| Revision as of 19:52, 13 November 2023 edit195.99.227.0 (talk) →Category:Sexual harasement in the United Kingdom: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:27, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,634,155 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talkheader|archive_age=10|archive_units=days| hide_find_sources=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header| hide_find_sources=yes}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Brand, Russell|1= |
|
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Entertainers}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=no|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=B |living=yes |filmbio-work-group=yes |listas=Brand, Russell}} |
|
{{WikiProject Big Brother|importance=High |UK=y }} |
|
{{WikiProject Big Brother|class=B|importance=High |UK=y |b1=yes |b2=yes |b3=yes |b4=yes |b5=yes |b6=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Anglia|Essex=yes |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Anglia|class=B |Essex=yes |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WP Sex|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=B |
|
|
| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = yes |
|
|
| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
| b3<!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
| b6<!--Accessibility --> = yes |
|
|
|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|June 16, 2013|Sep 17 2023}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|June 16, 2013|Sep 17 2023}} |
|
{{page views}} |
|
{{page views}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(10d) |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Russell Brand/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Russell Brand/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 6 |
|
| counter = 6 |
| Line 31: |
Line 23: |
|
| archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Missing details== |
|
== Overly positive POV == |
|
|
|
The Sexual misconduct allegations section is long, but lacks almost any detail from including the women's accounts. They're graphic, but ]. |
|
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 ], 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 ], having an article so strongly focused on Brand as an actor seems hard to reconcile with ]. ] (]) 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:All of this is just your opinion, it isn't worth putting in the article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Some people think he's a wonderful wanker who got lucky. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] reflects this shift. |
|
|
:From just a quick Google News search we have ''The Guardian'' and ''Prospect'' . ] (]) 06:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's starting to look as if RB is about to face his own ] moment: . 90 minute documentary airs on ] at 21:00 BST this evening. --] (]) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note how he's being described in today's articles: |
|
|
:Sky News - "" |
|
|
:''The Independent'' - ""<br>""<br>""<br>"" |
|
|
:''The Guardian'' - "" ] (]) 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sexual allegations now emerging in ]: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse --] (]) 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! ] (]) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no mention of the corroborating testimony from people close to the women or people who worked with Brand, supporting documentation from the investigation such as the between Brand and the woman pseudonymised as 'Nadia' (the phone number he used to send the messages was verified by multiple sources) or the letter she wrote him. |
|
The POV flag dates from March, is it still relevant? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Would it be a conspiracy if everyone said you are Jimmy Savile protégé ] (]) 21:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::A Hollywood trade full on said that he is ''''. 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. ] (]) 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 <ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-03-25 |title=How did Russell Brand go from stand-up stardom to YouTube conspiracy theories? |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-youtube-conspiracy-theories-b2043777.html |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Placido |first=Dani Di |title=The Backlash Against Russell Brand, Explained |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/09/29/the-backlash-against-russell-brand-explained/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Lytton |first=Charlotte |date=2022-03-17 |title=How Russell Brand became the ‘Mad Hatter of conspiracy theories’ |language=en-GB |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/russell-brand-became-mad-hatter-conspiracy-theories/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |issn=0307-1235}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=April 1, 2022 |title=Whatever happened to Russell Brand? Comedian’s strange career turn |work=] |url=https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/whatever-happened-to-russell-brand-comedians-strange-career-turn/news-story/092d3805db18c60b18d03f7cb7cf681f}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-21 |title=Exploring how Russell Brand has become a conspiracy guru |url=https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23206111.russell-brand-shares-conspiracy-theories-shed/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Oxford Mail |language=en}}</ref> |
|
|
:::::]<sup>]</sup> 07:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
===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 ] conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."<ref> |
|
|
Sources describing Brand as "alt-right" include: |
|
|
*I{{Cite web |last=Placido |first=Dani Di |title=The Backlash Against Russell Brand, Explained |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/09/29/the-backlash-against-russell-brand-explained/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Forbes }} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |last=Rear |first=Jack |title=Russell Brand's evolution from left-wing comedian to podcast hero of the alt-right |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/16/russell-brands-evolution-from-left-wing-comedian-to-podcast/ |date=2023-09-16 |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Telegraph |language=en}} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |last=Manavis |first=Sarah |title=Tarnished Brand |url=https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/internet/61724/tarnished-brand |date=2023-06-14 |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Prospect |language=en}} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |title='Police must do whatever it takes to get to bottom of Russell Brand allegations' |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/police-must-whatever-takes-bottom-30964135 |date=2023-09-17 |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Mirror |language=en}}</ref><ref>Sources describing Brand as a "conspiracy theorist" include: |
|
|
*{{Cite web |date=2022-03-25 |title=How did Russell Brand go from stand-up stardom to YouTube conspiracy theories? |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-youtube-conspiracy-theories-b2043777.html |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Independent |language=en}} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |last=Placido |first=Dani Di |title=The Backlash Against Russell Brand, Explained |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/09/29/the-backlash-against-russell-brand-explained/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Forbes }} |
|
|
*{{Cite news |last=Lytton |first=Charlotte |date=2022-03-17 |title=How Russell Brand became the ‘Mad Hatter of conspiracy theories’ |language=en-GB |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/russell-brand-became-mad-hatter-conspiracy-theories/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |issn=0307-1235}} |
|
|
*{{Cite news |date=April 1, 2022 |title=Whatever happened to Russell Brand? Comedian’s strange career turn |work=] |url=https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/whatever-happened-to-russell-brand-comedians-strange-career-turn/news-story/092d3805db18c60b18d03f7cb7cf681f}} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |date=2022-12-21 |title=Exploring how Russell Brand has become a conspiracy guru |url=https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23206111.russell-brand-shares-conspiracy-theories-shed/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=Oxford Mail }} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |last=Rosseinsky |first=Katie |title=Russell Brand: A career in comedy defined by darkness and delusions |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-allegations-comedian-bbc-channel-4-conspiracies-b2413064.html |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Independent |language=en}} |
|
|
*{{Cite web |title=Russell Brand’s descent into conspiracy politics |url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics |date=2023-03-14 |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=The Guardian }}</ref> |
|
|
] (]) 13:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The alt-right is ]; Brand shows no signs of being a ], let alone a white nationalist. ] (]) 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 ] conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."?–] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|CaroleHenson}} I went with "alt-right"<ref name="right 1">https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/</ref><ref name="right 2">https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/09/29/the-backlash-against-russell-brand-explained/</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-posts-video-online-denying-unspecified-criminal-allegations</ref><ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/16/russell-brands-evolution-from-left-wing-comedian-to-podcast/</ref><ref name="right 3">https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/internet/61724/tarnished-brand</ref> because sources used that term slightly more than "far-right".<ref>https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-russell-brand-allegations</ref><ref>https://sentientmedia.org/the-correction-george-monbiot/</ref> They use "right-wing"<ref>https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/</ref><ref>https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3w5e7/russell-brand-sex-abuse-allegations-conspiracy-theories</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/russell-brand-reaction-metoo-mainstream-media</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics</ref><ref>https://www.thewrap.com/russell-brand-right-wing-conspiracy-videos-reactions/</ref> 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.<ref>https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-russell-brand-allegations</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/russell-brand-reaction-metoo-mainstream-media</ref><ref>https://sentientmedia.org/the-correction-george-monbiot/</ref> |
|
|
::::I suspect it's financially-motivated grifting on Brand's part, as it's in opposition to his previously expressed beliefs. ] (]) 08:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{u|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 {{u|Jim 2 Michael}}. I did a search on and he is followed by alt-righters<ref name="right 1" /><ref name="right 2" /> and targets the alt-right.<ref name="right 3" /> Have you ever heard Brand describe himself as alt-right or expressed nationalist viewpoints? |
|
|
:::::<s>I am surprised that you used "alt-right" after {{u|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).</s>–] (]) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I see that the of the article does not call him alt-right.–] (]) 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::To my knowledge, ''he'' hasn't described himself as right-wing, it's RS saying so. ] (]) 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. ]<sub>(])</sub> 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. ] (]) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what's he's active as -- it matters what he's notable for. ] 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. ]<sub>(])</sub> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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., ], ], ] 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?–] (]) 16:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Made edits my latest post for clarity. Was pretty jumbled.–] (]) 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 ] or libertarian thought on occasion, he also holds ] and liberal views on various issues. His political stance is eclectic and does not neatly fit into any one ideological box, Eg. ], ], and ]. ] (]) 20:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::The claim that Brand is an "] figurehead" is likely rooted in mischaracterizations or exaggerations. Labeling someone as an "] figurehead" implies leadership or significant influence within the alt-right movement, which Brand does not possess. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nadia's close friend, who took her to the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center the same day as the assault, provided ''The Times'' with medical records. She had therapy there for the following five months, during which records show she contemplated criminal/civil proceedings. |
|
{{od}} |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Alice', who Brand apparently referred to as 'the child', also had a family member corroborate her account of being groomed by him to ''The Sunday Times''. |
|
How about changing the lead sentence to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He threatened the women with legal action, yet didn't pursue libel charges against ] despite stringent UK laws that would favor him if the accusations were unfounded. The foolproof measures journalists had to go before publishing the report are explained and by ''The Times'' themselves . |
|
::'''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." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should also be included in the ] sub-section that Brand promoted conspiracy theories that it was all a collaborative plot by the government and 'mainstream media' trying to censor him. These claims were then repeated by others, notably Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson. (, , ). ] (]) 04:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024 == |
|
One edit could be that he supports right-wing, liberal, and progressive viewpoints, depending on the topic (with sources).–] (]) 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.<br>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. ] (]) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:@], per ], 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 ], that cannot be asserted in ]. -- ] (]). 15:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well then, respectfully, ].<br>Also, see the long list of ] describing him as such below, ready to be cited in the article. ] (]) 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@], can you quote a segment from the article and even one of those sources (remember, that per ], headlines are not considered to be a reliable part of any source) that supports that assertion? -- ] (]). 20:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, please look toward the top of this section where I've done just that.<br>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. ] (]) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@], 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 ]. -- ] (]). 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Russell Brand|answered=yes}} |
|
:::::::{{u|DeFacto}} How about: |
|
|
|
"See also: Weinstein effect" needs to be removed from top of Sexual Misconduct section. Innapropriate, appears to be vandalism. ] (]) 09:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::# "Brand's metamorphosis from mainstream Hollywood star to online conspiracy theorist has been years in the making. " abc.net.au |
|
|
:::::::# "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." BBC. |
|
|
:::::::#Search on "Russell Brand" "conspiracy theorist" at news.google.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's a perfectly valid see-also item not least because Brand is mentioned in the target article. It is not vandalism. ] (]) 11:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::Why do you think he is NOT a conspiracy theorist? Do you have a source for that? |
|
|
|
::It's very one-sided, clearly intended to suggest he's being hard done by, when the case is still being investigated by UK authorities. It's the first thing I saw reading that section. ] (]) 23:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So request its removal and see what another editor thinks. I won't respond. ] (]) 06:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] overload == |
|
:::::::I am going to drop the revised lead into the article. It can always be tweaked.–] (]) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq|English comedian, actor, presenter, activist, podcaster and campaigner.}} seems excessive, and per policy in BIOFIRSTSENTENCE we should avoid having several roles and activities in the first sentence. |
|
::::::::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.–] (]) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::@], 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 ], we need to at least cover it in the article body first (see ]), and everything written there has to be supported by strong reliable sources and comply with ]. -- ] (]). 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead, {{tq|... is an English podcaster and media personality}} would highlight what he's most notable for today and would be more succinct by no longer barraging the reader with six different roles, most of which could be summarized in one or two words. ] is a good example of keeping it simple. Stern has acted, he's a comedian, he's an activist, but we don't stuff his opening sentence with everything he's done throughout his public career. ] (]) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::{{u|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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] better to add Sexual Assaulter then ] (]) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::From the article: |
|
|
|
::No, because that would be a violation of ]. ] (]) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::* 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." |
|
|
|
:::@] He has been convicted, keep your head in the sand I guess ] (]) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::* Section: "2021–present: conspiracy theory accusations and Stay Free" |
|
|
|
::::@] Do you have a source for that? Also, even if that were true, gaining consensus for including something like "convicted felon" or "sex offender" in the lead is unlikely. ] (]) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::*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." |
|
|
::::::::::*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"." |
|
|
::::::::::*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; for example promoting unfounded claims of US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. |
|
|
::::::::: 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?'''–] (]) 21:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::@], 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. -- ] (]). 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::{{u|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".–] (]) 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. ] (]/]) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::@], 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. -- ] (]). 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::{{u|DeFacto}} For the section, how about ]? 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".–] (]) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::@], yes, that one seems appropriate to me. -- ] (]). 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::{{u|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{{By whom|date=September 2023}} of promoting..." <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Makes sense. Thanks!–] (]) 21:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::{{ping|DeFacto|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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Citation numbers from . 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.–] (]) 19:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Looks good and well-supported. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::@], 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 ] requires good quality reliable sources, and, per ], ''Vice'' does not get a glowing review in that respect. -- ] (]). 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 10:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
{{ping|Cambial Yellowing|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.<ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-youtube-conspiracy-theories-b2043777.html</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Lytton |first1=Charlotte |date=17 March 2022 |title=How Russell Brand became the 'Mad Hatter of conspiracy theories' |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/russell-brand-became-mad-hatter-conspiracy-theories/ |access-date=24 March 2022 |archive-date=24 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220324214711/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/russell-brand-became-mad-hatter-conspiracy-theories/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you have any other changes to the draft, please make the changes and post the revised draft below.–] (]) 16:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist_talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Lead verbiage regarding Political activism=== |
|
|
This ] section was started because someone thought there was too much attention to his early career - and not so much about ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
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.–] (]) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here are the edits to the lead . Please edit as needed. |
|
|
::Most of this is a moot point now since much of the content was deemed unnecessary and was removed . 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.–] (]) 12:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:As an fyi, I moved the info about run-in with the paparozzo in ] . Please edit the subsection heading as needed.–] (]) 02:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Since this discussion ended he's been called a conspiracy theorist twice again in ''The Independent'',<ref>{{Cite news |title=Her comments come after Brand, a comedian turned conspiracy theorist, was accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013 |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/naomi-klein-russell-brand-tate-b2419533.html}}</ref> where he's introduced as "a comedian turned conspiracy theorist" by writer Maya Oppenheim (who wasn't quoting Naomi Klein), and in ''The Telegraph'',<ref>{{Cite news |title=Russell Brand used to be a fashionable Left-wing comedian, actor and writer. So why, in recent years, did he become a YouTube conspiracy theorist? |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/23/russell-brand-youtube-conspiracy-theories-liberals-mistake/}}</ref> 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. ] (]) 07:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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 ] (]) 12:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, that has been done. It is under the Personal life section, in the ] subsection.–] (]) 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Great, thanks for doing this ] (]) 11:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another fake description by the crazy left == |
|
|
Misplaced Pages should not treat fake info / not proven fact on the page like conspiracy theorist (fake) and accusations (not proven). This makes Misplaced Pages not a trust place for info. ] (]) 03:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:As a ], 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 Misplaced Pages does is summarize what other sources have already said, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Russell Brand was leftist, so i don't know why you would pander with his current fringe persona ] (]) 10:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::An update per Brand being called a conspiracy theorist, see the second half of ]. Your input would be appreciated to come to consensus.–] (]) 21:36, 25 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. ] (]) 15:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: We don't need the clip; we need sources describing it. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's possible that it's a hoax call in Northampton that's being referred to: |
|
|
::* |
|
|
::* |
|
|
::* |
|
|
::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: |
|
|
::] (]) 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There is a section called ] and an article ].–] (]) 21:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The section could be renamed 2008 prank calls controversy to refer to both the Northampton and Sachs calls. ] (]) 16:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Made edit to subsection heading - call-->calls.–] (]) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks, I added some details on the Northampton hoax call, with sources. ] (]) 20:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== == |
|
|
|
|
|
''The Independent'' article also notes that "Brand has largely stopped appearing in mainstream media but has built up a large online following with '''conspiracy theory''' videos". ] (]) 00:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Category:Sexual harasement in the United Kingdom == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fitting category to add on this page, as he has been accused of sexual assault by numerous women, and this has been covered in reliable sources. ] (]) 19:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
There's no mention of the corroborating testimony from people close to the women or people who worked with Brand, supporting documentation from the investigation such as the text messages between Brand and the woman pseudonymised as 'Nadia' (the phone number he used to send the messages was verified by multiple sources) or the letter she wrote him.
Nadia's close friend, who took her to the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center the same day as the assault, provided The Times with medical records. She had therapy there for the following five months, during which records show she contemplated criminal/civil proceedings.
'Alice', who Brand apparently referred to as 'the child', also had a family member corroborate her account of being groomed by him to The Sunday Times.
He threatened the women with legal action, yet didn't pursue libel charges against News UK despite stringent UK laws that would favor him if the accusations were unfounded. The foolproof measures journalists had to go before publishing the report are explained here and by The Times themselves .
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's a perfectly valid see-also item not least because Brand is mentioned in the target article. It is not vandalism. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)