cannot explain why the Guardian would use it as a name two years down the line), which I frankly find ludicrous, with or without the notoriously unreliable method of using Google results, then why don't people apply their research skills to finding a descriptive name which actually includes the common words used to describe this incident? The garbage that is 'Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls' does not do that. It frankly doesn't even come close. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the hell has a department store got to do with this? Of the search result I quoted, if you care to look for yourself, in the first eight pages (80 results), just a single result is not about the Andrew Sachs affair (it mentions Goldman Sachs). The rest are all about what you insist is called Sachsgate. Your whole argument is that the sensible media are referring to the incident as Sachsgate. The evidence is that one newspaper has sometimes referred to it as Sachsgate, but usually doesn't use that term at all. Let's face it, in the absence of any coherent argument from you, your opposition to the present article title boils down to the fact that you just don't like it. You're the one who wants to change the title, so it's up to you to convince the rest of us, something you have so far demonstrably failed to do. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you provide the search urls I'll look at the results, but without them I have no idea how you got these figures, and I certainly cannot verify what to me sounds like a ridiculous finding, seeing as I did not seek out this article, I was just reading it as Front Page news on the Guardian site one day. Your assertion that somehow I must have just got lucky and found their one infrequent usage sounds absurd frankly. And irrespective of that, I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you of anything unless or until you can demonstrate you have an ability to read what other people say IN FULL, which, given your singular replies and penhant for dismissing my entire posts with bullshit like IDONTLIKEIT, it doesn't seem you have that ability. If you are just here to tell me what the fuck I think, or what the fuck I'm arguing, then I could care less, and this stupid non-discussion can stand on record as an explanation to others as to why this current title is so amazingly shit, and cannot seemingly be fixed to either a common name or a better descriptive name. And I will repeat, your research doesn't show anything in terms of there being an ACTUAL BETTER COMMON NAME than Sachsgate. And on your figures, it's just laughable to dismiss 61,000 thousand hits as somehow a fringe or infrequently used term. Just how many broad sheets are covering this after two years to make this even relevant as an argument?. And on my search, Sachsgate -Wikipedia generates 157,000 results, while Russell Brand Sachs -Wikipedia generates 106,000, so I really don't trust your findings at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MickMacNee's complete inability to discuss this in a civil tone rather berating and insulting anyone who disagrees with or questions him, undermines his argument. I gave the parameters for the search above; it shouldn't be too hard, once the proposer has calmed down, to repeat it. Incidentally, I have not dismissed anything as a fringe or infrequently used term: I said that the newspaper quoted by the proposer usually doesn't use that term at all. The problem with the proposer's search parameters is that he is not comparing like with like. Sachsgate produces many hits that don't even mention Russell Brand. To do a comparison you would need to search for Sachs plus either Brand or Ross and exclude Sachsgate as well as Wikipedia. It's worth excluding Goldman (to get rid of Goldman Sachs) as well (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=sachs&as_oq=brand+ross&as_eq=wikipedia+sachsgate+goldman&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images). That produces 8,420,000 hits, as opposed to 147,000 for Sachsgate excluding Wikipedia (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=sachsgate&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=wikipedia&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images). All searches should be set to search in English, and would need to be carried out using Advanced search. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My tone was perfectly civil until you decided you knew better than me what my argument was. And this latest post is just more of the same. If you think your results actualy mean something in terms of deciding a title for the article, good for you, I really can't be fucked anymore. You seem to really really believe it's not a widely used term, which a casual read of any of even today's new news reports just shows is a laughable position to take, and whatever anyone else thinks, I certainly have no idea how anyone would even begin to counter the wierd logic of an argument that uses search comparisons of proposed titles against random keywords. Rename it to Russell Brand Sachs seems to be the conclusion for all that I can see. As usual with most Wikipedia talking shop bollocks, nobody reads the nomination, nobody reads anyone else's posts, and people decide the conclusion before they post, and shape their views and input from there. As said, even if the goal is not to use Sachsgate, but rather an actual effective descriptive title, the reasons why this title is complete shit are more than documented above, as is everybody's apparent will to ignore them and stick with this, as they pretend Sachsgate is tabloid junk. Has anyone tried to see how on the money it is using the highly reliable Google method I wonder? Has anyone ever compared it to Sachsgate? Who cares tbh, I certainly don't anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are quite correct that people do tend to post without reading the entire discussion. It is a rather frustrating failing of most wikipedians. I suppose if we all read more and posted less, we'd progress better. I also salute your decision to care less about this. Wiki stuff, and especially something as minor as an article title, isn't really worth giving yourself a hernia. In general, I suspect if you invested a little less emotion in your encounters, or indeed viewed such discussions as less of an aggressive zero-sum argument, you might find it a both more productive and more satisfying experience for yourself and for wikipedia.--Scott Mac 20:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's at stake here? The current name is accurate albeit wordy, a bit awkward, and a bit regional. Sachsgate is already a re-direct. There's no evidence people can't find this page or are confused when they get to it. And (Jimbo aside) there seems to be a pretty clear bias against using -gate, because it's more newsy than encyclopedic. Why not just keep the name? 69.142.154.10 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Complaints figures

The article gives a figure of 38,000 complaints to the BBC "by 2 November, the number of complaints". It then goes on to compare, in a different paragraph, about the number of complaints made to OFCOM about a different show, Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy. Since the complaints were made to different organisations, is this relevant? It kinda seems apples-to-oranges to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strolls (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks a little like editorialising (someone trying to make a point that the level of complains was relatively low). Doesn't really belong here.--Scott Mac 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bailie

Shouldn't she have her own article? She has certainly received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources, even if it is only for one news story (i.e. discouraged under WP:ONEEVENT). I'm sure that enough information can be gathered about her unrelated to Sachsgate to make the page worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very much so. Before this whole episode blew-up in the British press there was a small article on here about her. It needs to be re-instated. There are plenty of pictures and information availible in the public domain. Exactly why typing her name in the wikipedia search box redirects to this page is a mistery. AMX (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to indicate her separate notability in the last week apart from this incident, and previous precedent is to redirect here until she achieves independent notability. That latter has not been achieved, and therefore I am boldly closing this as a failed proposal. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now plenty of relevance for her to have her own page. She is currently performing on tour with Adam Ant and has started a band of her own, who I believe have quite a lot of fans. 0:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
One ex Poussez Posse member Fiona Bevan does already have Wikipedia notability. In due course The Featherz will have enough in the bag for their own article too. At that point, the Poussez Posse mk1 (and by dint of being a later line-up Poussez Posse mk2) will become ipso facto Wiki notable (two or more independently notable members.) If Georgie and Hazel's current band Vortex Empress can also get something into the charts then Georgie will have been in two independently notable bands and she too will become wiki notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.227.206 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed The Featherz do now have their own page, but stricly speaking Danie Cox (the only ex PP'er left in the band) would have to become sufficiently individually noteable to have her OWN separate page in order for her to count towards notability for the PP. Vortex Empress seems to have ground to a halt so I don't see them becoming Wiki notable any time soon - Georgina is currently at drama college and keeping a low profile. By now, she is more likely to make it as an actress than as a singer. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Related issue - Poussez Posse mk2 bassist (and widow of Tom Edwards) Charis Anderson's current band Curse of Lono are starting to make some waves and may earn themselves a Wikipedia article. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they now have one. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "row"

Perhaps it should instead be called the "Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls incident" or "…quarrel", which I suspect would be amenable for most readers, whether they be from the UK, Australia, North America, India, Korea, et cetera. (Also, forgive for not knowing, as I don't hear the word used much in this way, but I was under the impression that the noun form of "row" was a sort of slang or informal way of putting things, cf the verb form.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Row' is used in headlines, because it's short, so it probably seemed a natural choice. Rothorpe (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Baillee reaction - including paragraph on song she co-wrote about Ross/Brand

Recently there have been attempts to delete the above mentioned material, mainly by user Raoulis and anonymous user 67.164.23.160

Clearly the publicly-expressed opinion of Baillee - the injured party in this matter - is a subject of considerable relevance to the page. I find it astonishing that this material was deleted. Moreover, her subsequent expression of her further views on the matter via her recent songwriting collaboration with Adam Ant for his upcoming album is a highly prominent feature of her reaction and as such highly relevant.

As regards sourcing, I would draw your attention to how the section is fully sourced (and I notice that the last edit left in all of these sources despite deleting all the material they relate to).

If you have objections to the inclusion of this material, perhaps you would be so kind as to express them here on the talkpage where we can discuss matters in a civilised fashion, rather than merely blanking material.85.65.14.133 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian as a reliable source?

Hi, guys. While reading this, please do keep in mind that I am American, so any Britons reading this will undoubtedly find this a stupid question, but how would I know that? Anyway, as you might have guessed because of the title, I'm wondering what validity the Guardian has. Is it a newspaper or a tabloid? I know the Sun is a tabloid...I think...oh, how embarrassing. My lack of English ethnocentrism is showing, and my family is so British that my surname is Bristol! Anyway, this article cites the Guardian quite a bit, and, if its not reliable, it needs to be removed ASAP. I'd be glad to do this - I've made this page a little pet-project of mine. I know that sounds awful and ridiculous, but here is my logic. I saw that the article was, to be polite, written in rather difficult prose. Often, when I don't have much time to edit, I'll let someone else do the dirty work, but that's on timeless or relevant articles, like Shooting of Trayvon Martin or Vincent van Gogh. Those are articles that people have cause to return to. This, though...this article is wild, but its not likely that our dedicated Wikipedians will come across this and decide to edit it. So, it's my little project. Oh, what were we talking about again? Ah, yes. The Guardian.

TL;DR - Is the Guardian a British newspaper, making it a reliable source, or a tabloid, making it useless for our needs?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesitsraining (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a broadsheet newspaper and should be considered a reliable source. 82.7.31.191 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making the introduction more accurate

I'm researching this topic extensively - including speaking to people who were involved in the affair - and have noticed a few inaccuracies in the introduction of the page. I have been advised by previous contributors to start a discussion on this Talk page rather than simply go ahead and make too many changes.

The summary, as it stands, doesn't really reflect the facts accurately.

Specifically:

  • The second paragraph starts "After little attention". It's not that there was 'little attention' before the The Mail on Sunday; there was none at all.
  • It doesn't mention the name of the journalist who broke the story, Miles Goslett.
  • It doesn't cover any of the discussion with Meg Poole, Sachs's agent
  • The fact 44,790 people complained to the BBC about this programme in response to the Mail on Sunday's story is important enough to be included in the summary

It seems important the genesis of the scandal is explained to readers at the start of the page, so would be very interested to hear other contributor's thoughts.

Satanic Sluts

Why is this article a redirect from Satanic Sluts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Wingrove)? Muleiolenimi (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not in themselves Wiki notable, but one of their number (who also redirects here) was involved in this episode so they are widely known for that one connection. This is normal Wiki procedure. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satanic sluts. Possibly the link on the Nigel Wingrove page was created before the deletion debate and decision to redirect took place? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls&oldid=912701198"