Talk:Russell Brand

"Left-wing publications"
'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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Trump endorsement
Brand just endorsed Trump for president, saying " If you care about democracy, 'I don’t know how you could do anything other than vote for Donald Trump'." . 70.108.1.24 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

There's no mention of the corroborating testimony from people close to the women or people who worked with Brand, supporting documentation from the investigation such as the text messages between Brand and the woman pseudonymised as 'Nadia' (the phone number he used to send the messages was verified by multiple sources) or the letter she wrote him.

Nadia's close friend, who took her to the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center the same day as the assault, provided The Times with medical records. She had therapy there for the following five months, during which records show she contemplated criminal/civil proceedings.

'Alice', who Brand apparently referred to as 'the child', also had a family member corroborate her account of being groomed by him to The Sunday Times.

He threatened the women with legal action, yet didn't pursue libel charges against News UK despite stringent UK laws that would favor him if the accusations were unfounded. The foolproof measures journalists had to go before publishing the report are explained here and by The Times themselves.

It should also be included in the Reactions and aftermath sub-section that Brand promoted conspiracy theories that it was all a collaborative plot by the government and 'mainstream media' trying to censor him. These claims were then repeated by others, notably Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson. . GhulamIslam (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)