This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 1 October 2011 (→"After successfully exiting rehab,": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:50, 1 October 2011 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→"After successfully exiting rehab,": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell Brand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russell Brand. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russell Brand at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archives |
Fail source
Looks like a fail came from here: http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/03/01/funny-facebook-fails-russells-mum/. Ha ha ha 90.37.255.29 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, when that was first posted to failbook, the vandalism was still in place. I've reverted it back to Barbara, the correct name. Now that its been posted to the main page of failbook, I'd keep an eye out for additional vandalism of this page. BradC (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
GA status
I think we could get this article up to GA status. I'll be working to add more references, and align the article with the standards of other GA bio articles.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The Bill
it says he was in the children's show the Bill. this isn't a childrens show. please edit this someone with power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.11.196 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Quote from Rolling Stone
Generally WP:MOS says that a summary of the quote is preferred but sometimes if the quote is very personal or unique or significant than it can be added into an article, and mixed in to the text. In special situations a segregated block quote can be added but this is rarely needed and there are certain guidelines for that. Currently there are few quotes in the article like this one: 's such an expert on famine. He has after all been dining out on 'I Don't Like Mondays' for 30 years".] Since, at present, there is no Reception section its probably not needed. However, if we have a citation, I think the quote that was removed from the lead (below) could go in the Stand Up or Presenting sections.
- He has been described by Rolling Stone as "About the most fun, intelligent, filthy-minded, ego-centric, self-effacing, and happily contradictory guy ever.", and Stephen Fry as a "magnificent, charming, perceptive, funny, scabrous, and truthful ball of splendour".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Lead needs adjusting
The lead does not appear to accurately summarize the entire article as it should. Brand has had a long career as a comedian, a presenter, actor and general entertainer. The lead leaves out a lot of these items. Also there are 8 sentences in the and 2 of them (25%) is about controversies that surround Brand. I think this gives undue weight and creates POV. Since Brand's career has been controversial on several occasions it deserves a mention in the lead but should only be one sentence and does not need to cherry pick specific instances as it does currently. Any comments on this idea?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- There should be more about Brand's career in the lead; it doesn't convey to the reader that Brand's career was successful in the UK for a few years prior to the Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row and his subsequent success in the USA. It seems that he was little known outside the UK until 2008, when, due to his first major film role, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, him hosting the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards and his relationship with Katy Perry becoming known by the media and public, he became much more widely (in)famous. He is a very controversial, flamboyant, eccentric entertainer with an strong, unusual personality, so the sentences about controversies belong in the lead. He is a Marmite kind of man - people tend to either love him or hate him, so the lead needs to show that. Jim Michael (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to the mention of addiction and controversy in the lead but I do question cherry picking specific instances of controversy or bad behavior as that is not neutral. The details belong in the body of the article in my opinion but I am open to the thoughts of other editors. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Keith, we only need to mention that he is controversial in the lead and let the body of the article give the specifics. --BweeB (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The prank calls controversy was the most high-profile and publicised British event of 2008. Therefore I believe it important enough to mention that incident in the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Keith, we only need to mention that he is controversial in the lead and let the body of the article give the specifics. --BweeB (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to the mention of addiction and controversy in the lead but I do question cherry picking specific instances of controversy or bad behavior as that is not neutral. The details belong in the body of the article in my opinion but I am open to the thoughts of other editors. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not an article about British news stories of 2008. It is a BLP. The 2008 prank call incident is one of many described in the article in 1-3 sentences. To place it in the lead violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as WP:LEAD says: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heavy! --BweeB (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've placed a POV tag over the lead to alert readers that the lead may need adjusting and is under discussion. Thanks to everyone for their input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a guideline about whether specific controversial incidents should be mentioned in the lead or not. The main problem I see with the lead is that it is too short for someone with a very successful career, and because of insufficient career details, a disproportionate amount of the lead is about controversies he has been the centre of. He's an entertainer first and foremost, a controversial character second. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD says: "In a Nutshell--The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". and WP:MOSBEGIN says: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific" The current lead gives undue emphasis to one specific incident that is not emphasized in the article and is not a major component of the subject's life. I think there is consensus on this point and I would like to remove the following incidents/text from the lead which have been cherry picked from the article: as it creates Undue Weight and POV. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The specific controversies are mentioned in the third paragraph, not the first. I maintain that the prank calls are important enough to include mention of in the lead. This very widely-publicised incident is a pivotal part of his life and had a major effect on his career. It is one of the most well-known things about him. Specific controversies are mentioned in the lead of some other articles, including: Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Gary Condit, David Laws, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Max Mosley, Tiger Woods. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Will Beback talk 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Prominent controversies certainly includes the prank calls, and probably includes his jokes whilst presenting the 2008 MTV VMAs, which were badly received by the American audience. He wasn't very high-profile in 2001 as he didn't have a TV or film career then, so I don't know if dressing as bin Laden should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Will Beback talk 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The specific controversies are mentioned in the third paragraph, not the first. I maintain that the prank calls are important enough to include mention of in the lead. This very widely-publicised incident is a pivotal part of his life and had a major effect on his career. It is one of the most well-known things about him. Specific controversies are mentioned in the lead of some other articles, including: Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Gary Condit, David Laws, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Max Mosley, Tiger Woods. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD says: "In a Nutshell--The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". and WP:MOSBEGIN says: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific" The current lead gives undue emphasis to one specific incident that is not emphasized in the article and is not a major component of the subject's life. I think there is consensus on this point and I would like to remove the following incidents/text from the lead which have been cherry picked from the article: as it creates Undue Weight and POV. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a guideline about whether specific controversial incidents should be mentioned in the lead or not. The main problem I see with the lead is that it is too short for someone with a very successful career, and because of insufficient career details, a disproportionate amount of the lead is about controversies he has been the centre of. He's an entertainer first and foremost, a controversial character second. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've placed a POV tag over the lead to alert readers that the lead may need adjusting and is under discussion. Thanks to everyone for their input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bill
Article mentions RB's part in The Bill. This must have been written by an American, as any Brit would tell you The Bill was a police drama for adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.72.144 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
His voice acting
Where is the voice actors section? Put that category in because Russell Brand did voice acting!! --Serene78 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Serene78
Unclear
Under "Early Life":
"After Brand's parents divorced, his father remarried twice. Later, he also began using cocaine, crack and heroin."
Who? Russell Brand or his father?
Cherchez la Femme (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Gone. --John (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"After successfully exiting rehab,"
That's an odd thing to say right up front. It feels like I'm starting to read in the middle of the article, it's like "Huh? Rehab?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Big Brother articles
- High-importance Big Brother articles
- WikiProject Big Brother articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class television articles
- Unknown-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class Comedy articles
- Unknown-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- B-Class East Anglia articles
- Unknown-importance East Anglia articles
- B-Class Essex articles
- Unknown-importance Essex articles
- Essex articles
- WikiProject East Anglia articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English