Talk:Russell Brand

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

Overly positive POV[edit]

The current state of the article, and the lead in particular, is rather one-sided, as it mainly focuses on Brand's past as an actor. For several years already, Brand has made his name mainly as one of the more extreme conspiracy theorists, flooding social media with a range of downright ridiculous and bizarre conspiracy theorists. Some of the conspiracies propagated by Brand are openly political, such as his strong support for Putin and his repeated falsehoods about the war in Ukraine. Others are just deluded, such as giant lizards controlling humans. In short, Brand is in every sense a younger version of David Icke, who also first rose to fame as a media personality but whose article now (accurately) focuses on Icke as a conspiracy theorist. Given Brand's heavy involvement in propagating conspiracy theories for years already, and the coverage of this activity in WP:RS, having an article so strongly focused on Brand as an actor seems hard to reconcile with WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is just your opinion, it isn't worth putting in the article. Britannic16 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well he’s about to be announced as a serial sexual assaulter in the UK and he has already denied it on his Twitter feed saying that mainstream media are out to get him. Feels even more relevant to talk about the fact he is a professional conspiracy theorist now. 148.252.132.235 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brand's chief notability is due to his comedy and acting work, so the article should focus on that. His support for unlikely conspiracies theories should be mentioned in a neutral fashion but not dominate the article, I think. Ashmoo (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brand remains a very polarising figure, particularly in Britain. He has a significant fanbase who think he's wonderful, but everyone else thinks he's a monumental wanker who just got lucky. Given that, maintaining NPOV is always going to be difficult. --Ef80 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think he's a wonderful wanker who got lucky. 5.186.78.167 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a podcast 'On Brand' which covers Brand's conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies. The most troubling thing seems to be that while Brand has millions of subscribers on YouTube and Rumble, very few people outside of his ecosystem are aware of his newfound role as conspiracy guru, through which he is making millions. I concur that there should be a larger part of this article dedicated to what Brand has become, rather than almost exclusively focusing on what Brand was. 90.241.219.141 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I don't see how this could be at all controversial, for years now (maybe even pre-pandemic) I've been seeing news articles calling him an outright conspiracy theorist and far-right grifter. It seems his acting and stand-up days are mostly behind him, replaced with interviewing the likes of Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson, and any coverage he now gets in WP:RS reflects this shift.
From just a quick Google News search we have The Guardian calling his conspiracy theories "far-right" and referring to "his fellow populist online conspiracy theorists" and Prospect calling him a "major voice of the alt-right". GhulamIslam (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look as if RB is about to face his own Jimmy Saville moment: Guardian piece. 90 minute documentary airs on Channel 4 at 21:00 BST this evening. --Ef80 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note how he's being described in today's articles:
Sky News - "Former comedian and actor-turned internet personality"
The Independent - "comedian-turned-conspiracy theorist"
"Conspiracy theorist"
"Where once he positioned himself as a truth-teller, these days he trades in fake news, broadcasting live from a shed in Henley to his viewers on the right-wing streaming site Rumble. His YouTube videos have shouty, alarmist titles like “Bill Gates Has Been HIDING This And It’s ALL About To Come Out” or “The FBI Have Been Harvesting Your DNA?!” He has falsely claimed that drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin can be used to treat Covid, is avowedly anti-vax, and has espoused the “Great Reset” theory, which alleges that global elites are using the pandemic to usher in a new world order."
"Brand’s celebrity means that his platform is much, much larger than the average conspiracy theorist shouting in a garden shed"
The Guardian - "the Forgetting Sarah Marshall actor has drifted from being a mainstream comedian with leftwing views to something of a figurehead for the online alt-right in recent years." GhulamIslam (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual allegations now emerging in WP:RS: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse --Ef80 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My english isn't great but i've added the conspiracy theory angle to the lede and i believe there should be a standalone section somewhere about his ramblings especially regarding the ukraine! Daikido (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The POV flag dates from March, is it still relevant? PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. The section "2020–present: COVID-19 pandemic and YouTube channel" seriously understates some of the craziness of his "theories" as does the lead. See Jeppiz's criticism at the beginning of this thread. But with today's news this article is about to be subject to a tsunami so it's going to be hard to sort it out. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a while back about when it becomes appropriate to describe someone as a conspiracy theorist in the lede. Presumably there will be more reliable sources giving this attention in the coming days. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a conspiracy if everyone said you are Jimmy Savile protégé 2A00:23C4:359A:3E01:245C:8F2C:87A9:8BA8 (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Hollywood trade full on said that he is starting to lean heavily into right-wing conspiracies on his YouTube channel. A statement from 2021, so this has been nearly all he was known for for 3 years. Before the allegations of course.
The "2020–present" section should at least mention this in its headline as that is all his YT work now is. 77.64.147.13 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1][2][3][4][5]
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead adjustment[edit]

Below is a rough proposal for lead adjustment including the sources found by Evo&Evo. Obviously this will need to be elaborated on in detail in-article:

"Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English alt-right conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."[6][7]

GhulamIslam (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-right is white nationalist; Brand shows no signs of being a nationalist, let alone a white nationalist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing the term to right-wing using the same sources, making the sentence: "Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English right-wing conspiracy theorist, comedian and actor."?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing? Being a conspiracy theorist doesn’t imply someone is right wing. If you look at his actual views (e.g. in his book, Revolution) they are more
like social-anarchism, i.e. far left, not far right. 2A00:23C7:FA85:9A01:4463:C7B4:796B:D6BB (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: I went with "alt-right"[8][9][10][11][12] because sources used that term slightly more than "far-right".[13][14][15][16] They use "right-wing"[17][18][19][20][21] 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.[22][23][24][25]
I suspect it's financially-motivated grifting on Brand's part, as it's in opposition to his previously expressed beliefs. GhulamIslam (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GhulamIslam I agree that a conspiracy theorist is not synonomous with right-wing. He describes himself right-leaning, as demonstrated by your sources above.
I agree with Jim 2 Michael. I did a search on Is "Russell Brand" "right-wing" or "alt-right" and he is followed by alt-righters[8][9] and targets the alt-right.[12] Have you ever heard Brand describe himself as alt-right or expressed nationalist viewpoints?
I am surprised that you used "alt-right" after Jim 2 Michael commented that he felt that term is inappropriate (i.e., meaning we need some consensus building to select what term to use).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the current version of the article does not call him alt-right.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, he hasn't described himself as right-wing, it's RS saying so. GhulamIslam (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no skin in this (particular) game but I want to reiterate that Russell Brand is primarily notable for being a comedian and an actor, not for being a conspiracy theorist -- he's used his fame from the former to prop up the latter. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His fame as an entertainer enabled him to gain an audience of millions as an activist on social media. During the late 2010s & early 2020s, he's been far more active as an activist. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what's he's active as -- it matters what he's notable for. Marcel Duchamp retired from art and became a chess player in his final years, but to call Duchamp a chess player and only incidentally (or only formerly) a modern artist would be inane. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 13:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Brand gained widespread recognition for his comedic talent and acting roles in movies like "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Get Him to The Greek." These achievements are significant milestones in his career and should be prominently featured in the lead section. TheologyAnswers (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A well-rounded lead section should acknowledge multiple aspects of Brand's career and public life, including his activism and involvement in political discussions. It is crucial to avoid oversimplifying his diverse body of work by reducing it solely to conspiracy theories. TheologyAnswers (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have skin in this game either. My only thought is that where there are instances of calling Brand being called "alt-right", "far-right", "right-wing" it is better to be conservative. (e.g., Donald Trump, Prince Harry, Meghan Markle articles don't reflect the various ways that they are characterized). It seems to me that it's very fair to call him right-wing based on the many sources already mentioned. He absolutely targets right-wing and alt-right audience members - and is called by some a "alt-right figurehead" (what is usually said in the alt-right sources). By target-marketing to the alt-right, does it make him a member of the alt-right?
Maybe it's better to simplify the initial lead sentence to Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English comedian, actor, and conspiracy theorist."
Does that work? Or, put in right-wing or whatever term is inclusive of right-leaning people?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made edits my latest post here for clarity. Was pretty jumbled.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Brand's views and beliefs are not easily categorized within a specific political ideology. While he may express opinions that align with certain aspects of conservative or libertarian thought on occasion, he also holds progressive and liberal views on various issues. His political stance is eclectic and does not neatly fit into any one ideological box, Eg. income inequality, environmental sustainability, and mental health awareness. 2A00:23C7:5522:BF01:6C82:A387:A648:B7DE (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Brand is an "alt-right figurehead" is likely rooted in mischaracterizations or exaggerations. Labeling someone as an "alt-right figurehead" implies leadership or significant influence within the alt-right movement, which Brand does not possess. SheikhGoogle (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's not even part of the alt-right. His opposition to the US gov & promotion of conspiracy theories has gained him thousands of fans among the alt-right. However, he doesn't self-identify as being on the right at all. His political positions are mixed & he used to be left-wing. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon what I am reading here,

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

How about changing the lead sentence to:

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

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

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

Support It would be a good start, the aversion by some editors to the "conspiracy theorist" description resembles ideological bias.
I also don't think we should take his views at face value when presenting them in the article, since he has no issue pandering to people with opposing views, presumably for financial and/or egotistical reasons. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarise the most important content in the rest of the article. I don't see anything in the article supporting the assertion that he is a conspiracy theorist. Hence, especially as this is a BLP, that cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, respectfully, you haven't read the article.
Also, see the long list of WP:RS describing him as such below, ready to be cited in the article. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhulamIslam, can you quote a segment from the article and even one of those sources (remember, that per WP:HEADLINE, headlines are not considered to be a reliable part of any source) that supports that assertion? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please look toward the top of this section where I've done just that.
Or go through the list below, and either read through, or search "conspiracy theorist" using the Find-in-Page tool. I recall most featuring the phrase, or a variation of it, at least twice in-article. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhulamIslam, the lead should reflect the article content, please quote the segment from the article which supports asserting that he is a conspiracy theorist. I can't find it. If it's not there it needs to be added first, and robustly sourced per WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto How about:
  1. "Brand's metamorphosis from mainstream Hollywood star to online conspiracy theorist has been years in the making. "[1] abc.net.au
  2. "Over the years, he developed a cult following for his views on politics and society, and more recently has dabbled in the world of conspiracy theories in videos posted on YouTube and Rumble."[2] BBC.
  3. Search on "Russell Brand" "conspiracy theorist" at news.google.com
Why do you think he is NOT a conspiracy theorist? Do you have a source for that?
I am going to drop the revised lead into the article. It can always be tweaked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the POV tag due to
  • the revision of the lead statement
  • no examples of POV statements, except I had removed something about his performing before a sold-out crowd, etc. I don't see other peacock language.
  • And, the other statement about focusing on his career as an actor and comedian, seen to be positive aspects of career, in the lead. Changes to lead for the intro statement + added info about COVID conspiracies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, the opinion of one journalist reported in an Australian website is just that, an opinion. The BBC quote doesn't assert that he is a conspiracy theorist at all. To assert this in the lead of a BLP, we need to at least cover it in the article body first (see WP:LEAD), and everything written there has to be supported by strong reliable sources and comply with WP:BLPSOURCE. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto This absolutely blows my mind. You have had lots of responses and sources for his conspiracy theories. It is such a big part of his current modus operandi that I think it is wrong to exclude it.
From the article:
  • Lead: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brand's YouTube channel underwent an increase in activity and change in political direction, and was accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories."
  • Section: "2021–present: conspiracy theory accusations and Stay Free"
  • From that section: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brand's YouTube channel underwent an increase in activity and change in political direction, and was accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories.[165][166]"
  • Again, from that section: "According to culture reporter Louis Chilton, his videos are usually "framed with some sort of contrarian take or calling out hypocrisy in the mainstream media", and often hint "at a vague, world-altering conspiracy".[167]"
  • Again, from that section: Columnist Charlotte Lytton accused Brand of following Joe Rogan "down the rabbit hole of online misinformation" by pandering to the anti-vaccine movement and spreading pro-Russian conspiracy theories about Russia's invasion of Ukraine;[178] for example promoting unfounded claims of US bioweapon labs in Ukraine.[179]
If he's not a conspiracy theorist, as you claim, how would you define these activities from the article?
Would others please weigh-in on this issue as well so we have consensus for whether he is a conspiracy theorist or something else that describes his role in promoting consipiracy theories?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, he may have discussed conspiracy theories, he may have had an open mind about them, he may have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, or accused of promoting "COVID denialism and conspiracy theories", a journalist may have opined that he was pandering to pedlars of one theory or another, but none of that passes the test that allows us to assert in Wiki's voice in the lead that he is a conspiracy theorist. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto I am cool with "Brand has been accused of promoting COVID denialism and conspiracy theories" or "Brand has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist".–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DeFacto here. For one, the sourcing in the article does not support the change made to the lead, and secondly, it's all far too verbose for the first paragraph of a lead. We should simply state what his profession is. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, okay, that sounds good. Now we probably need to to develop that argument in a short section in the article, with full context and those opinions correctly attributed to exactly who has accused him of those things. And all robustly sourced to quality sources (no tabloids, gossip mags, blogs etc.), of course. And then we might be able to agree a precise and succinct summary of that content to add to the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto For the section, how about Russell Brand#2021–present: conspiracy theory accusations and Stay Free? It seems to make sense to include the discussion in that section. And, based on your comments, it sounds like it's good that it's partially called "conspiracy theory accusations".–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, yes, that one seems appropriate to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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?] of promoting..." Cambial — foliar❧ 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto and Cambial Yellowing: and anyone else with an opinion, here's a draft, avoiding passive voice:
Journalists from the Voice, The Independent, and The Telegraph have accused Brand of promoting conspiracy theories.[165][166][167]
Citation numbers from this version. I had the citation numbers after each newspaper, but it looked choppy, so I grouped them at the end of the sentence. Please feel free to edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and well-supported. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, I'm not sure they've accused him of "promoting" the conspiracy theories though, I'd say "publicising" maybe? Also I'd avoid using Vice to support it as WP:BLP requires good quality reliable sources, and, per WP:VICE, Vice does not get a glowing review in that respect. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had not checked the citation numbers. I share DeFacto's concern about the use of Vice as a source. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Journalists from The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Guardian have accused Brand of publicising conspiracy theories.[26][27][28]
If you have any other changes to the draft, please make the changes and post the revised draft below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How did Russell Brand go from stand-up stardom to YouTube conspiracy theories?". The Independent. 2022-03-25. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  2. ^ Placido, Dani Di. "The Backlash Against Russell Brand, Explained". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  3. ^ Lytton, Charlotte (2022-03-17). "How Russell Brand became the 'Mad Hatter of conspiracy theories'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  4. ^ "Whatever happened to Russell Brand? Comedian's strange career turn". news.com.au. April 1, 2022.
  5. ^ "Exploring how Russell Brand has become a conspiracy guru". Oxford Mail. 2022-12-21. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  6. ^ Sources describing Brand as "alt-right" include:
  7. ^ Sources describing Brand as a "conspiracy theorist" include:
  8. ^ a b https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/
  9. ^ a b https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2021/09/29/the-backlash-against-russell-brand-explained/
  10. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-posts-video-online-denying-unspecified-criminal-allegations
  11. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/16/russell-brands-evolution-from-left-wing-comedian-to-podcast/
  12. ^ a b https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/internet/61724/tarnished-brand
  13. ^ https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/
  14. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics
  15. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-russell-brand-allegations
  16. ^ https://sentientmedia.org/the-correction-george-monbiot/
  17. ^ https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/
  18. ^ https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3w5e7/russell-brand-sex-abuse-allegations-conspiracy-theories
  19. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/russell-brand-reaction-metoo-mainstream-media
  20. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics
  21. ^ https://www.thewrap.com/russell-brand-right-wing-conspiracy-videos-reactions/
  22. ^ https://coopwb.in/info/is-russell-brand-right-wing/
  23. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-russell-brand-allegations
  24. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/17/russell-brand-reaction-metoo-mainstream-media
  25. ^ https://sentientmedia.org/the-correction-george-monbiot/
  26. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/russell-brand-youtube-conspiracy-theories-b2043777.html
  27. ^ Lytton, Charlotte (17 March 2022). "How Russell Brand became the 'Mad Hatter of conspiracy theories'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 24 March 2022. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  28. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/14/russell-brands-descent-into-conspiracy-politics

Lead verbiage regarding Political activism[edit]

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

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

Here are the edits to the lead here. Please edit as needed.
Most of this is a moot point now since much of the content was deemed unnecessary and was removed here. What is left is the conspiracy theories around Covid-19. If everyone thinks that is enough to round out his protest and conspiracy theory activity in the lead, I am cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an fyi, I moved the info about run-in with the paparozzo in Russell Brand#Alleged battery and criminal damage charges here. Please edit the subsection heading as needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion ended he's been called a conspiracy theorist twice again in The Independent,[1] where he's introduced as "a comedian turned conspiracy theorist" by writer Maya Oppenheim (who wasn't quoting Naomi Klein), and in The Telegraph,[2] where the writer explicitly calls Brand a conspiracy theorist, not once but THREE times.

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

References

  1. ^ "Her comments come after Brand, a comedian turned conspiracy theorist, was accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013".
  2. ^ "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?".

Category:Sexual harasement in the United Kingdom[edit]

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. 195.99.227.0 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has been ACCUSED. Let due process take its course. 223.19.13.140 (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They will do any thing to take him out in a legal way 51.191.166.28 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

He has since transitioned into becoming a controversial activist

How about this instead?

He has become a controversial activist.

Much simpler. 223.19.13.140 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a musician too . 47.151.171.116 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan claims[edit]

The article claims "As of 2019, he is a vegan" and the source given is his interview with Joe Rogan [3]. However, if you listen carefully Brand says "I have been a vegetarian for years, and I have gone back and forth to veganism, because I feel God, Jesus Christ man, there's enough things in my life I am not doing without not being able to have egg without feeling guilty". After this, he says he has his own chickens in his garden but his dog has been killing them. He doesn't say specifically that he is a vegan right now. This looks like WP:OR to me.

The article also claims "In October 2011, Brand and Perry announced via Twitter that they had switched to a vegan diet after watching the documentary Forks Over Knives". The source listed for this is Livekindly.co. a vegan website that has a long-history of inaccurately claiming celebrities are vegan. In 2012, Brand was claiming in the Huffington Post he would eat eggs off David Beckham's stomach [4]. It's obvious Brand is not a vegan and the sourcing used is very poor. I believe these claims should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Left-wing publications"[edit]

1Mamalujo's oddly-sourced edit overlooks that the right-wing Telegraph and Forbes have been among the most persistent calling Brand a conspiracy theorist (see citations in Overly positive POV thread). GhulamIslam (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Telegraph aren't right-wing. Forbes is left-of-center, and Telegraph leans right. I'd argue that the majority of sources are left-of-center, with Telegraph being the outlier. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/forbes Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Spectator too—...a prominent conspiracy theorist spouting all manner of often dangerous nonsense to his millions of YouTube followers... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-unmaking-of-russell-brand GhulamIslam (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "better" sourcing, including Telegraph and The Times, even though it shouldn't be required based on MOS:LEADCITE.
More to the point, when finding sources for Brand being a conspiracy theorist - of which there are plenty, telegraph alone has over a hundred - there is more reference to recent allegations and the conspiracy theories he's created or promoted, then that of Covid for example.
Notably there is no reference to this in "Reactions and aftermath" sub-section, however based on sources, there could be a full paragraph with ease, as well as a reference to the lead extending Brand has denied all of the allegations, to include something like "and promoted conspiracy theories regarding them", as is clearly WP:DUE. For example search for "conspiracy theories" and "russel brand" in news and you'll see what I mean about what predominantly appears.CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Brand&oldid=1216182427"