Talk:Russell Brand/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Russell Brand is shit

I agree. But this isn't the place for such comments. 217.155.38.116 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Swearing

Hope this is the right place to ask this: Is there any code/opinion on swearing in articles? Both the examples here are quotes, does that make them acceptable? HilJackson 17:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Swearing is acceptable on WP, especially if it is an appropriate quotation. DWaterson 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

English vs British

Why do people keep changing him to be a 'British' comedian? We dont call him a "European" comedian. He was born and lives in England, he is English. Peter Kay, Rob Brydon and Billy Connolly are all British, but one is English, one is Welsh and one is Scottish, and they're very different.

I just dont understand why he cant be listed as English, and why British seems to be the preference? TR_Wolf

I agree, if people think otherwise they should at least discuss their reasons for wanting to label him as British rather than English. Riddley 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably sufficient to just give the country in the info box, but in the main body clarify that Essex is a County in England. Riddley 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

At the end of Big Brother's Big Mouth, he nearly always says 'Hare Krishna'. Does this mean he may be a member of the Hare Krishna sect? There is a famous Hare Krishna temple located in Soho, where Russel Brand frequented.

No, I think it is more just a catchprase he uses nowadays, like pulling down his trousers and pants, or thinking it might be nice to make Big Brother contestants take part in surreal ritualistic behaviours.

Russell is a devoted member of the Hare Krishna sect. It is one of the few places he is predictably found by fans. This spirituality and the yoga helps him stay away from heroin, from what the biography and articles say.

Comedy Genius or Complete Twat?

There has been a subtle edit war going on on this page over the past few months. I personally can't stand the fucker, but he clearly has quite a few fans, so I've added something slightly more balanced than the "he's great/he's shite" edits that have been added over the past few months. Please leave the comment on his style of humour more or less as it is. Damiancorrigan 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "comedy genius" - but his intelligence, his wit, and his ultra-surreal imagery do make him a breath of fresh air compared to most comics. But I agree that the encyclopedia should make no comment on if he's good or not - it's just a matter of taste. -195.93.21.1 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good taste vs bad taste. Those that enjoy Russell Brand's "comedy" belonging to the latter. - 85.210.1.14 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete twat works for me - I can't work out how people like this get air time on TV.. 82.34.55.108 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Number one podcast in the country. Bestselling book[1] for the christmas season. Number one comedy film at the box office as we speak. Seems quite a few people think comedy genius. --Tefalstar (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Each to their own, I've no problem with those who like the guy...82.34.55.108 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution

I read that Russell Brand had sex with men to fuel his drug addiction years ago. Is this true? I also have a feeling he might be vegan. Anyone?

I seem to recall him mentioning something about non-meat eating on an episode of Big Brother's Big Mouth (I think maybe on Thursday's or Friday's episode). I think he referred to Vegetarianism rather than Veganism. Diddy Didds 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

he's definitely not a vegan. he said on his radio show that he eats trifle with custard and cream.

Russell has said that he has used prostitutes in the past - I have included this in the main article.

Sexuality

As to the rumours about his sexuality, he often makes hints that he could be bisexual. On the Johnathan Ross show he told an anecdote in which he was staring lovingly into the eyes of a male policeman. When, on Big Brother's Big Mouth, a viewer asked the rhetorical question "is that Russell Brand gay?" Brand's only rely was "Gay? Oh, saucy." He also has no problem with kissing men, as his E4 show demonstrates.

So, he is a famous admirer of women who seems also to admire men from time to time.

Why the fascination about his sexuality? Do people envy his apparently carefree attitude towards sexuality, or does it come down to conservative prudishness?-195.93.21.1 12:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, its just nice to have a background, it doesn't mean you will like him more or less. In fact his sexuality should be more prominent as he feels comfortable to have it as an issue on his various shows. --194.125.54.25 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Russell has stated that he is repulsed by men sexually. In an episode of Re: Brand he tried, as an experiemnt, to masturbate a gay man in a toilet. he did it but was visibly distressed and disgusted by it. He then was concerned that the programme may have come across of homophobic so sought reassurance from 2 gay friends who said they didn' think it was. he seemed very grateful for this.

I think this needs a slight re-write

I'm not sure about the comments in the article about his sexuality either, it implies that being gay is something that needs to be refuted... he's spoken very candidly about sexuality recently anyway, and made his orientation clear.

I also think that the part about him being noted for debauchery is out of date too - he's been clean for nearly three years, and stated recently that he refrains from all stimulants, even caffeine. I thank it's accurate to say he used to be noted for his debauchery and that he talks about his past behaviour in his stage show. The part about the Bin Laden stunt is too high up in the article, I think, as he's been very clear about how he feels about his previous behaviour - including it so near to the start of the article makes it seem like it's something he has no remorse about. I might have a crack at editing it when I've got more time. JamieH 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to know about his sexuality because he is a handsome man and to ease my curosity!

There we are then, I've swapped a few things around to make this a truer reflection of Russell's status as it is now, and gathered somw of the trivia together at the end. JamieH 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work; the article looks pretty good!-Neural 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it's really nice to get some feedback! JamieH 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

what's this addition on the bottom about a personal experience. surely that's shouldn't be there? --86.133.202.186 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

Can anyone see a comparison between him and captain jack sparrow?

Yes, I suppose there is. I think Brand follows the tradition of an eccentric Dandy, and is very similar to Jack Sparra'.

I reckon they've both got a bit of keith richards in them?

In a Christmas edition of the weekly celebrity gossip magazine Heat, Russel was made up to look like Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, and when I first saw the photo I was really confused- it looked so identical to Jack Sparrow I couldn't tell it was Russell at all!

A bit of Keith Richards in him? After all this discussion about his sexuality that could be misconstrued...Rupa zero 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

25 July edit

I took out He makes frequent references to his genitilia as 'my dinkle' and 'the ballbags' not because it's untrue, but just because it's covered on Big Brother's Big Mouth in quite a bit of depth, and it only really applies to that show.

I put a reference back in to the podcast chart placing - it seems relevant as it demonstrates the podcast's popularity. It was orignally removed by Jenny Wong with the comment "this is an encyclopedia... info which will become outdated shouldn't be here" I don't agree with the second statement (if so, statements like "Brand also hosts a Sunday morning radio show on BBC 6 Music" would have to be removed, as eventually that will be out of date), but I think the point is that I'd phrased it differently previously and the tone I used wasn't right - I've changed it now to fit more with the tone of an encyclopedia.

I also made a few minor edits. JamieH 13:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Somebody has removed the picture because it has no "source information". Rather pedantic if you ask me, but there you are. Could somebody please add another picture with source info or find some source info for the old pic? The article is a lot better with a picture of RB, but we apparently need to keep everyone happy that it is a genuine picture. -Neural 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Then & Now

What has Russell done? He has chenged quite a bit in the past few years into a maniac. Anyone know why? XdiabolicalX 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

10th August edit

I moved the bit about the Star article re Peaches Geldof to the "Woman adorer" paragraph. Also I took out the bit about not having a cogent excuse for dressing as Osama Bin Laden. Sorry if this seems harsh, but it didn't seem necessary, and also seemed to change the tone, slightly, to one of admonishment. If people think it shouldn't have been removed, please tell me. JamieH 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please do not add "information" in without citing it. I have already removed these things from the article. Iolakana|^T 13:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the LJ community since it's not official and it has a horrible layout xP 80.195.19.16 23:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have information like that. 'Citing. Anon Dude 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Flooding

Recently (4th - 8th September), there were edits made by anonymous users censoring information and putting in pro-English bias to the article. This should not be the case; an encylopedic article should depict good things and bad things, no matter whether you like them or not. Iolakana•T 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you think it's pro-English to remove the rape references? In any case, he does appear to have been cleared: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006410762,00.html so I've amended that section of the article. JamieH 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, just the fact that anon IPs were completely removing the information, thus censoring the facts. I'll try to unprotect the article tomorrow, and notify the anons. Iolakana•T 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why you think calling an Englishman English is "pro-English", surely it's neutral? Riddley 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its time now to remove the section on rape claims. He has been cleared and as far as I know it has nothing to do with him apart from the fact it was in a flat he's rented. I do not think it is releavent in his article from now on. All it does is seem to portray him in a bad light although it states he was cleared. I think the article is right to include his drug addiction and personal life as Brand is open about this and it is factual stuff. I am therefore removing the rape allegation section. Mitoy11 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had to revert your edits. Even though he has been cleared, anything of historical interest or anything like that is kept. Iolakana•T 17:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this, then why is it not the same for Rupert Grint. There was a sexual assault at his 18th birthday party, yet someone felt it unneccessary to include it, how come its one rule for someone and another for someone else. Also the fact that his work on 1 leicester sq and Got Issues is summarized in a few sentences whereas the rape claims has its own section. I think maybe it would be better to include the rape claims as maybe a few sentences in 'Personal Life' and also there is a need to extend the section on career as this is far more interesting than an 'alleged' rape that was committed by someone else in his rented flat. User:Mitoy11 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that people that come to tis page looking for info on russell don't need to know about the rape claims. It has become irrellevant now that the claims have been dropped for both russell brand and his 6 music collegue trevor lock. Why give undue prominance to a false claim???Tremello22 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

added bit on bbbm

I was shocked to see that there was little mention of his show big brother's big mouth. As this article is dominated by his private life, his talents as a presenter and comedian have been overlooked. I think it is a joke that the introduction mentions how he is most famous for his show big brothers big mouth yet there is little mention in the article. People seem more interested in his love life and tabloid rumours than the work of Brand. I have included more on the bbbm in Career section. Mitoy11 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

edditing

Someone added that ratings of the first episode of bbbm were slashed by the second week, however bbbm was still a very popular show and some shows were around a million viewers, which is impressive for a digital channel like e4, bbbm was usually the second most-watched show behind Lost and regularly obtained higher figures than big brothers little brother. Also the show obtained 1.4 million for its final show, when they say it was slashed in the 2nd week it is correct but it makes it sound like it flopped, it was because of all the hype for the first big brother show that made the ratings that high, however it still remained one of the most popular shows on e4 after this show. Mitoy11 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted this after when Brand complained about being called a cunt as he had been mentally ill:

This was despite having been free of drugs for three years before the incident.

Although this statement is true, it seems like Brand was referring to the past when he describes how he was mentally ill and nearly died, not at the time. He was saying he didn't think he deserved to be called a cunt after all he has been through in his life e.g mentally ill, drug addict, close to death Mitoy11 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

problem

There is a problem with several sections somehow fusing together and it does not make sense. If you look at this:

In September 2006, Brand was questioned over a woman's claim she was drug-raped at a party in Edinburgh. The 20-year-old student says she woke up at the Big Brother's Big Mouth star's rented flat the morning after he threw a party there. He was staying at a flat in North Castle Street in the New Town while doing his stand-up show Shame at the Fringe when the alleged rape took place. Brand has since denied any involvement [14], making a gag that at the time he was "having consensual sex with witnesses - consensual, mind - and a lovely evening it turned out to be," during the GQ Awards. Brand's colleague Trevor Lock on his 6 Music radio show, was not present on the September 10th and 17th editions, having been arrested and charged in connection with the allegded rape. [15] [16], and was expelled from the Italia Conti Academy when he was younger. During the time of his addiction he was known for his debauchery, notable examples being his ejection from The Gilded Balloon in Edinburgh for abusive behaviour [17].

However, he has been free from heroin addiction since 2003, and is now a patron of the addiction charity Focus 12.

The bit in bold is supposed to be in the heroin addiction section and I've tried to edit it and it all seems normal on the edit page however changes on the main article. Could someone please sort this out, I think the rape claims article has recently been eddited and an error has been made which is causing this problem.

Rape Claims

There is a section in this article on rape claims, something which Brand had no involvement in yet why is there no mention of it in Trevor Lock, the man who was arrested in connection with the attack. I can't believe how poor some of these articles are. There is more emphasis on tabloid rumours and personal life than his career, which people are interested in. Mitoy11 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove them because he was involved in this dispute. I have to disagree with you on the tabloids: two out of the 19 references are tabloids. Kilo•T 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said I will remove them, I just was saying that it isnt included on the trevor lock article, which is stupid!Mitoy11 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to add it to the article? :) Kilo•T 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This section about the rape claims is totally inaccurate and poorly written, it was Trevor Lock who made the gag that he had had consensual sex and that lead to him being temporararily suspended from the show. Some numpty is trying to blacken Russels name with blatant inacurracies. Trevor Lock was under suspicion for the alleged rape and never Russell. Magnoliapaint 02:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

totally agree, it shouldnt even be that big a section he wasn't involved. Its pathetic!81.153.11.31 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Russellisms?

I think this section ruins the articles. It would be better I think if it just had a short section that says he has catchphrases and gives a few examples. The section just looks like a place where people can quote their favourite quotes, plus the majority of them were said on BBBM and some were only said once or twice and I'm not sure they could be classed as catchphrases. I'm going to add it to the career section under Big Brother's Big Mouth.81.156.66.249 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

rape section

This has nothing to do with Brand, the fact it is a large part of the whole article is pathetic as he was never convicted or accused of anything. Nothing has come of it, I think the article should be about his career and significant past. The supposed rape has nothing to do with this article. The article also contained irrelevant information and is inaccurate. This is why I deleted it, I know it will be reverted straight away because someone has something against Brand, but anyway I'm only trying to make Wikipedia a more enclycopedic site. 81.153.12.202 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree something has got something against Brand. The rape section should be cut out . It takes up like 20% of the article for something that Trevor Lock not Russell was accused of. And the charges subsequently dropped by the police against Trevor. Tremello22 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the rape claim is about Lock. If you want to add it to his article, do so. Remember that this is an encyclopedia - would you honestly expect an encyclopedia article about Brand to include this section? Either way, the consensus is clearly to remove this section, so I'll do so. Jenny Wong 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Three comments is hardly consensus. But I agree. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, plus three users further up the page, with only one user against. Six v one (seven including AnemoneProjectors) is a general consensus isn't it? Jenny Wong 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jenny. At least someone has some sense. Tremello22 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

22 November edit

Ive added that his style was influenced by Carl barat . And deleted the bit about people thinking he was gay on 1 leicster square. "Most" people don't think he is gay and being gay is no big deal anyway. If people want to still include this then I think the 1 Leicester Square page would be the right place for it. Tremello22 22:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability

In what way is this individual notable? He is the product of a great deal of hype, certainly, but is he actually worthy of more than a *very* short paragraph in this encyclopedia?

He's a television presenter and comedian. There are *many* paragraphs in the article... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I wrote. It was a question: is he actually worthy of more than a *very* short paragraph in this encyclopedia? this doesn't mean that I think the article is too short, rather that it is rather long considering whohe is.

Sorry, I think I misread. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NP, do it myself :-)

If you live in the Uk & Ireland you would notice that he has become much more prolific recently and most people have heard of him if not actually seen/heard one of his shows. also surely "hype" is the same as notability in some ways? someone could be Very important but if not widely talked about not very notable. Coda littleking 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There's room for a lot of stuff about people like this, as wikipedia is basically limitless, so if so many people have heard of him, and you think he is worth this, then please do add more stuff to the article. I think he merits only a very short paragraph. But he is clearly famous, so......

I don't understand why you would actually choose to put less information. wikipedia is for people to garner as much imformation about people as possible Tremello22 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it, though? We seem to have unlimited space, here, so perhaps it doesn't matter.