Jump to content

Talk:Russell Brand

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

Missing details

[edit]

The Sexual misconduct allegations section is long, but lacks almost any detail from The Times report including the women's accounts. They're graphic, but Wikipedia is not censored.

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 [1].

It should also be included in the Reactions and aftermath 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. ([2], [3], [4]). GhulamIslam (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

[edit]

"See also: Weinstein effect" needs to be removed from top of Sexual Misconduct section. Innapropriate, appears to be vandalism. PrettyPink614 (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]
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. 2A00:23C8:2433:8F01:C46C:B6E9:39F7:3C10 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So request its removal and see what another editor thinks. I won't respond. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Instead, ... 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. Howard Stern 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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc better to add Sexual Assaulter then Megasteel33 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc He has been convicted, keep your head in the sand I guess Megasteel33 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Megasteel33 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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]