Talk:The Russell Brand Show prank calls/Archive 2

Petitions of support
Hey, someone told me about the online petitions that have sprung up in the aftermath of all this. I didn't take too much notice but i just checked them out, a site called "gopetition" had two petitions with well over 5,000 signatories. I'd say that's worth a mention, especially as so much has been made about the numbers supporting complaints. Thoughts? --Tefalstar (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should only analyze the petitions if reliable sources already have. See No original research.  And see External links for cautionary advice on linking to the petitions.  If the purpose of such a link is to promote the petition, rather than to improve the article, then it doesn't belong here.  There's sourced analysis of the degree of support and opposition to be had.  The article already uses some.  Stick to that rather than making up our own.  Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Facebook group article in The Guardian here. This should be added. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A philosophical rant on what might be defined as a wikipedia article...
Having left a comment here last night, I was bewildered to discover that it has since been removed. Why, I do not know and have not been informed of such a detail. It has led to the greatest distress as I have come to the conclusion that possibly, no, maybe even clearly, censorship is alive and well on Wikipedia and certain articles are getting protection. My comment was in relation to this page and as far I was aware could not have been interpreted as inflammatory even though it had been written in quite a hurry. I cannot for the life of me understand how this page exists and how it it has survived two attempts at being disposed of. It might be all over the British media but does it have any consequence for any other country or the world at large - I don't think so. Again and again I have repeatedly encountered cases where such ideas have been demonstrated as reasons for deletion. Yet here that seems to not be the case. I'm not for one second suggesting all mention of it be removed, only limited to being included in the sections of Brand and Ross's articles. I first accessed this page by searching for Russell Brand and noted that the radio career section of his article is taken up largely by a main article notice directed to this page. This whole affair is bigger than his entire career. That says something quite frankly disturbing about this situation. It surely suggests some sort of pandering to the media sensationalism that has erupted in the past number of days. Much of the info on this page could be transferred into the two presenter articles and there would be no need for a page which in all honesty has the most ridiculous title.

If I may use a comparative example, if say this situation had happened in a smaller country such as Ireland and involved two highly paid "stars" of the Irish media and was splashed across the media of that country, would it merit an article on Wikipedia? Even if they were the highest paid individuals in that particular country, veterans in their field of expertise and one moment of error was highlighted as controversial? I think not and anyone who would endeavour to create such an article would be trying in vain as it would be whipped away by the nominators before they could raise a word of a protest.

I am also extremely concerned that the BBC are being used overwhelmingly as sources for much of the article. It obviously involved them but surely in this instance more independent sources are needed because the BBC cannot be considered an indefinitely fair reference guide to the goings-on of its own stars. Please do not remove this again (at least without informing me) as; a) it is relevant to the discussion; b) I do not think it is in any way damaging to anyone's career (which would be somewhat ironic) and would appreciate being informed if it is rather than having the whole comment removed; and c) I will not take kindly to being censored again in a situation where I am offering my viewpoint as an outsider of the nation concerned. I am not making any threats and my userspace is there for discussion but an editor has removed what I said yesterday without offering me an explanation and that can only lead me to assume that it is an attempt to censor all opposition to this page. I have to say that I really don't understand the consensus on this article at all and if someone could tell me how it will have any relevance in, say, six months, maybe less, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 20:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "It surely suggests some sort of pandering to the media sensationalism that has erupted in the past number of days." The most accurate description of this non-news story you will find anywhere on Wikipedia. I preferred it when this encyclopedia wasn't trying to compete with Heat magazine. How we can be writing an article about two comedians making a joke i will never know. Slice up amongst the other relevant articles, post haste. --Tefalstar (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your rant!


 * Looking back at the history, it would appear that I removed your comment.


 * I did this, because in adding your comment, you removed the comments added by two other users, so I reverted your edit to return the comments that you had deleted.Mayalld (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The more general issue of what constitutes a Wikipedia article you really should take to the Village pump. The issue of possible bias in the sources is a valid point for discussion here &mdash; one that I, for one, have been conscious of, and indeed already touched upon earlier on this very page. You'll note that I've been citing The Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian, Metro, and even The Blackburn Citizen. In relation to being "splashed across the media of that country", I point out that this is also splashed across the media of other countries. The article already cites ABC News. I've come across articles in The National, Famagusta Gazette, and The Australian. This is not so much to address the spurious notion of fame and importance to the rest of the world outside of the U.K. that you bring up. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The important issue is that there are multiple independent sources, published by people and organizations with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, covering this subject in depth. They even have a range of differing viewpoints. &#9786; If you think that this article eclipses some biographies, then try to find sources to expand those biographies. It is ironic that, for example, the sources that have been created because of this incident have made available material for further expansion of Lesley Douglas. Uncle G (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the BBC usually quite admirably unbiased when reporting on themselves. It's helpful to realise that it is a huge organisation, and it is highly likely that the BBC News and Radio 2 offices are not even located in the same country, let alone share any kind of low-level editorial management. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doe anyone grasp the nature of this situation? It has been mentioned in other countries purely because of the fuss that is being generated in the country of origin. It is not nearly being given any amount of similar coverage in these countries. Other countries are giving more time to far more real, more important, more notable news stories. On the point about the BBC, that may well be the case but it cannot be guaranteed by an inexperienced editor or by someone who is uncertain of what constitutes reliability. If this is true of the BBC I cannot praise them highly enough for how they cover a situation involving their own employees and their own good name. However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia which contributors hope exists as a neutral, unbiased source of information, including sources released by the company in question is surely ill-advised at best.

In fact the BBC are probably dealing with the issue in a far more newsworthy way than their fellow media organisations. The fact remains that this is an issue that affects the BBC; they will inevitably report it to their audience and that should be that in an ideal world. Of course what you then have are the rival factions within the media who attempt to cause further harm by repeatedly mentioning the situation. I am deeply disappointed that Wikipedia is following in the path of SKY News and other such media outlets in sensationalising the story to the high heavens. I mention SKY as yesterday I witnessed a broadcast by that station which had the story being covered in excess whilst along the bottom of the screen were scrolling the real news stories, the ignored occurrences, which involved at least a number of deaths, but which were deemed unsatisfactory for being reported at the start of the bulletin. It seems to me that Wikipedia is following suit, reporting the main story of the day which will be forgotten about within the week, whilst on the other hand articles about interesting topics are deleted purely because they haven't caused as much of a fuss in the short-term. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I refer to this, a much publicised legal case involving a well-known highly paid media personality in Ireland. It has a section within his article. Not an article to itself. Please spot the difference. Both were hounded to death by the media in their respective countries. Only one has an article. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia has evolved to cover more topics than a conventional encyclopedia does. You point to the case of Pat Kenny, and cases in other countries, but I don't think it's comparable. Brand is internationally famous, Kenny isn't really known outside Ireland. This incident has drawn comment from figures across the cultural spectrum, and from people in offices as high up as the Prime Minister. It's been discussed in Parliament, and raises questions over privacy, and whether there should have been such a furore. I would hope that the article eventually deals with these issues in greater detail, as a way of distinguising it from merely biographical information. It's also received a record number of complaints. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reliable source that is stating that "whether it was true differentiates between simple ungentlemanly behavior and slander"? Any reliable source that suggests that whether they did or didn't matter at all? I'm not asking your opinion, I'm asking for verification.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this in reference to my point made elsewhere? If so: I was not suggesting that we actually use this distinction in the article, I was just making a point. If he did sleep with her, it's not very gentlemanly to talk about it on air. If he didn't he's lying, and (depending on the jurisdiction) slandering. It changes the nature of the offense, and that's what makes it relevant. The actual legal issue of slander hasn't been brought up and has no place in the article. But whether it was true or not does have an important impact on the nature of the case. As far as I know the determination of relevance cannot be solved with sourcing. risk (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"'But Wikipedia has evolved to cover more topics than a conventional encyclopedia does.'" In my experience that only seems to apply to certain cases and a sentence such as that has still resulted, in my experience, to having articles deleted. I would love to see Wikipedia expand and cover lots of topics but there still seems to be restrictions that apply to some areas that don't apply elsewhere. There is something incredibly unfair and basely absurd about the continued existence of this as a stand-alone article. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 09:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 not that bothered about Brand
The start of the second series of Russell Brand's Ponderland was aired as normal tonight on C4. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this could possibly go in the "Support for..." section, withthis as a source. Dalejenkins | 11:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's more to say on Brand. PETA has defended him against protests directed at them, for example.  And there is also commentary on Brand's career directions outside of the BBC to be had.  It occurred to me that there's probably a new sub-section to be had, here. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewing figures are out, 18 thousand more people watched the first episode of this series than episode one of last. Audience share is up by 0.1%. It may be WP:OR to suggest that this shows that little has changed in regards to Brand's reputation and fanship, but I think it's worth mentioning the figures.. Dalejenkins | 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well. If it must be mentioned. Might as well redirect the Russell Brand article here as well when we're at it. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Offensive and lewd
It's a minor point, but it's been reverted twice, so let's get it out of the way. As per Squeekbox's edits we have the following sentence in the intro: "in which Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross left offensive and lewd messages on the voice mail of actor Andrew Sachs" The edit under debate is turning "lewd messages" into "offensive and lewd messages". As I did note in my edit summary, the addition is largely redundant, the phrasing awkward and the word offensive makes it POV. risk (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well offence seems to have been caused. I thought that was exactly what all this fuss was about? --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 09:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Amendment
There should be an amendment to the order of remarks in the first call. Russell Brand was attempting to conduct a one-sided "interview" with the answerphone when Jonathan Ross called out "He f***ed your granddaughter." Until that point, Russell Brand had not mentioned her at all in his message. The implication of the current text is that Ross joined in Russell's exposure of his sexual relationship rather than the other way round which attempted, in a ham-fisted way, to make things "better". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsdomicile (talk • contribs) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No there shouldn't. The sources, cited in the article for you to read, tell us that Brand mentioned the subject on air before then making the call.  Please check and cite sources, rather than making your own analyses of events.  Our policies here at Wikipedia are Verifiability and No original research, for reference. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think our policies allowed for gutter press news articles either but I appear to be in the minority. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a 'prank' call
Was this really a prank call? Listening to the original show makes it clear that they were ringing up to interview him, then hung up after Ross began making lewd comments. Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There was no intent to wind up or 'abuse' Andrew Sachs when the original call was made - it was supposed to be a pre-arranged interview. When he didn't answer the phone and Ross shouted 'He fucked your granddaughter!' over Brand's answerphone message, it all unravelled from there...
 * I would like to further this motion. The press has been labeling it as a "prank" call but this is a highly coloured interpretation of it. I suggest editing out the term "prank" so as to avoid bias.
 * I agree. Prank is POV. They didn't phone up sachs to 'abuse' Sachs, they just started rambling on sach's answerphone a la Brand. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I also agree. It was intended to be an interview. The first call was Russell interviewing the answer machine. His random, harmless antics weren't intended to hurt Saachs in any way.
 * I agree that prank is the wrong word. It suggests a kind of cruel pre-meditation, even the later calls probably weren't ill-intentioned. However, every other media outlet seems to disagree, so if we do change the article's name, the first paragraph should reflect that it is also referred to as the 'prank calls row' in other media. 'Sachsgate' has also been coined, but I'm really hoping that one won't catch on. risk (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ALSO AGREE i will change it as everyone esle above agrees Veggiegirl (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC were calling them the 'offensive calls' on the news yesterday, but on the website they're now call them prank calls, perhaps imitating Wikipedia? A prank call is pre-meditated, and is done with the intention of playing a joke on someone; calling it this is a further attempt to cast Brand in a bad light. It should be called 'Russell Brand Show offensive calls row', but the sources have to be deferred to in the end, and most are calling it a prank call. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article
Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row?! Yuck. We need a better title folks. — Realist  2  22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion above. Feel free to suggest a better one, and what's wrong with this one. But can I plead that no-one moves it again without some agreement?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Certainly, the article should not be moved again until consensus is reached, and if necessary, it will be protected. But I'm not sure how better we'd title it; looking at WP:TITLE, all the elements of the "Nutshell" box seem to be covered. However, is "telephone calls" really necessary since most people should know that a prank call is done by telephone? Also, is "row" the right word with respect to WP:NPOV? It's certainly caused a stir but it doesn't seem to be much of a row (which to me seems like a colloquial term anyway), in the sense that very few people seem to be defending the calls, so there's little scope for argument. The same considerations would, I think, apply to "controversy"- there isn't really a controversy in the sense of opposing factions debating different points of view. "Incident" would be more neutral, and in the longer term, perhaps that's all it deserves. So "Russell Brand Show prank calls incident" is my starting point. Over to you. -- Rodhull andemu  22:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think row is colloquial. It's good English. And I originally took the title from what the BBC were calling the fracas. But then, well the BBC are perhaps not the best source for this....... Anyway I won't got to the stake for row, I do think it like "controversy" does imply a disagreement. I'm happy with what you suggest, although why "incident" - the "incident" is the call. Why not just "Russell Brand Show prank calls".--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience of the flabby use of "row" largely comes from tabloid headlines which, you will remember, avoid verbs like the plague (but not cliches), tend to use short words (to avoid confusing their readers), and use a provocative word where a neutral word would be more accurate. Otherwise, its connotation is of a minor domestic argument, and that doesn't seem to fit either. However, I'd be happy with your suggestion too- assuming we don't next year have to move this article to "......(2008)". Ha! -- Rodhull andemu  22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Brand-Sachs controversy? Brand-Ross controversy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no controversy. There's just admitted bad behaviour.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of "incident". None of this "controversy" stuff please, people really need to learn what that word actually means too. Lets not tell our readers somethings controversial, I'm sure they can make up their own minds. — Realist  2  23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am fully conversant with the meaning of controversy, including that given by the OED, which includes Difference of opinion, disagreement.. Or are you perhaps arguing that everyone involved, so far, shares the same opinion? In any case, Brand-Sachs (or Brand-Ross-) incident, or whatever stub, is more concise than any of the options including words or phrases like voicemail or prank telephone calls. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Brand-Ross Prank Call Incident? I agree controversy isn't the way to go. However, something at the top of this page caught my eye, i.e. was it actually a prank call? Voicemail instead maybe? BUT THEN I just watched the news, how about Brand-Ross Voicemail Scandal or Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross Voicemail Scandal?RaseaC (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've been able to follow this fast-developing brou-haha, ISTR that they had previously arranged to call him for an interview and didn't expect to get his answering machine, so that detail would seem to be less important. If all they had done was leave him an offensive voicemail or even got through directly, that would be an offence under the Telecommunications Act 2003(?IIRC). The fact that it was broadcast adds a degree of aggravation; totally different legal considerations apply. I don't think "voicemail" adds (or subtracts) anything from the central issue; and "scandal" is a little too soon to judge- scandals tend to bring down governments, public figures or public bodies, not radio presenters with an inflated sense of their own infallibility. -- Rodhull andemu  23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think 'voicemail' is more suitable in a title than 'prank telephone calls' which is just a bit of a mouthfull. I do think scandal is appropriate in this sense but is interchangeable with incident. So maybe Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross Voicemail Incident? The main problem with the title at the moment is the omission of Ross. RaseaC (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a scandal. Scandals are hidden things that come to light. They are not intended for broadcasting from the outset. Why does everything on wikipedia have to be a "controversy" or a "scandal"? Why don't we avoid both terms and just call it a "-gate". (Joke) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm basing scandal on our definition. If the above is true then someone needs to adress that to! Basically a scandal isn't a hidden thing that comes to light, it's something that's pretty bad thats highly publicized (sounds like that brand/Ross thing to me)RaseaC (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what about "fracas", "hullabaloo", "brouhaha", or just "fuck-up"?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about WP:NPOV? (I'm assuming your immediately preceding comment is deliberately satirical). -- Rodhull andemu  00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or how about you either make a sensible contribution or none at all? RaseaC (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we actually discuss how to deal with this issue in encyclopedic terms? Would that be a novelty? -- Rodhull andemu  00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at various history/talk pages for this and related articles I think it really would be a novelty yes. However, if you insist. Here's my line at the moment just to be clear: I am in favour of Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross Voicemail Scandal
 * This title addresses previous concerns that Ross was omitted from the page title
 * 'voicemail' is, in my opinion, a lot more readable than 'telephone prank call' (whatever happens telephone doesn;t really need to be there any way)
 * Scandal is (acording to WP and various dictionaries) used in the right context
 * RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to put Ross in the title - it makes it clumsy. The incident took place on the "Russell Brand Show" so that seems fine. "Voicemail" is over-specific, I'd say. Scandal is over-used and I'd say "incident" is probably better. But given that a telephone call is an incident, even that seems unnneccessary. I propose that we just take "row" off the existing title and either leave it at that "Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls" or, if we must add "incident" - although actually the article ins't about an incident but also what happened next.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "scandal", this event is not (yet) of a degree to warrant that loaded term. It's not Watergate or the Profumo Affair which I would accept as scandals. Our main problem here is WP:RECENTISM and lack of historical perspective. In a year's time this will be mostly forgotten. Let's describe it as how it seems to be NOW, without extrapolating, and if it brings down a government or causes a POTUS to resign, we can rename it later. -- Rodhull andemu  00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the Naming conventions (events) which states: "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: * Where the incident happened. * What happened."

Using that, I'd say: Where: The Russell Brant show What: prank call. So that seems to suggest it fits.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really hate the word scandal, let's all agree now, let's not call it a scandal. Can we at least agree to that :-) — Realist  2  00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. How about "Russell Brand Show prank call storm in a teacup, although a large storm, but in relative terms, unimportant until it shakes down and can be given its proper historical and cultural perspective"? That would seem to serve to keep everyone happy for now, and satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM. D'oh! -- Rodhull andemu  00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT, I think we have consensus. — Realist  2  01:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu recommends doing this the encyclopaedic way. So let's do so. The encyclopaedic way is No original research and Verifiability. The encyclopaedic way is to look at what the sources call it. A quick review of the sources already cited in the article, shows that it is called various things such as "Ross and Brand phone prank", "Brand prank", and "prank calls". The encyclopaedic way is to evaluate the provenances of those sources. Most of them are the BBC itself. So let's look at what other sources, outside of the BBC, call it. The Guardian in its 2008-10-29 article by Jenny Percival, calls it "Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's Radio 2 stunt". Bloomberg, in its 2008-10-29 article by Thomas Penny, calls it an "incident". The Spectator, in its 2008-10-30 article by Melanie Phillips, calls it the "Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand scandal". I'm sure that there are more sources to be had. Please find them, read them, cite them, and discuss. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Naming policy says: "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: * Where the incident happened. * What happened." I'd say UncleG's evidence shows that there us not an "established, universally agreed-upon common name", so that leaves us with the guideline 1) place and 2) happening. Which would support 1) Russell Brand Show 2) prank calls. Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most people agree that the name is a bit of a mouthful. One word, that is rudimentary, and could easily be removed, is "telephone". No other sources that I've read call it a prank telephone call, and prank calls are virtually always done through telephones. It reads a lot easier with it removed. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"intervention by prime minister"
This article talks about the prime minister intervening, but as far as I can tell this is not the case. It actually seems like the PM has been misrepresented on how big a stand he's taken on this issue. He was asked a question by a journalist in Paris about it and he replied with a very simple statement to the effect that it was inappropriate, but that Ofcom and the BBC were dealing with it. No "intervention" occured. By saying such it makes it look like he dropped his talks in Paris regarding the economic crisis in order to fly back to London to talk about Russell Brand, which is *not* the case. --86.138.30.7 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is a further example of the ridiculous nature of the article's existence. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. This article has every right to exist, as it is about a clearly notable event. All I'm saying is that that particular phrase should be reworded. --86.138.30.7 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The event is relevant to the careers of two notable television/radio personalities and the personal life of a notable actor. Not as its own occurrence. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

favortising
this is clearly wirtten unfairly IT IS A FACT THAT BAILLIE IS A STRIPPER well known news probves that also so does her myspace page and the fact she said so her self in a interview DON NOT DELETE THINGS THAT AND PEFECTLY FINE JUST TO MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD here are links proving what she does for a living and how she SOLD her story to make money out of this please explain yourself why this is not aloud in here for and give very good reasons, , , , , her bebo page: Veggiegirl (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I imagine it's being deleted is probably because while the information is correct it's not very relevant. You obviously think it is relevant - you appear to be suggesting that because Baillie leads the lifestyle she chooses to lead and to be unashamed of doing so, Ross and Brand are quite justified in passing on details of their sexual adventures with her direct to her grandparents and then broadcasting the hilarious results on Radio 2. It amounts to "she's a slut, she had it coming", even if that's not what you intended to say. I think they call it the Madonna-Whore syndrome. Because she chooses to work as a stripper/call-girl/dominatrix or whatever does not really justify ringing up her grandparents and taunting them with the grubby details of a private sexual encounter between consenting adults. If she was working the streets for £10 a go to feed a crack habit, it’s still not acceptable. Convent girl or prostitute, people generally feel that women of any description shouldn’t have details of their private sexual encounters delivered to their parents or grandparents, they shouldn’t have to listen to it and the results certainly shouldn’t be broadcast on the radio or anywhere else for the sake of providing a few cheap laughs. The implication that if we can only put up details of this girls lifestyle and attitude to sex on the page, then poor Brand and Ross don’t “look bad” anymore is frankly disturbing. Interesting as well since Brand is more or less the male equivalent of Baillee. Baillee gets condemnation and maybe somehow deserving humiliation for the grandfather, Brand of course gets a laddish pat on the back and congratulations for attaining so many conquests and openly bragging about it. Surely he should “look bad” for that, just as she apparently does? Maybe one of Brand’s sexual partners could ring up his grandmother and fill her in on exactly what they got up to in his bedroom while sniggering with her mates and stick the results up on youtube. Maybe Sean Hughes could ring Ross up and point out that he’s “fucked your wife” (which he has) and exactly where, when and how they had sex during a live edition of, say, ‘Mock the Week’. Ross probably wouldn’t like it much since he’s apparently been repeatedly issuing warnings to the media over the last couple of years through his solicitors Schillings of London that he regards any intrusion into the privacy of him or his family – especially his children – as “unacceptable”. The details of Bailee’s career are not relevant to the scandal at all, except her work as a burlesque ‘Satantic Slut’ which has been widely mentioned in the media as well as by Ross during the broadcast. It suffices to know that she works in a risqué sub-erotic stage act, we don’t need all the details. If we have lengthy paragraphs about her former work as a call girl or whatever else it starts sounding like a sensationalist article in The Sun and that we are subtly endorsing the “she’s a slut, she had it coming” sentiment in the same way that a hypocritical right-wing newspaper might do. None of these things have got anything to do with the broadcast. If she has her own biography on here, put the information there, it dosen’t belong here. 92.8.74.58 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be indicating that the whole story is not in the least sensational as it is. As far as I can see this article might as well be an extract from The Sun. I suspect their employees will be quite glad to come here to brush up on their research and give themselves a pat on the back for ensuring that such an "encyclopedic" story makes it onto their front page. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you mean the scandal itself is sensationalist or the treatment of it in this article is. If it's the former, then of course it is, but unfortunately Wikipedia I believe operates on the principle of notability and since the British (and apparently even international) media seemed to think it was exceptionally notable so Wiki has to. The fact that we might think the degree of notablity the story has been given by the media is ridiculous (which obviously it is) is irrelevant I imagine. What I was referring to is a certain type of sensationalism where every known detail of the girl's sexual antics are included partly to "sex up" the scandal and perhaps also to help readers draw certain conclusions about the girl in question. When it comes from The Mail and The Sun it is extremely hypocritical, it might not be hypocritical for a Wiki article to do it, but it's still, intentionally or otherwise, implying to readers that they should somehow regard the girl's attitude to her sexuality and her associated behaviour as relevant to whether Brand and Ross can be excused or even justified in their actions. 92.10.43.208 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Support is one-sided
Support sections for the three radio employees (two of whom are former employees of course). No support section for the actor and his granddaughter. Something is not quite right with that. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that to an extent. You could argue there is a support section of sorts for Sachs and Bailiee because highly publicised comments are included that criticise Brand and Ross. However the article looks slightly slanted because almost all of the criticism appears to come from Conservative MP's and older media personalities like Parkinson and Gambacinni, while all the support comes from younger celebs who are probably regarded as having more credibility than the likes of David Davies – it’s making it look like it’s entirely a case of Daily Mail reading conservatives/out of touch oldies against young liberal celebrities. This is not strictly the case, to name two examples Steve Coogan has bitterly condemned Brand and Ross and called for their resignations, and Chris Evans has also has been heavily critical of their behaviour. I’m fairly sure their quotes are not included. Furthermore, nothing is made clear from the support section what is actually meant by ‘support’, except in a couple of specific examples, and this is fairly important. Many of these people are not ‘supporting’ what Brand and Ross did, in many cases they have criticised their behaviour to varying degrees, but have argued that the reaction is over the top and the pair shouldn’t be too harshly condemned or lose their jobs. The only people mentioned in the article who appear to be saying there is nothing wrong with the pair’s behaviour are Noel “I hope they die of AIDS” Gallagher (who would not complain to the BBC but rather assault anyone who made similar remarks about his daughter/wife/mother on his answer machine, as he did to his brother Liam when he merely “took the piss” a few years back when he suggested Noel’s wife was a little promiscuous, but that’s neither here nor there) and possibly Max Clifford, but even in his case it’s not entirely clear whether he’s simply explaining what he thinks the views of the pair’s fans are, there’s no clear indication as to whether he agrees with the view. The section could be mistakenly read, however unintentionally, as a bunch of people condoning their behaviour, which in most cases is not the situation. If we include these people’s opinions, its probably fair to them to also make clear what they actually thought of the incident itself where possible. In any case, having rival ‘support’ sections for Sachs/Bailiee and Brand/Ross sort of implies it’s a case of simply ‘supporting’ one or the other, which is rather nonsensical. Most of the people who suggest Brand and Ross should not be too heavily punished or condemned also have expressed their ‘support’ for the idea that Sachs shouldn’t have received the phonecalls. It would probably make more sense to just put the whole series of quotes in one long section and give it another title instead of implying that commentary can either be simplistically divided into to ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ camps. 92.11.80.194 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Carol McGiffin also showed support for Brand and Ross on Monday's (27/10) edition of Loose Women, and she's no spring chicken herself. Dalejenkins | 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that sort of emphasises the point that the page is giving a slightly misleading impression. Actually Parkinson 'supported' Ross in the sense that he said he shouldn't lose his job and expressed a lot of sympathy for him while condemning the behaviour, which is actually what some of the people in the support section did, yet Parkinson ends up in the other section. 92.10.238.227 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to shift the emphasis from 'support' in that section...maybe we should start collecting examples of support for Sachs and Baillie. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks rather better now, well done. 92.10.238.227 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP
WP:BLP applies to all articles containing controversial info about living people, its removal from this page is unacceptable and will merely encourage new editors to make mistakes by not being aware of this policy. Brand falsely accused a young woman of sleeping with someone when she did not,. This is classic BLP stuff so I expect no further removals of the tag. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the fact this is an article to which BLP applies. The tag should stay. I think the question of whether he did ro did not sleep with her isn't at all relevant here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a false accusation (for those who think it relevant).. The tag should stay though, obviously. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that this was a false accusation? Sources say otherwise. She sold her story of what Brand said in bed with her. MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a false accusation, she sort of denied it briefly when the scandal first broke but then she admitted it was true. 92.10.238.227 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

complaints record
The Telegraph may have said that the number of complaints is "thought to be a record" but at 18,000 it is only one third of the number the BBC received for Jerry Springer The Opera, any suggestions for a better way to rephrase this?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Back to the point: the article starts off saying it was a record, yet later on points out it wasn't. I suggest the word "record" be removed from the opening section. sideiron (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, remove it. If it's untrue it should go, and there's no point in saying it's the second highest number of complaints recorded; who cares about that? RaseaC (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning that the number of complaints (18k and rising) have not been from the shows target audience? When the show with the "prank calls" was aired, only about 5 complaints were received. It wasn't until the media started reporting on it that thousands of complaints came in. The number is still rising and I really wonder how many of them have actually heard the calls. I just think something should be mentioned about the amount of complaints by older people who don't listen to the show. It's not aimed at them so what right do they have to complain? They just love to jump on the bandwagon. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Potentially that is a mine field as they have every right to complain. As with most episodes of this nature, the majority of those complaining will not have heard the calls or be the target audience, but thats the way these things work. Look at the Big Brother Race Row, most of those complaining wouldn;t have watched Big Brother, they would just have been appalled at the behaviour. So in short, it probably isn't worth mentioning (it would probably be POV anyway as I'm not sure how one would substantiate those claims). RaseaC (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read our No original research policy. Analysis of your own does not belong in Wikipedia articles.  Any analysis of an event, including demographic analysis of the people who call in complaints to a television station, must have already been performed and published, by other people outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here here. On a somewhat unrelated note Uncle G, please don't re-format discussions I'm pretty sure that would count as editing other's contributions. RaseaC (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's changing what people wrote that would count, not simply fixing some wikitext list markup. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing something people do for no real reason is annoying. That's the jist of the policy as I read it. RaseaC (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The complainants might not be the target audience, but there are plenty of transcripts and extracts being printed and broadcast. I suspect the number of complaints could be the largest since Jerry Springer the Opera, if we could get a source for that it would be worth including.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do remember seeing a source that said exactly that. I hope that the source wasn't reading this page, and taking its information from you.  Here you go.  Have three:
 * Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Somerandomnerd (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)