Jump to content

Talk:Russell Brand/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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: ["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".] 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)

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: ["including his dismissal from MTV for dressing up as Osama Bin Laden and controversies while presenting at various award ceremonies. The 2008 prank telephone calls he made to Andrew Sachs while co-hosting The Russell Brand Show with Jonathan Ross led to his resignation from the BBC and major policy changes in that organization"] 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)

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.[11] Later, he also began using cocaine, crack and heroin.[citation needed]"

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)
Article reads a lot like this in places - confused! --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:58, 1 October 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)

I was bold and made a small change to this - tell me what you think --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the phrase. --BweeB (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead should still mention it so I added about it, but is it "abuse" or "abuses".? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Criminal record

Since he's in the news again I came here to find out just what his criminal past is that got him banned from Canada. The article and the references don't specify if he has a criminal conviction - just that he's been arrested. It would seem that he must have a conviction or he wouldn't be banned so this area needs better wording and a better reference.Daffydavid (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth! It would seem he must have some conviction(s) related to drugs to be refused entry to Canada and it would be interesting to know just what those are. None of the current news stories I say specify what they might be. Does anyone know more about the specifics of his criminal record? 99.192.58.26 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Russell Brand's Canada ban claim was just a joke [1]69.165.150.95 (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if this is a joke he was denied entry to Japan. All the articles I can find state he has a criminal record, but don't state just what it is. This article needs a reference to what it is or should state that he only has arrests not convictions.Daffydavid (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP we should make sure we have very reliable sources before adding information that could damage the reputation of a public person. Let's make sure we have solid sources before we add anything about criminal activity to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A newspaper wrote yesterday, "He was deported from Japan back in May this year because of his previous drug convictions."   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

The article currently says a citation is needed for his birthday. I've searched a couple of hours and think I can help out. The most reliable source I've been able to find is from page 17 of his book My Booky Wook: "I suppose you want to know how it was that I came to be on this dirty little circle we call “world?” Well, I was born at midnight on 4 June 1975." Other than that, the info page of his official Facebook says: "Birthday June 4, 1975" His date of birth is also mentioned on movies.yahoo.com, tv.com, comedians.about.com, and in a piece on guardian.co.uk. Furthermore, Ryan Seacrest interviewed him on June 4, 2010 when Brand was a "newly turned 35 year-old". I also found three articles that say his birthday was the day before, and mention his new age: articles from dailymail.co.uk (June 5, 2010: "35th birthday party last night"), thesun.co.uk (June 4 2011: "36th birthday yesterday."), people.co.uk (June 5 2011: "turned 36 yesterday"). Hopefully this research I've done means someone can now edit the article and a citation is no longer needed. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I've worked hours on this. The article is locked for editing, so as an anonymous contributor, I can't edit the article. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll add one of the sources, thanks for finding them. Six words (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --82.171.13.139 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Article could use improvement

I copyedited the lead and "early life" section; I might do the rest at some point. The article could use some work (wikilinks and style), and maybe some notable info is missing. If anyone takes this on at some point, let me know and I'll help with what I can. ʝunglejill 18:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

"Brand first met American singer/songwriter Katy Perry in summer 2008 when Perry filmed a cameo for Brand's film Get Him to the Greek (although the cameo did not make it into the final cut of the film).[78]" How does this statement square with the fact that filming for the movie started in the spring of 2009? o0drogue0o 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

But when Russell met Katy in 2008, there weren't dating, they just met. In 2009, they began dating. CPGirlAJ (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently, there are rumors that Brand is dating Geri Halliwell.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).|publisher=MTV|accessdate=29 August 2012}}</ref>

New Russell Brand picture in August 2012

I uploaded four new Katy Perry pictures and one of them includes Russell Brand. We should use that picture in Russell Brand's article.

Here is the picture:

CPGirlAJ (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012

[http://russell.brand.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_skiing.php This reference] says that Brand passed away earlier today. I want a subsection created of "Personal life" reading the following:

===Death=== On Monday, 27th August 2012, Brand passed away after colliding into a tree during a skiing trip in [[Zermatt, Switzerland]].

And I want the infobox updated, the birth brackets at the start of the article amended to read (4 June 1975 - 27 August 2012) and the entire article rewritten in the past tense or better, unprotected so that I can do so. 90.220.160.188 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you create an account, then you can make the edits yourself after it is 4 days old with at least 10 edits. If you think the page really does not need protection any more, you can make a request at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The death thing appears to be a hoax anyway.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 Not done, since it's false--Jac16888 Talk 21:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it not worth listing this as a hoax on the article?--90.220.160.188 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Only if the hoax got significant media coverage and is considered a notable event in Brand's life.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Early life

The citation needed for the line where he cut his hands with glass and was expelled. Russell recounted this story on his BBC Radio 2 show on 26 May 2007. He also mentioned this story in the Autobiography "My Booky Wook". --195.173.198.90 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests

RE:Brand does not appear in his Television credits for some reason, despite actually being mentioned in the article in the Presenting section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.79.105 (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Russell Brand's Ponderland does not appear in his Television credits

Edit request: acting

"adaption" should be "adaptation"

Brand starred as Lonny in a movie adaptation of '80s-set musical Rock Of Ages, released in cinemas in June 2012. His upcoming projects include a remake of Drop Dead Fred.[44] Brand will also appear in an Oliver Stone film.[5] Sandler has cast Brand in another film and will produce yet another, co-written by Brand and Matt Morgan, about a con-man posing as a priest; it is tentatively titled Bad Father.[45][46] and he is also set to star as Fred Mumford in a movie adaptation of the hit 70s program Rentaghost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.114.186 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The prank calls from 2008

This article should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_telephone_calls_row The incident is mentioned in the first paragraph, but when I wanted to find more I had to google the thing to find another wikipage. It would be more streamlined if there were a direct link from this article to that one. I think the simplest edit would be to change the link in at prank calls in this sentence: In 2008, he resigned from the BBC following prank calls..... Also a link somewhere in the relevant subsection about the incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand#Radio would be nice.

I can't do this cause this article is protected somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.224.42 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Divorce

Brand could not divorce his wife "via a text message". He might have told her via a text message that he wanted a divorce.203.184.41.226 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He filed for divorce in December 2011, but it was finalised in July 2012. I've added this, but it's been removed because the source 'isn't reliable enough'. However, higher quality news sites don't have much coverage of Brand, so I can't find an article in something like The Telegraph that states when the divorce was finalised. Jim Michael (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I replaced it with a reliable source. It was removed again as it was "better" without it. I've put it back again for completeness.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The source you provided, Egghead06, was definitely a more reliable source than the one Jim Michael used. However, there's little to no point in saying a divorce was "finalized" several months after one files for divorce. This is because once one has filed for divorce, the marriage officially ends right then and there. Nothing more to it. Both partners become divorced and single on the spot. "Divorcing through text" was basically meant as "Told about decision to divorce through text", so sorry if that came across as misleading. One can file for separation and still be married, but filing for divorce is immediately ending the entire marriage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are not divorced until the decree absolute [1]. --Egghead06 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, looks like they got that on or soon after December 30, 2011 since the finances were settled in February 2012. In any case, the date one files marks the end of the marriage though courts might not declare it so right away. From people who I personally know that have been divorced say, filing ends the marriage altogether (though does not necessarily mean all possessions/custody arrangements are finalized). Even if courts declare it to be over later than the people themselves split, court finishing things through is often seen as trivial. If a couple ends their marriage in April, for instance, you never hear anyone say things like "he/she filed for divorce in April and it was finalized in November" or "he/she filed for divorce in April, we finished financial agreements in June, and our divorce was finalized in November." You'd hear them simply say something like "our marriage ended in April." Essentially, the public is more concerned with when couples go their separate ways than when courts say things are "done". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not my personal experience or that of those I know. Either way, your view or mine is WP:OR.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Views of the law? Yes that likely would be WP:OR as it varies from area to area. In any case, the public is really only concerned with when a couple splits and who gets custody of any children the couple had together. Therefore, the court's "finalization" (which is really just when it finishes being processed, which sometimes takes quite a while) would be something trivial and therefore doesn't need to be included in the article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
And how do we know what "the public is really only concerned" with? You say trivial, I say not. You say not in the article, I say yes. On your part seems like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not a case of "I just don't like it". Regarding public concerns, I have much more often read about the two having a "fourteen-month marriage" than a twenty-one month marriage, indicating that December 2011 is when it all ended. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
But made legal in July 2012. [2]--Egghead06 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
While the court may not have declared so until July, the finances, possessions, properties, arrangements, etc. were settled in February 2012. Also, the man himself stated on December 30, 2011 that their marriage was over, saying that the two were "ending our marriage". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The legal status of marriage does not end when you split up the CD collection and decide who gets the dog or even when one of you shuffles off to live somewhere else. It ends when the court says so. You are not single until that point and are not free to marry again until that point.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Even so, they were over December 30, 2011 as far as their families, friends, and society are concerned. While they certainly couldn't have gotten married so soon afterwards, he is known to have dated other women between December 2011 and July 2012. While dating new people after filing for divorce isn't really seen as cheating, it is disputed whether or not he cheated on her before filing for divorce. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the legal system not part of society then?--Egghead06 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In this case, doesn't seem to be based on your descriptions on law. I don't personally know anybody who sees a marriage as going beyond the point of filing. This is why "finalization dates" (if you wish to call it that) tend to be seen as trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Your own experience is WP:OR.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR or not, the vast majority of reports that mention them divorcing only mention them ending things on December 30, 2011. What hasn't exactly been explained is how/why a "finalization date" is not trivial or why it should be included when most reports disregard the "finalization". In interviews, niether of them address the "finalization" as their end. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
As you know Wiki is based upon verifiable information from reliable sources. This passes both of those tests. --Egghead06 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not questioning verifiability or source reliability. The question is what reason(s) would it be included if tons of people disregard it as trivia and many more will pay no attention to it whatsoever. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If it is of no merit, why would a verifiable and reliable source even mention it then?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You'd have to ask whoever wrote that article. Whatever the reason(s) might be, there's no point in mentioning it in a wiki article when lots of people disregard it as downright insignificant. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But by reporting it in reliable sources some regard it as significant. There is no way of telling who says it is insignificant but a reliable source says otherwise and that's what Wiki uses.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There are also reliable sources that disregard the "finalization", and these definitely outnumber the amount of reliable sources that mention "finalization". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiki does not use references which don't verify, it uses ones which do.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The references I speak of certainly do verify that they split December 30, 2011, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Split (a non-technical term belonging to tabloid journalism) and divorce (a legal and exact term) are not the same thing.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
They tend to be used synonymously, though..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
One belongs in the tabloids, one in a responsible and accurate encyclopedia.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In any case, most sources (including the two people themselves and their fanbases) regard December 30, 2011 as their end, however reliable they are. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The actual date of the marriage ending is important, not what people consider it to be. A high proportion of people think that Sydney is the capital of Australia, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should say that it is. Dennis Hopper and Elizabeth Edwards both died during their divorce proceedings. Due to their deaths, their divorce proceedings were stopped, and their marriages ended in their deaths, not when the divorce proceedings begun. Jim Michael (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer why it is significant enough to include. If generally disregarded as trivial, why add it? Katy and Russell themselves both have stated the marriage ended December 30, 2011, so why not go with what they say??
Regardless of what their views are, there are many reliable sources on the subject.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my questions at all XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Brand and Perry may have a view. Other who are considered verifiable and reliable sources state something else. That is why it should be included.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Outside of reliability, why is it significant enough to mention? That still hasn't been answered. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Er, because it is relevant.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Not much of an answer, though at least it addressed the question rather than mention reliability..... Looking for more of an answer on how it would be significant enough to mention..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Jim Michael answered this in his comment of 24 January (above) - "The actual date of the marriage ending is important, not what people consider it to be. A high proportion of people think that Sydney is the capital of Australia, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should say that it is. Dennis Hopper and Elizabeth Edwards both died during their divorce proceedings. Due to their deaths, their divorce proceedings were stopped, and their marriages ended in their deaths, not when the divorce proceedings begun. --Egghead06 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
He stated it was important, but didn't say why it is important..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Important because it is accurate.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW if you feel strongly enough that this information should not be included you may wish to take it up here and gain a wider view.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Still not the type of answer I was looking for..... lots of facts are left out of articles due to lack of significance, and most sources (yes- this includes reliable sources, please don't try to use reliability again for this) regard "finalizations" of divorce as insignificant compared to when couples go their separate ways. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't say why you don't like my answers? You say reliability as if it is a dirty word - it's really all Wiki has. Oh and verifiability. If accuracy, completeness, reliability, verifiability and relevance are "not the answers you are looking for" suggest you seek an answer you do like from the above mentioned noticeboard. At the moment consensus on this subject is to include this date.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As to what other articles may or may not include - WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS--Egghead06 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It isn't so much not liking answers (or reliability being a "dirty word") as it is lack of elaboration on how it is notable. Society would generally regard it as insignificant. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide a reliable source to show society deems this date to be insignificant? Try getting married again before a decree absolute, then you'd find out its significance!--Egghead06 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Society regards it as insignificant since most reports (including those with high reliability) disregard it entirely. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
And some reliable references, like the one use, report it. How are we in a position to say what "most" reports do? Please provide a reference for how society views this date. Thanks--Egghead06 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The ones that disregard it far outnumber those that use it, though. With "society" referring to group(s) of people, the majority disregards "finalization" as indicated in the number of reports people write that make no mention of it compared to those that do. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Society is not just groups of people, it is also the legal profession which does not ignore it.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether legal profession ignores it or not, the people who aren't in legal profession outnumber those who are, and the vast majority of people outside of legal profession find it insignificant. Therefore, the majority of people don't see it as notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It is moot what the majority think (and you still have not provided any reference to show what the majority think) - they are not writing Wikipedia.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The separation and the finalising the divorce are both important. The separation because that is when they sociologically ceased to be a couple and the decree absolute because that's when they legally ceased to be a couple. A person going through a divorce cannot remarry, (s)he has to wait for the proceedings to end. It is standard practice on here (and on encyclopedias in general) to give the end date of a marriage as when the divorce proceedings were finalised, or when one of them died. Some couples have separated without divorcing, and some begin divorce proceedings but abandon them and reconcile. A marriage is a legal contract, and as such it isn't over until the law says it is. A person whose marriage has not legally ended, regardless of how long ago they separated, is still legally married. Jim Michael (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE:Brand , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponderland , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand%27s_Got_Issues are all glaringly, and painfully absent from the Russell Brand page which I can not edit. Please fix this Odvara (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Information about his autobiographies is wrong. There is no mention of his first autobiography and his 2nd autobiography is described as his first.

Information about his autobiographies is wrong. There is no mention of his first autobiography and his 2nd autobiography is described as his first. 175.143.10.168 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

PLEASE CHANGE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER "WRITING." IT IS:

Brand signed a £1.8 million two-book deal with HarperCollins in June 2008. The first book, Articles of Faith, examined Brand's philosophy and consisted of a collection of Guardian columns that were published between 2007 and 2008. The book was released on 16 October 2008, and also includes Brand interviewing Noel Gallagher, James Corden and David Baddiel about football.[63][64] The second book, Booky Wook 2: This Time It's Personal, was released on 30 September 2010 and is Brand's first autobiography. Published by Hodder & Stoughton, the book was released on 15 November 2007 and received favorable reviews. Andrew Anthony from The Observer commented that "Russell Brand's gleeful tale of drugs and debauchery in My Booky Wook puts most other celebrity memoirs to shame".[65][66][67]

CHANGE SUGGESTED: "The second book, My Booky Wook, A Memoir of Sex, Drugs and Stand Up, was released in 2009, and is Brand's first autobiography. Originally published by Hodder & Stoughton, the book was released on 15 November 2007 and received favorable reviews. Andrew Anthony from The Observer commented that "Russell Brand's gleeful tale of drugs and debauchery in My Booky Wook puts most other celebrity memoirs to shame." This was followed by Booky Wook 2: This Time It's Personal, which was released on 30 September 2010 and is Brand's second autobiography. .[65][66][67]"

BECAUSE: Obviously, the "Booky Wook 2" will follow the original "My Booky Wook". I just finished the original, (recommend it) and the publishing data is correct as stated in the Wikipedia article but applied to the wrong book. The correction is to clarify the information which on the face of it is illogical and confused. I am a neophyte editor here and hope I have not blundered. All the best. Ipsovol (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As this seems a pretty substantial change that is likely controversial, you'll need to establish a consensus before this change can be made. Thanks for your interest in improving the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Relevant segment: "Following the cessation of his use, Brand revealed through his stand-up performances that he introduced his drug dealer to Kylie Minogue during his time at MTV and masturbated a stranger in a public toilet for the purpose of research.[2]"

Suggested edit: The referenced url is unavailable. It should read: http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/books/features/4329/russell-brand-on-heroin

2A00:1398:9:FB00:54F9:42E9:4939:AA7 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks!  NQ  talk 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

In the 'Early life' section of the article: "[...]during a trip to the Far East when brand was a teenager". Letter 'b' in Brand's last name needs to be capitalized. Chdellac (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Media Reception

The media reception area notes two particular events as to which seem to promote the general perspective I am sure Russell Brand would approve of. There has to be more general information from the media and critics about him other than two specially selected events that I am sure could have easily been placed in here by his publicist. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Businesses

This piece needs something about Brand's businesses. I may add a para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.80.84 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong category

He's not a fucking Hindu.81.202.188.33 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Category:Fucking Hindus? Who woulda thought? Is there a corollary Category:Celibate Hindus? 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
He chose to worship Ganesha at his wedding http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Katy-affirms-Brand-loyalty/articleshow/6808817.cms Now, would you travel halfway around the world to worship that deity on the most important day of your life if you were not Hindu? "Fucking Hindu" is quite disgusting sounding, y'know. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

Of 9/11 conspiracy theories arguing that the attacks were perpetuated by the American government, he commented: "[w]e have to remain open-minded to [that] kind of possibility.I would like to add to the section that describes russell brands interview on newsnight where he seemingly endorsed 911 conspiracy theories--he does not,he described them as 'daft' and challenged the assumption the we should trust the US government.the section as it is now is misleading. Wellies12 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have modified the passage on 9/11 to include the comment from Russell Brand which User:Wellies12 points to. It is clear from the interview that this section of the interview ended with Brand completely changing tack from what he had said moments earlier. Gawker.com has a transcript of this section of the interview, but I am not sure if the website counts as reliable. Because most of the sources use clips which may be copyvio, I added the YouTube link which on this occasion appears to be entirely legitimate. A piece on the BBC News site links to it here. Philip Cross (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add 'Russell Brand: End the Drugs War', '2014', 'Host', 'BBC Three Documentary' to the Filmography -> Television table. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v2zrg Stront90 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Section 'early life' states that he was born in Orsett hospital, Grays. Orsett hospital is called Orsett hospital mostly because it's in Orsett. Grays is somewhere else. If an area name is required, the appropriate one is Thurrock, with the next wider area being Essex Alanthehat (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please change 'russellbrand.tv' to 'russellbrand.com' Teapittsburgh (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

The reference to Get him to the Greek as a sequel is wrong. Get Him to the Greek is really a spin off more than a sequel Babaoriley7 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sing! 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Baboriley is right; it wasn't a sequel; Brand's character was the only character in both. Jonah Hill was in both but played two different characters. Wikimandia (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism/Activist.

Now I’d say Russell Brand is a Revolutionary more than an Activist. Also in his book ‘Revolution’ he explains that he is a Christian and not Hindu. He has also done this on many occasion in his daily ‘Trews’ youTUBE series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.255.153 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source where he explicitly identifies as Hindu? The article mentions his interest in Hare Krishna and Transcendental Meditation, the practitioners of the latter which do not often identify as "Hindu," but these salient spiritual interests aside, is he self-identified as Hindu? This is particularly important as the infobox states that he is Hindu, and per WP:BLP if this is not verifiable or if he does not identify as such, it must be deleted. Laval (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the religion parameter in the infobox for now, as the claim of Hinduism wasn't mentioned or sourced anywhere in the body of the article. If there's a quote from "Revolution" where says he's a Christian, posting it here (preferably with a page number) would help. I don't think The Trews is a valid source, not even a primary one, and we need an explicit (hopefully recent) statement from Brand as to what belief system he adheres to before we put it in the article's infobox. And if there isn't one, just leave the article as it is. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Laval Bilorv the "Personal Life" refers to him having a Hindu wedding. Not saying that's a cast-iron guarantee (might have just been for fashion), but that was likely the reason to insert. For OP, no, never: Lenin was revolutionary, Castro was revolutionary. The clue is in the word "Revolution"ary. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mrs Bratwurst-Kraut-Nazi

"I mean in England we have a Queen for f**k’s sake. A Queen! We have to call her things like “Your Majesty” YOUR MAJESTY! Like she’s all majestic, like an eagle or a mountain. She’s just a person. A little old lady in a shiny hat – that we paid for. Or “Your Highness”! What the f**k is that?! What, she’s high up, above us, at the top of a class pyramid on a shelf of money with her own face on it. We should be calling her Mrs Windsor. In fact that’s not even her real name, they changed it in the war to distract us from the inconvenient fact that they were as German as the enemy that teenage boys were being encouraged, conscripted actually, to die fighting. Her actual name is Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

“Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha”!! No wonder they f******g changed it. It’s the most German thing I’ve ever heard – she might’ve well as been called “Mrs Bratwurst-Kraut-Nazi”.

Despite press reports that Royal supporters are 'disgusted' over the Bratwurst-Kraut-Nazi headline, is there any reason why Wikipedia should not report the whole Russell Brand remark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.146.100 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"press reports that Royal supporters are 'disgusted' over the Bratwurst-Kraut-Nazi headline" — This isn't a reason to avoid reporting the remark. Wikipedia isn't censored. But we generally don't quote long extracts of text. We only summarise the important facts. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
While reporting all comments would over-load any article, and yet, to selectively summarise this quote - in the way the British press have - is unlikely to present a full understanding of the remark. For this reason, and in this case, might the full remark be printed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.99.208 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

5.148.25.192 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC) It says Russell Brand's marriage to Katy Perry was a two-year one - in fact it was 14 months.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

In the Early Years section, the promoter should be listed as Bound & Gagged Comedy http://www.boundandgaggedcomedy.com (not Gagged & Bound Comedy). Adr81 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Done - FlightTime (open channel) 20:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russell Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Russell brand has recently had another child, and is no longer married to Laura Gallacher

Hi there,

I just thought I would mention to whoever has the ability to edit Russell Brand's page, that he has recently had another child (his second), and he is no longer married to Laura Gallacher.

REFERENCES ABOUT HIS SECOND CHILD:

https://www.ok.co.uk/celebrity-feature/1423625/russell-brand-family-wife-laura-gallacher-kids-daughter-mabel-mum-babara-dad-ronald

Go to 3:21 in the following video of Russell Brand's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-oHbvSfjCg&t=259s

REFERENCES ABOUT HIS MARRIAGE:

Wikipedia reports that Russell married Laura Gallacher around August 2017.

You will notice on Russell's YouTube channel, in his video on July 30, 2018, and every video uploaded since September 1, 2017, he always has his wedding band on:

July 30, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl-UkwgqeQ0 September 1, 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0-ims_KSM&t=86s

In the video about Kanye West, however, which was posted on August 15, 2018, he no longer has his wedding band on.

In the following video, posted August 29, 2018, you will still does not have his wedding band on, and he makes reference to a "girlfriend" at 0:07: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsot0xPfjAc

Anyways, hope that helps!

- Natalia J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njimenez86 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Like to add in edits about Brand’s sexual abuse in early life (references in his biography and book “Recovery”) and some further information about his podcast Under the Skin. Faux.paws (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Career decline

Who says his career has declined and why is it labelled this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymosdef (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. Lord Law Law (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

Russell Brand no longer lives in Shoreditch. He now lives in Henley-on-Thameshttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527801/Anti-capitalist-Russell-Brand-plans-pool-cinema-3-3million-thatched-cottage.html !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> Anyanatno (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Added it after finding a new RS. Lord Law Law (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sunday Times interview 2019

Should anything mentioned in the January 2019 Sunday Times interview[3] (paywall) reported by the Daily Mai[4] be added? It's also referred to in an Irish Times article [5]. Mcljlm (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/02/russell-brand-canada.html
  2. ^ Brand, Russell. "Russell Brand on Heroin". Time Out Sydney.
  3. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/the-interview-russell-brand-on-his-hedonistic-past-marriages-and-becoming-a-father-wn6gjkwzd
  4. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6612053/amp/Russell-Brand-raises-MeToo-movement-admits-DOESNT-regret-sleeping-five-women-day.html
  5. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/russell-brand-you-re-not-a-spiritual-maverick-you-re-a-stereotype-1.3766792

Length and Detail

This Wikipedia entry is farcically lengthy for a mediocre and fairly young comedian / activist of no particular consequence; almost being a blow by blow account of his life. His actions, activism and attitude strongly suggest that he is a narcissist, the entry somewhat re-enforcing this assertion. Does Wikipedia have length limits for living people who have made very little contribution to history or benefit to mankind. Is someone (?) looking to create the longest Wikipedia biography of all time, or is as he has stated, really the second coming of Jesus Christ? Wikipedia is famous for it's reversions and heavy handed moderation, perhaps the keeper of this entry could give it a trim or at least a note in the lede regarding length and significance. Brand is not yet another Mahatma Gandhi (who's entry is probably shorter) or God forgive me: "The Second Coming of Christ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.58.30 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
A+ for effort, and I like your style, but nothing actionable here. Le Marteau (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, though... I did have a look at it with an eye towards slapping a "Very Long" template on it, but actually, half the column inches of the article are things like Filmography and References. Actual prose is only about 50%, with data and metadata being the other 50%. It's a large article because he's got a lot going on. Le Marteau (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As sad as it is to say...

...Russell has been openly embracing and peddling pro-Trump, pseudoscience conspiracy theories. One needs to look no further than his YouTube channel. In one of his videos he insists, without concreted evidence, that Big Tech conspired with the Democrats to steal the 2020 Election. It's another one of Russell's incoherent ramblings, of which there are many. He has been exhibiting an obsessive animosity towards the Clintons, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates and others. It's one video screed after another. Apparently, getting to sleep with Katy Perry renders you an expert on EVERYTHING. Here's his take on the Virginia Gubernatorial race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8gRoaCczQ

And here's David Pakman getting to the heart of the matter, namely, Brand's metamorphosis into right-wing, conspiracy-theory purveyor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJBVMsF5AyA

This isn't a "left-vs.-right" thing. It's a reality vs. pseudoreality thing. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans out there who don't buy into the lies that Brand is selling.Un autre Wikipédien (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

When reliable sources describe Brand as a conspiracy theorist, the article will reflect that. Schazjmd (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
he may not BE a conspiracy theorist, but he definately has been PROMOTING conspiracy theories. This has been referenced in countless articles. Conspiracies include: the great reset, various covid-19 conspiracies, ukraine bio-weapons lab, and the list goes on. Ollyfelix (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Whatever. Without a source, it goes nowhere. Le Marteau (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
If you're going to post videos feel free to post the videos where he takes right wing stances instead of just "let them protest peacefully" stances. He mostly cites mainstream media articles during his videos. Opinion pieces by neoliberals that claim that he's a far-right conspiracy theorist without providing any evidence of such should not be enough to write it on his wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not opinion-based, even if those OPINIONS come from corporate media. 155.101.199.59 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Evidence is as clear as day on his Youtube channel. Almost every single video in the past few months has been either attacking Biden and democrats, defending Trump or Tucker Carlson, promoting Pro Russian Ukraine conspiracy theories, and various anti-vax talking points. You/he cannot say that he is "neither right or left". He has taken a political position and it is crystal clear. The article should reflect that. Ollyfelix (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The article, a biography of a living person, must only reflect reliable sources, not original research such as the above. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, Ollyfelix, have a look at WP:OR, as you're new to Wikipedia, I'll assume good faith and assume that you simply are not aware of the concept, and not that you are unwilling to abide by it and are advocating others do the same. Le Marteau (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Info missing?

I couldn't find any info on Brand's audiobook 'Revelation' from 2021. Since I'm new to the game and do not yet see how to edit a locked article, maybe an authorized editor can do this!

Best regards, --Sheldon35 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You can "edit a locked article" by describing the edit you would like here, on this talk page. Describe it here, begin your suggested addition with {{edit semi-protected}}... curly brackets and all... and remember to include a source. That will get the attention of editors, and before long an editor with rights to edit the page will come along and either add it to the article, or describe why it cannot be added. I hope this helps, if not, let me know! Le Marteau (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

He voiced Dr Edgar Zomboss across the Plants vs Zombies franchise UnhuggableTeddy (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

In his recent videos he is openly embracing conspiracy theories. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rewsal (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He's also been a guest on Joe Rogan's podcast, and sympathised with the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Given these facts, would it be unreasonable to describe him as far-right? 51.155.110.141 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Without a source describing him as "far-right" it would be completely unreasonable for our article to say he is. Likewise with "conspiracy theorist"... we'd need a source that says he's such a thing.Le Marteau (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Paging User:GorillaWarfare... 51.155.110.141 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
He doesn't accept The Science as absolute infallible truth. That alone should make him an obvious far-right conspiracy theorist by Wikipedia's standards. Has Wikipedia been infiltrated by Nazis? 51.155.110.141 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I hope this is a joke. Questioning science theories is what science is all about. 192.176.1.78 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact that he's now daring to shit-talk Hilary Clinton should mean he's now officially a misogynist and an incel, at least. 51.155.110.141 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this satire? You people can't be this pathetic. In fact, I am surprised that at the end of the controversies section someone included the quote "Like Rogan, he has given a platform to conspiracy theories on his channel, sometimes making claims based on unsubstantiated or fringe sources". In the linked article the "journalist" makes this claim without citing any of his purported violations of the truth. This is little more than a witch hunt.155.101.199.59 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
That people are comparing Brand to Rogan is in fact occuring. This is reliably sourced... reporters from reliable sources are saying this comparison is occurring. Brand actually referred to this phenomena today on his YouTube channel. The quote you cite is one of those comparisons. What you left off is, it is attributed to an "Entertainment writer" who is directly named. These are all bare statements of fact... they are reliably sourced, and it has enough weight for inclusion. Le Marteau (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This is quite disingenuous. Obviously what is being contested is not him being compared to Rogan, but the idea that he's platforming conspiracy theories or making unsubstantiated claims. 65.130.207.155 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It is in no way "obvious". The phenomena of him being compared to Rogan is documented and is what I am referring to, and supporting being covered in the article. Le Marteau (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLz3Tys1kTs

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Why is there no info that he is a conspiracy theorist in the lead? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russell-brands-big-rebrand-conspiracy-guru-with-6-million-followers-j7r2xrgkh 2A02:C7C:AA7C:8B00:14CB:1302:5B23:FEB5 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

change view count on youtube to over 965 million views AliensAreGlobalists (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Brand/Archive_5&oldid=1175909945"