Talk:Russell Brand/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Importance tag

I removed the sentence At the ceremony Bob Geldof, who was accepting an award from Brand, said at the podium, "Russell Brand – what a cunt", to which Brand replied, "Really, it's no surprise [Geldof]'s such an expert on famine. He has, after all, been dining out on 'I Don't Like Mondays' for 30 years." from the article. It was tagged regarding {{importance}} of the content. I agree that this is not Encyclopedic content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Over-quotation of 2013: New Statesman, Newsnight section

I made changes to address the {{Over-quotation}} tag on the Russell Brand#2013: New Statesman, Newsnight section here, removing unnecessary content for an encyclopedia article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 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 wasn't implying that my view on whether it was sexual harassment or not was to be reflected in the article - that would indeed have been OR; I was primarily making the point that the comedic and jocular nature of the whole exchange is potentially relevant for the assessment of the incident as sexual harassment or not, which is another reason why it's important to make said comedic and jocular nature clear (besides the simple fact - which really should be sufficient on its own - that not doing so is misleading, because these are simply very different situations and accusations). Apart from that, yes, both the remark on whether it's misconduct or not in my initial post, your objections to it and my counter-objections were largely irrelevant, since they discussed the truth rather than the article, and in principle, we shouldn't be the ones who assess what the truth is. And yet some assessments are so obvious that we wouldn't need a source: e.g. we would include a specific rape in a section listing instances of sexual misconduct even without a source explicitly describing it as 'sexual misconduct'. Thus, it may not be quite superfluous to argue that this is not such an obvious case and that the article does need a source that explicitly confirms the classification of this incident as sexual misconduct.--Anonymous44 (talk) 16:59, 19 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)

Absolutely no consensus that Brand is in any way opposing, critiquing or showing up the detested Savile. For the sake of this article I think we should just stick to the points Dispatches made, although personally I don't think they cited the worst of this conversation.

BruckerState (talk) 18:06, 19 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)

I would also question the importance of including this particular list of public figures who have defended Brand. Why are the views of, for example, Tommy Robinson and Michael Barrymore deemed to be important in an encyclopedic biography? The important point to include in the article for neutrality and as per WP:BLP, is that Brand himself has said he is not guilty of the allegations. I don't think all the other public figures need to be included and in my view the list should be trimmed as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph only appears to be here to allude to some sort of "guilt by association". Case in point: this edit, which had to be undone, which specified that these people were "all prominent men who have been involved in legal issues or made controversial comments about women". The sentence is not encyclopedic, to say the least. Being bold and removing. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, this content should only be restored via explicit talk page consensus. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What may be significant is what the media are saying about support from such quarters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing Jordan Martin allegations

In 2014, Jordan Martin published her account of sexual assault and physical and emotional abuse by Brand in 2007 in the book KNot: Entanglement with a Celebrity: a Memoir by a Woman. She declined to be interviewed as part of The Times/Dispatches investigation, but told The Sunday Times she stood by her account.

References

Inserted inline reflist.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an earlier accusation of drug-facilitated sexual assault, and potentially rape, published in 2006. GhulamIslam (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:DAILYSTAR.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Martin's account should still be mentioned in the section citing the book and it's inclusion in The Guardian article. I'm just unsure of where it fits chronologically, it doesn't say when in 2007 the Jimmy Savile call occurred but Martin's six-month relationship with Brand apparently started in February of that year. Or would it count as 2014, as that's when the allegations were published? GhulamIslam (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

See the current section Russell Brand#2014 Jordan Martin allegations about Jordan Martin's allegations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 20 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)

Just to close the loop on this discussion for now (i.e., it may later be covered by reliable sources in the future), the 2012 accusation section has been removed. That seems appropriate because of the lack of reliable sources. It is not mentioned in the "Guardian" article and I am not finding reliable sources for that accusation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 20 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)

I removed "to a sold out crowd who gave him a standing ovation" as it is unnecessary peacock language.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Retribution

It's claimed that Brand's accusers are anonymous because they fear retribution. Being literate, I know that retribution is an act in response to a "criminal or wrong act". Coming forward with claims of abuse and rape are neither criminal nor wrong (assuming they are true). Perhaps the editor meant "retaliation". Or perhaps the meaning is different from the American English. IDK. In either case, it should be changed.98.17.44.45 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Retaliation can mean counterattack or revenge.

How about harassment or persecution? I'll change it to harassment, and see how that's accepted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) How does that sound? (edited for clarity and tone).–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing details of the investigation

While in keeping with WP:NPOV, the article should mention the supporting documentation from the investigation, such as the text messages between Brand and the woman pseudonymised as 'Nadia', medical reports, therapy notes, corroboration by people close to the women that were told at the time these assaults took place.

'Nadia's close friend, who she told what happened, took her to the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center the same day as the attack, she provided The Times with medical records. She had therapy there for the following five months, during which records show she contemplated criminal/civil proceedings before ultimately deciding against it, however she wrote Brand a letter.

And 'Alice's claims that Brand exhibited "grooming" behaviour, and coached her on what to say to her parents. In particular, that he would instruct her to read passages from Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, a book about a relationship with an underage girl, and he also referred to her as a "child". She also says that Brand's management were aware, and instructed him not to be seen in public with her.

There's also 'Phoebe', who didn't pursue criminal/civil proceedings because Brand threatened her with legal action. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

None of what you have stated contradicts anything currently presented in the article, which presents a neutral point of view. If these women are indeed lying (which you are alleging without evidence), he is free to pursue libel charges. Until this occurs, the most recent reliable information on this case is that credible accusations have been made by a number of victims over an extended period of time. 193.116.208.220 (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't alleging the accusers are lying, what I set out above is the corroborating information from The Times/Dispatches investigation that's currently missing from this article.
I apologise if my English is confusing. GhulamIslam (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comment was crystal clear that you were not accusing. I don't where these people come from! The responding post should apologize for being a tool 173.246.194.130 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

YouTube deplatforming

For what it's worth, Rising, a web series published by The Hill (newspaper) and hosted by Robby Soave and Briahna Joy Gray, put out a program today criticizing YouTube's deplatforming decision, with Soave describing it as "extremely disturbing". Link. Andreas JN466 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hill is an incredibly biased source, this holds no weight. The enormous majority consensus is that this "deplatforming" has been the bare minimum from YouTube. 193.116.208.220 (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a manipulative and highly destructive point of view. The reality is that the British Government have sent letters to tech organisations including Youtube trying to force demonetization and deplatforming over ALLEGATIONS, without due process or trial. He has not been found guilty and yet he is getting directly shutdown by the British Government.

Rumble, Tiktok and other platforms have directly addressed that this was a request from the British Government as opposed to independent decisions - making it a vast overreach of the government. 2A00:23C7:80A:601:7956:6246:3942:37C (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Subheadings for sexual misconduct

User:Onetwothreeip removed subheadings describing them as "needless", and I restored them. Want to open it to the floor because I think they are incredibly useful given the complexities of the many allegations against Brand. I also don't think hiding the 2008 prank call in his career section is helpful either and should stay in sexual misconduct section. Even Jonathan Ross has its own section for the prank call in his page. Thoughts?The One I Left (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not restore reverted content without gaining consensus to do so. On the matters, small paragraphs do not require sub-headings. Headings and sub-headings are used to combine multiple related paragraphs, not to label or introduce individual paragraphs. The prank call incident (which also has its own article) is not "hidden" anywhere, it was in the career section and someone duplicated the content by adding almost identical content into the sexual misconduct section. I have reverted this duplication, and as it was originally in the career section, that is where it would stay until or unless there is consensus to move it. It should not be in the sexual misconduct section, as the controversy was not considered to be an incident of sexual misconduct. The relevant section in the Jonathon Ross article does not appear in relation to sexual misconduct, but appears in regards to general controversy. Again, please do not restore your preferred changes without consensus, as they have been reverted to the prior status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it your the one did some changing on your own without any consensus! Your changes whether intentional or unintentional aren't improvements, rather seemingly trying to erase or downplay his allegations of misconduct. Restoring now, please don't Edit War, if you can questions make your case and bring it to the talk page without making grand sweeping changes without consensus. I will hold off on the Jonathan Ross prank call incident, I see your point about it's murkiness as to sexual misconduct, will wait until consensus has been made, but the removal of the subheadings makes the article confusing to read. There needs to be protection around this page, I see people removing instances of misconduct or harassment claiming they aren't assault. The One I Left (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

When did BLPs become the landing page for describing in detail any/every allegation made against someone that's merely published by RS? I believe it's mostly appropriate when a grand jury indicts a notable person of crimes, but it's another issue entirely when Wikipedia just becomes a vehicle for the MSM to expeditiously slander/libel someone without due process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

I'm not going to pretend that my opinion here is the majority, but I'll quote the wise Martin Niemöller, "... Then they came for me. And there was no one left." Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It has all the characteristics of an agenda to bury Brand under any link, however long ago, to anything vaguely sex related. So he wanted to “have it off” with Vanessa Feltz. Ok, not polite, not social acceptable but as nothing actually occurred, is this sexual misconduct and if not why is it anywhere near Wikipedia and his article?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The prank call incident was never removed from the article. It has been in the career section for nearly 15 years, which is where it belongs. It was recently copy-pasted to the misconduct section without being removed from the career section. It was correct to remove the duplication. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The 2008 harassment phone call belongs in the career section. This isn't "hiding" content, but following neutrality by not segregating positive or negative material. Brand's harassment of the Sachs family is an integral part of his career and explains both the style of content he produced pre-2008 and the nature of the work he got after the backlash. It isn't something separate to his career. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

'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)

By the current version (here), the sentence has been corrected to One of the women alleging abuse was 16 (the age of consent in the UK) at the time while Brand was 31..–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it in the meantime.--Anonymous44 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Note - the age of consent in England and Wales is 16 (historically it was 17 in Northern Ireland) since 2003, however there are some specific circumstances where it rises to 18 - most commonly where an older person is considered to be 'in a position of responsibility'. Generally this refers to people with a 'duty of care' (such as a teacher) or who is 'in loco parentis' ('acting in place of the parents' - teachers again in some circumstances, but also social workers, legal guardians etc). There have been arguments about whether this same caveat could or should apply where there is a power imbalance between the two individuals such as an older employer or manager and a younger employee. So while she was over the age of consent in England and Wales it isn't quite that simple. 85.255.233.23 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"The standard age of consent in the UK"? Or does that confuse people into thinking there may be regional differences, or differences for homosexual vs heterosexual?

BruckerState (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if this called for a requested change, or was just a discussion. In any event, it seems that piping in the link to Ages of consent in Europe#United Kingdom and Crown dependencies for age of consent will allow curious minds to dig deeper.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes an abuse of trust is specifically outlined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

These are doctors, teachers, care workers etc. In 2022, the Crimes, Courts and Sentencing Act expanded the definition to include sports coaches and religious leaders. It is not open to interpretation and is solely based on specifically outlined professions.

Although one could argue power-imbalances this would not apply in the legal sense based on her age. Though his alleged action was illegal regardless of age since it was done without her consent (allegedly).

Might suggest re-phrasing ‘one of the victims’ to the ‘youngest victim’ ? 80.44.132.54 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• ‘One of the women’ to ‘the youngest of the women’

80.44.132.54 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just flows better 80.44.132.54 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on this discussion, the edit has been made to "the youngest of the women".–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why include the parenthetical? Maybe there's a Wikipedia policy on the site having a US legal/cultural bias (e.g. it uses American English). I could understand more if it was illegal: "Alice was found carrying cannabis in her purse (the possession of cannabis is illegal in the United Kingdom)"; or there was a historical context: "Bob's boyfriend was 19 years old at the time--the homosexual age of consent was 21 prior to...".

What's the WP:NOV stance on this? It states a fact, but it's trivia. If the implication is that the age gap is morally offensive (WP:OUTRAGE?) wouldn't the neutral response be to see what notable coverage the matter receives, from multiple independent sources? Then report what those sources have said. Treppin (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

By "include the parenthetical", I assume that refers to the age of consent being 16. That's because it was confusing to Americans who consider the age of 18 to be the age of consent. I am not sure how the age of consent for homosexuals applies here.

Is the point that the sentence should say the age of consent is 16 for heterosexuals?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I agree with the original poster that this appears to be an original synthesis. It's an ongoing and highly contentious event, but the age of consent isn't (part of) any of the allegations as they stand, from anything I've read.

So to be quite honest I don't get the need for clarification: the page on Solange Knowles describes her marriage at 17 years old to a 19-year-old. More recently you have Huw Edwards where the article reports that the individual was 17, references the lawyer's and Metropolitan Police's statements that no crime had taken place...all neutral, widely reported by reliable sources, etc.

Age of consent for homosexuals was just a random example where there's recent historical context: most of us in the UK have lived under Section 28 and witnessed the reforms to age of consent law. Along the same lines as mentioning if an American citizen was charged with drinking liquor (huh?!) then adding that "(Prohibition laws were in place at the time)" (oh!).

As for heterosexuals, in the "Early life" section it references Brand's father taking him to visit prostitutes in Thailand as a teenager. The cited article states he was 16. To me this would be like adding "(Brand was 16 at the time: the age of consent in Thailand is 15)".

You certainly know Wikipedia better than I do. With WP:BLP and the neutrality disputes on this page, isn't this a case where it's better to tread lightly? The actual allegations have been widely reported, and while there are specific exemptions to the age of consent in the UK--noted by another editor above--they don't form part of what has been reported/alleged.

I would say just remove the sentence. Treppin (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Treppin You make some good points, particularly that age of consent is not a factor in this case. How about this edit which removes the words about age of consent - and then uses the same link, but with "age 16"? I think it's nice to have the link, but not so strongly to argue for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly I'm not sure if the link needs to be there at all--but mentioning her/the youngest as being 16 at the time is pretty neutral, and widely reported by reliable sources. Treppin (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the article describe Brand as a conspiracy theorist?

Some guy has removed all mentions of that from the article citing WP:RECENTISM which is strange considering how he's been described as such for long before the recent sexual misconduct revelations, and given the preponderance of RS describing him as such. Not to mention,you know, that he called the covid fake, promoted hydroxychloroquine, claimed that the WEF is promoting some "great reset" agenda, tried to excuse/rationalise the brutal russian invasion of ukraine and so on. Daikido (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

For me, it's a question of how we include this (i.e. Wikivoice versus saying that he's widely regarded as...) rather than whether we should (we clearly should). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hang on though - that edit didn't remove all mentions, just the one in the opening sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not as the thing he is most known for. That was the most laughable example of bias I've ever seen on here. --85.101.234.129 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rather than promoting a closed-minded and dogmatic approach, Russell Brand encourages open dialogue and constructive conversations. He often brings experts and guests with varying viewpoints onto his shows and podcasts to foster meaningful discussions. TheologyAnswers (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I rarely find that such labels are the best way to convey information in an encyclopedic style and a way that's useful to our readers. TheologyAnswers (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This topic is also being discussed in the second half of #Lead adjustment. Your input would be appreciated to come to consensus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

Please change "conspiracy theorist" to "social commentator" as this is a more objective term. If necessary, it could be mentioned that some people consider him to be a conspiracy theorist. 203.59.136.195 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: A variety of reliable sources use the term "conspiracy theorist", and so that is the term used in the article. Tollens (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An update: this topic is also being discussed in the second half of #Lead adjustment. There is concern about calling him a conspiracy theorist. Your input would be appreciated to come to consensus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Another fake description by the crazy left

Wikipedia should not treat fake info / not proven fact on the page like conspiracy theorist (fake) and accusations (not proven). This makes Wikipedia not a trust place for info. 74.59.227.125 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As a public figure, accusations published in multiple reliable sources can and should be included in the article, and the same goes for the term "conspiracy theorist", which is the exact term used by several sources. All Wikipedia does is summarize what other sources have already said, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Tollens (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times described as "left" before, I suppose there's a first time for everything. GhulamIslam (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Accusations are highly relevant even before they have been proven in court. Channel 4 is not left wing. Sexual abuse allegations published by reliable sources in a country with incredibly strict libel laws are by far the most relevant characteristic of Brand's career over the past ten years. 193.116.208.220 (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Russell Brand was leftist, so i don't know why you would pander with his current fringe persona 180.253.12.216 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An update per Brand being called a conspiracy theorist, see the second half of Russell Brand#Lead adjustment. Your input would be appreciated to come to consensus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:36, 25 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)

Yes, that has been done. It is currently under the Personal life section, in the Russell Brand#Alleged battery and criminal damage charges subsection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing this Rotatingastrothing (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

More inappropriate behaviour

This is not an allegation but a fact, recorded on TV. I don't know the date but during one live stage appearance Brand made a false telephone call to a Rape Crisis line while the audience laughed uproariously. The day after Brand did apologise but this does warrant inclusion if someone can find the clip (shouldn't be hard). There are new allegations appearing almost daily but I won't get into those weeds. It's (perhaps notable) that he was ejected from his drama school for his behaviour, some of which included *alleged* inappropriate touching. 92.41.111.253 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't need the clip; we need sources describing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that it's a hoax call in Northampton that's being referred to:

• (The Independent)
• (The Guardian)
• (The Telegraph)

That call was in 2008, the same year as the call to Andrew Sachs and may not have got as much publicity.

A year earlier he made another hoax phone call as part of a show, though over a non-sexual crime: (RTÉ)

Autarch (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a section called 2008 prank call controversy and an article The Russell Brand Show prank calls.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The section could be renamed 2008 prank calls controversy to refer to both the Northampton and Sachs calls. Autarch (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Made edit to subsection heading - call-->calls.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I added some details on the Northampton hoax call, with sources. Autarch (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Some people think he's a wonderful wanker who got lucky. 5.186.78.167 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 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 statement from 2021, so this has been nearly all he was known for for 3 years. Before the allegations of course.

The "2020–present" section should at least mention this in its 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)

Lead adjustment

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)

How about changing the term to right-wing using the same sources, making the sentence: "Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English right-wing conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Right wing? Being a conspiracy theorist doesn’t imply someone is right wing. If you look at his actual views (e.g. in his book, Revolution) they are more

like social-anarchism, i.e. far left, not far right. 2A00:23C7:FA85:9A01:4463:C7B4:796B:D6BB (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I went with "alt-right" because sources used that term slightly more than "far-right". They use "right-wing" a lot too, but mostly in regard to his talking points, fanbase, sources of information, and the conspiracy theories and people he platforms on his YouTube and Rumble channels.

I suspect it's financially-motivated grifting on Brand's part, as it's in opposition to his previously expressed beliefs. GhulamIslam (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

GhulamIslam I agree that a conspiracy theorist is not synonomous with right-wing. He describes himself right-leaning, as demonstrated by your sources above.

I agree with Jim 2 Michael. I did a search on Is "Russell Brand" "right-wing" or "alt-right" and he is followed by alt-righters and targets the alt-right. Have you ever heard Brand describe himself as alt-right or expressed nationalist viewpoints?

I am surprised that you used "alt-right" after Jim 2 Michael commented that he felt that term is inappropriate (i.e., meaning we need some consensus building to select what term to use).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that the current version of the article does not call him alt-right.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, he hasn't described himself as right-wing, it's RS saying so. GhulamIslam (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no skin in this (particular) game but I want to reiterate that Russell Brand is primarily notable for being a comedian and an actor, not for being a conspiracy theorist -- he's used his fame from the former to prop up the latter. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

His fame as an entertainer enabled him to gain an audience of millions as an activist on social media. During the late 2010s & early 2020s, he's been far more active as an activist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what's he's active as -- it matters what he's notable for. Marcel Duchamp retired from art and became a chess player in his final years, but to call Duchamp a chess player and only incidentally (or only formerly) a modern artist would be inane. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Russell Brand gained widespread recognition for his comedic talent and acting roles in movies like "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Get Him to The Greek." These achievements are significant milestones in his career and should be prominently featured in the lead section. TheologyAnswers (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A well-rounded lead section should acknowledge multiple aspects of Brand's career and public life, including his activism and involvement in political discussions. It is crucial to avoid oversimplifying his diverse body of work by reducing it solely to conspiracy theories. TheologyAnswers (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have skin in this game either. My only thought is that where there are instances of calling Brand being called "alt-right", "far-right", "right-wing" it is better to be conservative. (e.g., Donald Trump, Prince Harry, Meghan Markle articles don't reflect the various ways that they are characterized). It seems to me that it's very fair to call him right-wing based on the many sources already mentioned. He absolutely targets right-wing and alt-right audience members - and is called by some a "alt-right figurehead" (what is usually said in the alt-right sources). By target-marketing to the alt-right, does it make him a member of the alt-right?

Maybe it's better to simplify the initial lead sentence to Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English comedian, actor, and conspiracy theorist."

Does that work? Or, put in right-wing or whatever term is inclusive of right-leaning people?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Made edits my latest post here for clarity. Was pretty jumbled.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Russell Brand's views and beliefs are not easily categorized within a specific political ideology. While he may express opinions that align with certain aspects of conservative or libertarian thought on occasion, he also holds progressive and liberal views on various issues. His political stance is eclectic and does not neatly fit into any one ideological box, Eg. income inequality, environmental sustainability, and mental health awareness. 2A00:23C7:5522:BF01:6C82:A387:A648:B7DE (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Brand is an "alt-right figurehead" is likely rooted in mischaracterizations or exaggerations. Labeling someone as an "alt-right figurehead" implies leadership or significant influence within the alt-right movement, which Brand does not possess. SheikhGoogle (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

He's not even part of the alt-right. His opposition to the US gov & promotion of conspiracy theories has gained him thousands of fans among the alt-right. However, he doesn't self-identify as being on the right at all. His political positions are mixed & he used to be left-wing. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Based upon what I am reading here,

• he should not be categorized as alt-right in the lead sentence (he targets alt-right, but is not a leader of the alt-right movement) and is not an alt-right nationalist
• there are plenty of sources in this section that state he is right-wing, but it sounds like that doesn't tell the full story, because he also supports some liberal and progressive viewpoints
• The lead should summarize the key points of his career

How about changing the lead sentence to:

Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) has been an English writer, actor, presenter, and comedian since 2004. His career includes work on radio and podcast programs. Since 2009, Brand has also been a public activist, campaigner, and conspiracy theorist."

Please provide edits and feedback, hopefully there's enough right here for this to be my final working suggestion (e.g., subject to edits until there's consensus).

One edit could be that he supports right-wing, liberal, and progressive viewpoints, depending on the topic (with sources).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Support It would be a good start, the aversion by some editors to the "conspiracy theorist" description resembles ideological bias.
I also don't think we should take his views at face value when presenting them in the article, since he has no issue pandering to people with opposing views, presumably for financial and/or egotistical reasons. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarise the most important content in the rest of the article. I don't see anything in the article supporting the assertion that he is a conspiracy theorist. Hence, especially as this is a BLP, that cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well then, respectfully, you haven't read the article.
Also, see the long list of WP:RS describing him as such below, ready to be cited in the article. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@GhulamIslam, can you quote a segment from the article and even one of those sources (remember, that per WP:HEADLINE, headlines are not considered to be a reliable part of any source) that supports that assertion? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please look toward the top of this section where I've done just that.
Or go through the list below, and either read through, or search "conspiracy theorist" using the Find-in-Page tool. I recall most featuring the phrase, or a variation of it, at least twice in-article. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@GhulamIslam, the lead should reflect the article content, please quote the segment from the article which supports asserting that he is a conspiracy theorist. I can't find it. If it's not there it needs to be added first, and robustly sourced per WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto How about:

1. "Brand's metamorphosis from mainstream Hollywood star to online conspiracy theorist has been years in the making. "[1] abc.net.au
2. "Over the years, he developed a cult following for his views on politics and society, and more recently has dabbled in the world of conspiracy theories in videos posted on YouTube and Rumble."[2] BBC.
3. Search on "Russell Brand" "conspiracy theorist" at news.google.com

Why do you think he is NOT a conspiracy theorist? Do you have a source for that?

I am going to drop the revised lead into the article. It can always be tweaked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I also removed the POV tag due to

• the revision of the lead statement
• no examples of POV statements, except I had removed something about his performing before a sold-out crowd, etc. I don't see other peacock language.
• And, the other statement about focusing on his career as an actor and comedian, seen to be positive aspects of career, in the lead. Changes to lead for the intro statement + added info about COVID conspiracies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, the opinion of one journalist reported in an Australian website is just that, an opinion. The BBC quote doesn't assert that he is a conspiracy theorist at all. To assert this in the lead of a BLP, we need to at least cover it in the article body first (see WP:LEAD), and everything written there has to be supported by strong reliable sources and comply with WP:BLPSOURCE. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto This absolutely blows my mind. You have had lots of responses and sources for his conspiracy theories. It is such a big part of his current modus operandi that I think it is wrong to exclude it.

From the article:

• Lead: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brand's YouTube channel underwent an increase in activity and change in political direction, and was accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories."

• Section: "2021–present: conspiracy theory accusations and Stay Free"
• From that section: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brand's YouTube channel underwent an increase in activity and change in political direction, and was accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories.[165][166]"
• Again, from that section: "According to culture reporter Louis Chilton, his videos are usually "framed with some sort of contrarian take or calling out hypocrisy in the mainstream media", and often hint "at a vague, world-altering conspiracy".[167]"
• Again, from that section: Columnist Charlotte Lytton accused Brand of following Joe Rogan "down the rabbit hole of online misinformation" by pandering to the anti-vaccine movement and spreading pro-Russian conspiracy theories about Russia's invasion of Ukraine;[178] for example promoting unfounded claims of US bioweapon labs in Ukraine.[179]

If he's not a conspiracy theorist, as you claim, how would you define these activities from the article?

Would others please weigh-in on this issue as well so we have consensus for whether he is a conspiracy theorist or something else that describes his role in promoting consipiracy theories?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, he may have discussed conspiracy theories, he may have had an open mind about them, he may have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, or accused of promoting "COVID denialism and conspiracy theories", a journalist may have opined that he was pandering to pedlars of one theory or another, but none of that passes the test that allows us to assert in Wiki's voice in the lead that he is a conspiracy theorist. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto I am cool with "Brand has been accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories" or "Brand has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist".–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto here. For one, the sourcing in the article does not support the change made to the lead, and secondly, it's all far too verbose for the first paragraph of a lead. We should simply state what his profession is. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, okay, that sounds good. Now we probably need to to develop that argument in a short section in the article, with full context and those opinions correctly attributed to exactly who has accused him of those things. And all robustly sourced to quality sources (no tabloids, gossip mags, blogs etc.), of course. And then we might be able to agree a precise and succinct summary of that content to add to the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto For the section, how about Russell Brand#2021–present: conspiracy theory accusations and Stay Free? It seems to make sense to include the discussion in that section. And, based on your comments, it sounds like it's good that it's partially called "conspiracy theory accusations".–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, yes, that one seems appropriate to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto is entirely correct in stating that there is not sourcing to support a clearly derogatory label. I also think we should avoid a phrase in the passive voice like that above: the valid response to such a claim is "Brand has been accused of promoting..." Cambial — foliar❧ 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto and Cambial Yellowing: and anyone else with an opinion, here's a draft, avoiding passive voice:

Journalists from the Voice, The Independent, and The Telegraph have accused Brand of promoting conspiracy theories.[165][166][167]

Citation numbers from this version. I had the citation numbers after each newspaper, but it looked choppy, so I grouped them at the end of the sentence. Please feel free to edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good and well-supported. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, I'm not sure they've accused him of "promoting" the conspiracy theories though, I'd say "publicising" maybe? Also I'd avoid using Vice to support it as WP:BLP requires good quality reliable sources, and, per WP:VICE, Vice does not get a glowing review in that respect. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I had not checked the citation numbers. I share DeFacto's concern about the use of Vice as a source. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing and DeFacto: Based upon your comments, here's the revised draft replacing Vice with The Guardian as a source. I put the actual links in to the newspaper articles:

Journalists from The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Guardian have accused Brand of publicising conspiracy theories.

If you have any other changes to the draft, please make the changes and post the revised draft below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead verbiage regarding Political activism

This #Overly positive POV section was started because someone thought there was too much attention to his early career - and not so much about Russell Brand#Political activism.

I agree and will take a stab at that—and add it to the lead before the 2023 accusations paragraph. It can be edited, updated, etc.—unless anyone thinks it's better to flesh it out here first. That's fine, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are the edits to the lead here. Please edit as needed.

Most of this is a moot point now since much of the content was deemed unnecessary and was removed here. What is left is the conspiracy theories around Covid-19. If everyone thinks that is enough to round out his protest and conspiracy theory activity in the lead, I am cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

As an fyi, I moved the info about run-in with the paparozzo in Russell Brand#Alleged battery and criminal damage charges here. Please edit the subsection heading as needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Since this discussion ended he's been called a conspiracy theorist twice again in The Independent, where he's introduced as "a comedian turned conspiracy theorist" by writer Maya Oppenheim (who wasn't quoting Naomi Klein), and in The Telegraph, where the writer explicitly calls Brand a conspiracy theorist, not once but THREE times.

He's now more notable for being a conspiracy "guru" (6.7 million YouTube subscribers) than he is for being a presenter, yet somehow it's the latter that's worthy of the lead? He presented Big Brother's Big Mouth for 5 minutes in the mid-2000s, since the 2020s he promotes right-wing conspiracy theories on Rumble. GhulamIslam (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

References