Talk:The Russell Brand Show prank calls/Archive 3

Daily Mail & Hitler

Brand's jibe about the Daily Mail supporting Hitler are missing, but seem significant. Perhaps, also, his "Hare Krishna" mantra when questioned by the press? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have a source to back this part up? I haven't seen anything about his jibe to do with Hitler/Daily Mail. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=russell+brand+hitler+mail Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or, for those of us who might want proper citations that actually identify sources:
      • Owen Gibson (2008-10-29). "BBC on defensive and Ofcom steps in as 10,000 complain about Brand and Ross". The Guardian.
      • Anita Singh (2008-10-28). "Russell Brand's bizarre 'apology' over lewd radio prank to Andrew Sachs". The Telegraph.
      • John Plunkett (2008-10-27). "Russell Brand highlights Mail Hitler links in apology to Fawlty Towers star". The Guardian.
    • I've been poring over these for a while, but I haven't yet worked out a way to fit the information into the prose in such a way that the article correctly reflects the timeline. Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The search I provided lists many proper citations. Teach a man to fish... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Search results are not citations, in any form, and they are particularly prone to link rot, having a decay time that is sometimes measured in hours, as articles scroll behind costwalls and the like. This is a high profile article, and we, as experienced Wikipedia editors, really should be setting an example of citing sources properly. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Search results are not citations Indeed not; nor did I say that they are; nor do I need to be told that. But thanks anyway. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

← So, is it agreed that this should be added? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Baille in the News of the World

I know NOTW are one of the biggest joke papers this side of the daily mail, but I think it's rather relevant to add that she isn't just a satanic slut stripper but also a porn star.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/58884/Georgina-Baillie-ndash-the-innocent-victim-of-the-Sachs-scandalndash-stars-in-a-hardcore-porn-film.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.21.195 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This allegation has nothing to do with the matter at hand. This talk page already contains any amount of unjustified rambling about this woman's sex life; this latest item is no more relvant than the rest. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that porn stars and erotic dancers can reasonably expect to receive the type of telephone calls that most other women do not. But whether such calls are also deserved by a respectable grandparent, or should thereafter be broadcast on national radio, are other matters. But I think "this womans'" sex life, rambling or otherwise, is wholly relevant, as it informs an intelligant examinationn and whether or not there were any actual facts behind the claims made by Brand and Ross, whether offensive and lewd or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No call made to Ms Baillie is under consideration. The question of whether or not Mr Brand had sex with Ms Baillie is relevant to this article (see the discussion about the truthfulness of his assertion, above) - but her profession has no bearing on that. Whilst it may be merited to specify that Ms Baillie is, by profession, a burlesque dancer, I don't see that the adduction of additional trivia about her activities adds anything. I would recommend that you re-read the policy articles WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E. I feel that claims that a burlesque dancer somehow, by her profession, 'reasonably expects' certain treatment that others do not, constitues an attempt to push a specific point of view, and as such inadmissible in a Wikipedia answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll of course no call made to anyone is under consideration - all four calls were made to an answering machine. One can't really imagine this happening if Mr. Sachs had been at home to spoil these schoolboy japes. And I don't doubt that your interpretation of policy articles WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E is both accurate and pertinent. But I certainly did not support adding anything, porn star trivia or otherwise. If you are seriously suggesting, however, that being a member of "The Satantic Sluts" is just as likely to invite lewdness (however vicarious) as being a member of, let's say, the Civil Service, then I think you truely belong in the wiki-World and not the real one. I had thought the phrase "burelseque dancer" was arcane enough, but hardly "a profession"? "Inadmissable in a Wikipedia answer"? - oh dear, perhaps you had better remove it, in case it causes offence. Um, what was the question again? And how sorry do we all feel for Ms Bailie by now? Shucks, more inadmissiable POV evidence.... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right - this page is for discussing the content of the article, not arguing one way or another about the protagonists' careers, status, etc. But I do take exception to the ad hominem character of your response. I also think it's unreasonable to say that burlesque dancers invite, or should expect, more lewd abuse than anyone else. And being a burlesque dancer is just as much a profession as being a civil servant, a computer programmer or anything else. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

... including even a lawyer? or a BBC Radio One DJ? Not sure all the wikipedian civil servants and computer programmers would agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a civil servant. We come in for a fair amount of abuse; as do DJs, lawyers, and people from all walks of life. It's always inappropriate, and I don't think any of us invite it, or expect it as a normal part of the job. We may expect it through weariness with human nature, but it's just as bogus (and sexist) a suggestion as ever that a burlesque artist should have to take slander, rumours about her sex life, and all kinds of tittle-tattle on the chin, while others do not. And it still has nothing to do with the topic of this article, because Ms Baillie was involved in the context of her relationship with Brand, not her profession or sex-life. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In what sense exactly does Ms Baillie’s “relationship with Brand” have nothing do to with her “sex life” and vice versa? Yes Wikipedia should be concerned with facts and not with “tittle-tattle”, shouldn’t it? Ms Baillie is presented now as the victim twice – first as the subject of a lewd phone-call and now as the victim of heartless wikipedians who read the press. But appearing in public on the dance-floor, and in the “News Of the World”, both have their attendant risks, as does consorting with a celebrity Radio DJ, whether deserved or not. Personally I have a good deal more sympathy for Mr Sachs than for his granddaughter. But that’s just my POV, and should, not influence my wiki edits.

You had almost convinced me that one’s profession was irrelevant to the amount of everyday abuse one might normally get, but now I see that Civil Servants like your good self, attract only a “fair amount”. So maybe not. .And are you saying that people in criminal “walks of life” never deserve, or even attract, more abuse than others? Brady? Sutcliff? West?

The gist of my point is still this – being a pole-dancer invites more fivers in the top of one’s panties than being, say, a High Court Judge, and likewise with verbal contributions. Why should that view be cast as “sexist”? - surely pole-dancer, punter and judge alike could all be of the same gender. I would maintain that society generally works on the basis of a “sliding scale” of respect for the various “professions”, probably wholly unfair and unjustified, but no less real for that.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your view as to the differing responses people give to differing professions isn't absurd, but I don't share it. You're picking on fine quibbles as to my wording, and drawing criminality into the discussion, rather than addressing the main point. But to return to the main issue: what edits or additions would you propose to this article, based on your view, and why? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine quibbles? One's exact choice of words can be rather important, as Mr Ross knows to his cost. I will not be accused of being sexist. But thank you for accepting, if not sharing, my POV. My suggestion is simple - Ms Baillie's "profession" is relevant to this article, so the words "(burlesque dancer "Voluptua" with the dance group "The Satanic Sluts") should stay. But no more should be added for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's what I was suggesting as appropriate at 17:08 yesterday - see above. I'm arguing against all the piffle about porno movies - which is what this section of the talk page is ostensibly about - and any other biographical trivia that may have surfaced in the past week. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps 24 hours of debate is more healthy than an unquestioning acceptance of the status quo. I think the main difference between us is that I am less sure that porno movie details necessarily constitute "piffle" and are necessarily just "biographical trivia". I think we probably both know the legal controversy that has arisen with the concept of "contributory negligence" and I think that this may be a comparable situation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably familiar with the meaning and consequences of contributory negligence; what is its relevance to this subject? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I think it means "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Scott, I don't think that's what it means in real court cases; the normal legal meaning of the term is a quantity which offsets damages in cases where a respondent is found to be liable for loss, but the claimant's negligence has contributed to the circumstances of the loss. What's the source for your quotation? I agree that there is a regrettable tendency in the trial of rape cases for the victim's character to be attacked as a means of defending the defendant; but I'm not sure that 'contributory negligence' is the right expression for this. Moreover, I'm not sure how either construction relates to this article. Ms Baillie was not the victim of any harassment, or any other civil or criminal wrong except for (perhaps) invasion of privacy; but I do not think it fair to suggest that her profession somehow justifies Brand and Ross's reference to her in the broadcast in question; nor does it justify the inclusion of tangential biographical trivia (whether of a salacious nature or otherwise) in this article. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what contributory negligence is. Applying it to this case is pathetic and disgusting. It is an attempt to say that the patent offences of Brand and Ross were somehow to some degree less because of the character and occupation of the victim. She "contributed" to the episode. Hence my comparison to the attempt of those who defend the rapist to being the victim's character into the cases as mitigation. It's a sort of "women like this ask for it, it's partly their own fault, and they are entitled to less sympathy and pure white virgins" move. (OH, the quote is from Lord Hale).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I thoroughly agree with you, Scott! I wonder if Martinevans123 will respond as well? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. How hard not to be branded a reactionary sexist. Oh, when did Lord Hale say that? Lucky that I was not suggesting the concept should be "applied" to this case, as I might have appeared pathetic and disgusting. But I must admit that I was thinking, perhaps mistakenly, of the Peter Sutcliff case. I was trying to allude to the general controversy that attaches to any argument that a victim is partly to blame. But if Ms Ballie is not a victim, then I suppose such considerations are irrelevant. I do not think that the article suggests that Ms Baille's "character" is of any relevance, It may suggest that her type of dancing is relevant, but that is an inference, and the existing deatail still stand as facts about her identity in their own right, whether directly relevant to this case or not. So glad tyat agreement has been reached. I'll get back to folding my fivers.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ms Baillie's professional activities and private life are outside the remit of this article, discussion of the Peter Sutcliff case definitely is. I have no idea what point you were trying to make. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, in the case of Peter Sutcliffe, the victims' profession had no moral or legal bearing on whether they'd been murdered. Ditto here. The controversy is about what was said, the form of words used, to whom it was said, and, above all, the decision to broadcast it. What the woman does for a living has no relevance to whether any of the above was appropriate. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, all of a sudden it seems that I am saying Ms Baillie "deserved all she got" because she was a dancer. Please forgive me if it seemed I was arguing that the Peter Sutcliffe case was comparable with this one. I was suggesting it was relevant to the general concept of contributory negligence, but I was also suggesting that view was controverisal. I was trying to examine how Ms Baillie now appeared in the public eye. It seems no-one else sees Ms Baillie's "professional activities and private life" as relevant to this article, except perhaps the News Of The World. But I admit that is still my POV, so we can agreed to differ. I would suggest that the current descriptions of Ms Baillie in this article stand as facts in their own right about her identity. I think Hale's pronouncements, made in the 17th century, were more concerned with the believability of victims in cases of domestic rape. Although, I don't quite understand how Matthew Hale (jurist) can be fairly referred to while Peter Sutcliffe cannot. And I am sorry that Alex has "no idea what point" I was trying to make. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea either, because what you seem to be implying is deeply offensive. You seem to be implying that the victim, because of her profession, somehow "contributed" to Brand's offence. That's fairly outrageous, but if you really want to side with a barbaric tabloid like the NOTW, then I suppose that's your decision. Just don't don't expect me to respect that view.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is this: the public perception of Ms Baillie is that, because of her "profession" and her previous private "associations" with Mr Brand, she might be more expected to receive a lewd telephone call from Mr Brand than if she was a Civil Servant who had never had such associations. Why do you find this offensive? Some people might find the name of Ms Baillie's dance group itself offensive, but many others (I suspect) would assume that if she has chosen to perform quite publicly as "Voluptua" in a dance group named "The Satanic Sluts" then she herself might not be so offended, nor even sp offended by a telephone message from a former consort, particularly one as rude and outspoken as Mr Brand. As we all know it's not quite so simple when a third party, a fellow celebrity, a public broadcasting network and a National newspaper the become involved. I do not often read the News Of The World, but neither do I read The Daily Mail for that matter. But I honestly think that my POV is not outrageous. I would be grateful if you could strop accusing me of things I might be seeming to imply. I think, like you, that what happened was very wrong. But I do not share your apparent sense of moral outrage. If Ms Baillie had been a shy Civil Servant who had once shared a cup of tea with Mr Brand, I might have felt more sympathy for her. That's all. I am sorry if you find this view so difficult to grasp and so deeply offensive. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin: I don't see a source for your claims about the public perception of Ms Baillie. I don't agree with those claims. I'd never heard of Ms Baillie or the Satanic Sluts until the story broke. Her profession can't really be argued to have had an effect on public expectations of her treatment, because until the row blew up, there was no public expectation at all. Until Brand's later remark, her profession hadn't been brought into the case by any of the principals. I really do not think that one's profession should (or in reality, does) have any bearing on the likelihood of being the subject of unwanted publicity from an ex-partner. I still find your allusion to contributory negligence baffling, and I'm getting weary of not getting direct answers to the issues I raise.

Scott: Alas, thanks to Russell Brand's later quip about the 'poor, innocent satanic slut', I'm not sure one can plausibly argue that Ms Baillie's profession or stage name are wholly irrelevant to this article any more. Additionally, there's been a lot of publicity which has made much of that particular element, to the extent that it's no longer (as it initially was) incidental to the main issues. I would propose that some form of words referring to burlesque and the Satanic Sluts (with an appropriate link to the existing WP article on Salvation Media) should be retained, but that extraneous rumours and other claims still be omitted. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you now are weary, Alex, when previously you seemed so keen to discuss. Please feel free to outline those issues you have raised where you still feel I have failed to provide "direct answers". I was weary of being branded a sexist and a supporter of The News Of The World. Alas I have no sources for my perceptions, no sources even to confirm that Mr Brand knew all about Ms Baillie when they met. Perhaps Mr Brand's “little quip” was his devious way of trying to justify his actions, but no sources for that either of course. I have agreed with you about the content of this article, but you seem reluctant to accept that agreement. So, sincere apologies once again for failing to express a point of view clearly enough to merit any understanding. Where would we be without the good old Daily Mail, eh? Still trying to ignore Brand and Ross, I suspect. I’d suggest that people's perceptions change as they become more “informed” about a case. But facts remain facts. Perhaps situations are judged more fairly in retrospect? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Baillie's picture on top right

What is the problem with that? It's making it easily accessable, and positions it in roughly the same place as the other photos (they feature in the top right, together, for that reason). I thought it was quite an innovative way of presenting it. I can't see the justification, bar an all too strict adherence to WP:MOS, for moving it to the external links in this article. See WP:COMMONSENSE. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a porn magazine. --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a head shot. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a free content encyclopedia, not a link factory. External links go at the bottom, indeed I think this external link may violate linking policy, but I'm still trying to get clarity on that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to find stuff like that, like a headshot, or a mention of what Baillie does, distasteful or pornographic. I've reinstated Baillie's line of employment. Brand issues a response to the incident, one of the few he will probably give, and it makes no sense without the knowledge of Baillie does. You realize how nonsensical it is to have a quote of him calling her a "poor, innocent, satanic slut" without the part that says she's a member of a group called the "Satanic Sluts"?

I do not think that, outside of this context, her line of employment is terribly important. Mentioning it seems to imply that she is more deserving, and deserves little sympathy; no one, not the papers, would consider mentioning it if she was employed in non-erotic occupation. On the other hand, that is how Brand sees it, and his opinion is entirely relevant (I hope?). It cannot be skirted around for the reason that it is unsavoury, when it does merit a mention, as I've shown above.

As for the photo; one smartly placed link = link factory? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly so. --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 22:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Why on earth would this be capitalised? There is noting in the wiki article to suggest it, and The Independent newspaper source we are using does not capitalise it. Maybe it should be italicised as a loan word, but even that's a maybe.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I made it small, but a user reverted, I've reverted back. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be. As a German noun, it would be, but only when writing in German. I think it's sufficiently embedded as a loan word not to require it, and I I don't think it should be italicised either. My 2¢. --Rodhullandemu 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always used it with a capital, but am not really bothered either way. MrMarmite (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

'Classic comedy' addition and Facebook

An IP editor (who is probably the same as new user Jifro) keeps adding an unencyclopedic line about 'depending on your opinion, classic comedy' to the lead, and adding updates to the size of the Facebook groups, which does not seem terribly relevant either, IMHO. I want to avoid committing a 3RR violation myself; can I hurriedly solicit the opinions of other, more experienced, editors on these inclusions please? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I sourced an article in a newspaper quoting Rainbow george,

The use of such a definite word in the opening of the article makes it biased to only one point of view, When clearly others dont see it that way. -j ro

One unelected fringe politician does not constitute a reliable source for the summary of the case in the lead. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got your back. Ready to revert.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lewd was a much reported opinion, because of the number of complaints, If you want to add quotation marks around lewd, that would be fine, as its an opinion. There still needs to be mention of the divided public opinion in the summary, Also rainbow george is a publshed recording comedy artist, amongst other things. why isnt his opinion worth as much as a daily mail reader?

Jifro (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If your going to revert, change the lewd bit, removing sourced links that update previous sections of the article is so lame "irrelevant facebook trivia" if its irrelevant, why is the group mention 5 times in the article why did it get press coverage?, If you leave it as it was, its out of date and inaccurate, I gave a guardian link as source....

also the The radio show, where brand and amstell had a go at the daily mail led to the front page spread of the story 8 days after initial airing, thast quite relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jifro (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't credit the readers of the Daily Mail; I credited the authors and editors at the BBC and other news outlets. Go and re-read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. There is a radical difference between the editorial opinions of mainstream media outlets and the opinions expressed in readers'/viewers' submissions, even to the same outlets. Please stop pushing your point of view. Please sign your posts, and use 'preview', rather than repeatedly editing and saving the same page, by the way. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

24 hours. Too much reverting, not enough discussion. Let me know if you reach consensus before then. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's a bit overkill. You've got an established status-quo and one editor changing it without consensus. No one is supporting him. Protecting the article against all is not the way to go. We tell the one editor to get a consensus for his changes - if not, he meets the 3RR.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping! AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just see a mess going on and I don't want to get into a content dispute myself. If Jifro wants to get blocked for WP:3RR violation, I'd be equally happy with that. I'll unprotect, but Jifro should be quite clear that he either achieves consensus for his stance or gets blocked. I have other things to do here, but thanks for your input. --Rodhullandemu 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Id hardly call it an established status quo, Id call it biased content, i thought wikipedia strove to be neutral, surely putting facts in the summary, then opposing sides of the arugment full of juicy opinions comes after?

various links not supported the moral judgement you have made:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/janet-street-porter/editoratlarge-the-bbc-is-the-biggest-joke-of-all-bring-back-brand-984645.html

http://www.thepress.co.uk/news/analysis/columnists/3822740.It___s_still_good_we_have_BBC/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/06/bbc-ross-brand-georgina-baillie

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/open_and_shut_case.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/02/bbc-british-identity-ross-brand

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/jonathan-ross-russell-brand

article that puts lewd in quotation  : http://www.metrica.net/MeasurementMatters/post/2008/10/BBC-in-Grandad-Phone-Sex-Shocker!.aspx

article that calls it "prank calling" in quotions : http://www.journalism.co.uk/6/articles/532679.php

OED : lewd - adjective crude and offensive in a sexual way

crude :offensively coarse

see links for people not offended, as i said, there is no consenses. and if wikipedia wants to maintain neutrality. either removing lewd as i originaly said, or at the very least putting it in quotations.

As to removing the pretty relevant infomation, that led to the mail on sunday printing the front page article, that needs readding, i source it with a good old guardian article.

Also Acurate numbers of the facebook group need to be added, I also sourced that, Otherwise the article is inaccurate and misleading.

sorry about the 3 revert rule, I think the first guy to revert my edit, was when i removed the word lewd, and he sent me a message saying "i dont know what universe it wouldnt be considered lewd" see links for the answer to that one.

Jifro (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 November 2008

The lead isn't for assessment but reporting fact. The facts are that "I fucked your grandaughter" and discussion of a using condom, made to a 78 year old, are lewd remarks. Whilst there's an argument about how bad they were, and how much to make of it, even Brand and Ross have called their remarks offensive and inappropriate. We could remove lewd and substitute "offensive" if you like. But I basically think that suggesting that they might be seen as "classic comedy" is pushing a minority POV that would give undue weight to an opinion not even expressed by the subjects. Many people have said this is a storm in a teacup, virtually no one has suggested it was acceptable comedy. Neutrality does not mean that we accommodate extremes.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

David Barber

According to this news story from the times, David Barber has also quit from the BBC as a result of the row, just minutes after theBBC announced that it would be apologising about the incident. Looneyman (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

External image of Baillie

Has anybody got a reason for removing this other than I don't like it? So far as justification for removing it we have had WP:ELNEVER, which has nothing to do with it; it is merely 'decorative', which given she is a major aspect of this article and an hour long documentary with her face/her act pretty much on screen permanently because of this, is pretty weak; and the NFC rules, which have definitely got sod all to do with whether we allow an external link to a picture or not in an article. I am not sure how it is supposed to have copyright issues which is also vaguely mentioned, but I'm used to people not explaining their edit summaries on this article, so I have reverted and await an explanation that people can actually argue against here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert you again. Links to external images are not good - we are a free content project and linking directly to a copyright link (as opposed to the page that page that gives the copyright holder all due credit) is just a thin way of defeating our uploading rules.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is total nonsense, and is not supported by any policy. Even if there actually were a policy of this nature that applied to external links in the same manner as uploads, which there isn't, the copyright holder is displayed on the image, and the source page is also available. I ask again, do you have any reason other than 'I don't like it'? MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not stick a link to the news article [1] in the Further Reading section instead? The article is relevant, and the photo is there if people desperately need to see what Baillie looks like. Black Kite 23:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, it's not a copyright issue, so fair-use is even more irrelevant; if it were otherwise {{reflist}} would be useless. It's only because it's an image that this confusion has arisen, in my view, but I agree with Black Kite, assuming it actually matters that much. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who looks through further reading links to find images? MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally we'd have a fair use image of everyone in the pedia. But when we don't, we wait till we do, we don't link to an image elsewhere. Imagine if we did that on every BLP?? As I say, it is wrong to link to an image that is owned and hosted by another in a way that the copyright holder's ownership is unacknowledged. Legal yes, good form, no. If you want to use it, upload it, and see if it meets the WP:FUC - but I think not. Sidestepping that policy is not good.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is that important to use that image of her, upload it here than rather trying to link externally. Wikipedia:Image#Inline_linking explains why we don't link images. I agree with Scott and Black that we should not link the image externally. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you realy actually sure about the concepts you keep referring to? First you said that it fails WP:ELNEVER, which was totally irrelevant, now you are saying this was use of an image hotlink, i.e. <img> xyz </img> , which again, it totally is not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ed)This deep linking is really a little silly. Link to the page that contains the image, at most. If it's already being used as a source, then the extra external link really is redundant. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• So, instead of using a recognised template to link to an external image, you want us to link to the page instead?. So presumably, that would be ok to format that link as an ordinary external link, but to word its label to illustrate the link exists only to provide the user with an image? So what problem are we fixing here? Referring to deep linking to me sounds irrelevant, either way we would be 'deep linking' to a specific target. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. And uploading it in this case is pointless because it fails WP:NFCC#1 hands down and would be removed straight away. Black Kite 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added it [2] in regular EL format linking to the story and not the image, 'per Black Kite'. People can argue the toss here what the difference is to the reader, or profer a correct and applicable policy based reason why this change was necessary from this version [3], I am still none the wiser based on the above comments. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's a stupid template and should never be used. Deep-linking like this is unethical and bad practice. It robs the for-profit site of ad-revenue and frankly, it does a dis-service to the reader by removing the context the actual news article provides. People have already provided you MOS links regarding in-line linking. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, I'll repeat what I said already. Deep linking has nothing to do with it, refs and normal EL's are deep linking. This also was not an inline <tag> hosted image either, that is a totally different thing to a direct external image link. And protecting external sites ad revenues has nothing to do with any policy we operate around here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The image looks like it appeared either in The Sun newspaper or its website (or both) and has a "© PA" watermark; however, the image is at the Daily Mail's website (URL begins http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/). It appears to me that the Mail are violating either The Sun's or the PA's copyright, and that is why I removed it citing WP:ELNEVER. Why, anyway, does an image of Georgina in "civvies" help a reader to better understand the content of the article? I would understand it more if it showed her in her Satanic Sluts costume. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that most newspapers have an agreement that they can use each other's agency photos as long as they credit them clearly (i.e. the "Sun" logo in the top corner). I'm still not incredibly convinced by this, but at least we're not linking directly to the image. Black Kite 09:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute whether a picture of Ms Baillie in burlesque costume would be more relevant to this article than one of her in street clothes. A fair-use or free-copyright image would be more use than a copyright-restricted, externally hosted one, in any case. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be copyright-free to be used in the article. Black Kite 12:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can seriously believe this image had been stolen from The Sun by the Mail surely? WP:ELNEVER covers the likes of youtube and other hosted content likely to have been ripped off, applying it to national news websites citing the presence of watermarks they presumably forgot to remove from their stolen images, is quite bizzare. MickMacNee (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Details of the answerphone messages

I've had a few edits reverted by User:Scott MacDonald, he clearly feels protective of an article he created (I know the feeling). But I do think some details are worth a mention in the article, however briefly:

• David Baddiel was the first to mention the Satanic Sluts on the previous Brand episode, and this was the reason they (ill-advisedly) featured Andrew Sachs on this episode.
• That the call was an interview gone wrong, rather than a conventional "prank call" (because what was said was unplanned)
• The description, "During the calls in question, Brand spoke of his prior sexual relationship with Sachs's granddaughter Georgina Baillie. Ross also shouted out 'he fucked your granddaughter'." is slightly misleading, as "He fucked your granddaughter" was the first mention of the relationship on the answerphone, and everything afterwards was various "apologies".

I can't be bothered to insert this information again, but the article really seems to gloss over these details at present. And seeing everything deleted and dismissed so readily doesn't bode well for an accurate portrayal of events. It's possible to be too protective of an article. Responsible? (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You made large changes without discussion. That's fine - but, I am entitled to revert, and then we discuss to see if there's a consensus. (It isn't my article, so if there's a consensus for the changes - then fine.) However, there's a number of problems with your changes. 1) There's clear editorialising in some of the casual links. "Despite (or perhaps because of) this..." Says whom? Have you a source to say that one event caused, or was despite, the other? That it was "gone wrong" is unknowable - or at least a value judgement after the event. Lastly, the details you put in, whilst no doubt verifiable themselves are not mentioned by most of the sources about the incident. Putting in that level of detail tends to obscure the pertinent fact of what it was that cause the uproar, and what it was that the media and politicians were discussing. No one was mentioning Baddiel (or were they?) - so whilst it might be worth a mention somewhere (if you've a source for the link) it should not be obscuring the initial summary of what happened. Your last point can be solved by omitting the word "also". Anyway, let's see what others think, or if there's an alternative way to improve the article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Put a picture of Georgina Baillie on the page

This article could do with a picure of Georgina Baillie, there is after all a picture of Brand/Ross/Sachs so it would be more complete to have a picture of all involved in the incident. Franny-K (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not appear to have a free image of her. Black Kite 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which means in the bizarre world of wikipedia, she does not exist, until such time as a random member of the public tracks her down and sticks a camera in front of her face. That's about the only type of invasion of privacy of high profile people that is actually encouraged on wikipedia. I am personally hoping the first free image that becomes available is a bizarre and offensive shot from her stage routine. Then the external link to the perfectly benign but copyrighted head shot that could not should not would not remain at the top of the article won't look so bad in the BLP/free content stakes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if she's exactly difficult to take a photo of (if you like her sort of stage show). To be honest, it's more likely that it's because she's supremely non-notable apart from Brand pointing out on-air that he'd shagged her. Black Kite 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reaction from Russell Brand

On November 8, Brand appeared on the Ryan Seacrest breakfast show on KIIS-FM in LA. Here's a transcript of the part of the inteview where he discusses the incident:

Seacrest: Russell, what is going on? I was looking at the international press and I see that you're on the cover of a lot of papers right now—and Russell, you know, he's been a big star in England for a long time—and now you're in the middle of a pretty big scandal. Did you quit your job for the BBC?
Brand: Yes, I had to, Ryan, because, you know sometimes when you do live radio...
Seacrest: Yup
Brand: ...you get a little bit excited and perhaps say something a little out of line? Like just then I made a joke about wanting you to wear too-tight trousers so I could see the outline of your private parts. Now, that, if you were to analyse that over the course of a month, would start so sound very, very rude.
Seacrest: Right
Brand: So I got a bit carried away. We left—erm, me and a brilliant, brilliant broadcaster called Jonathan Ross—left a message on a gentleman's answerphone—Andrew Sachs, who played Manuel in the brilliant, brilliant Fawlty Towers—and, er, you know, it was dead silly and got a little bit out of hand, and it was a bit, sort of, it was a bit mad and eccentric and silly of me, and it caused a lot of furore. I think because of privately-owned media wanting to destroy the publicly-owned institution of the BBC, so I thought it was best for me to just quickly resign and concentrate on my hair.
Seacrest: Did you do that on your own, or did someone say, 'hey, it's better that you just bail out of this'?
Brand: I did it on my own, actually, because to tell you the truth, Ryan, I'm in this Shakespeare film with Helen Mirren, The Tempest, I'm making another film with Judd Apatow...
Seacrest: Right
Brand: ...I'm doing, like, this animated thing with Steve Carell, I've got a lot of stuff going on and I only do the radio show 'cause I love it...
Seacrest: Yup
Brand: ...I thought, if people are gonna give me a lot of tomfoolery, I shouldn't do it any more. I mean, I loved doing it, but it was becoming a little bit crazy.

— Transcript of interview on On Air with Ryan Seacrest.

The entire interview is available (for now) at Ryan's website, ryanseacrest.com, and the mp3 itself can be downloaded at [4]. I didn't want to add anything myself bacause I didn't know where to put it, so I just put it here on the talk page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Oh come on! This does not even deserve its own page, let alone a million paragraphs... 79.66.93.209 (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a saying here: "Wikipedia is not paper", and that's the advantage we have over Encyclopedia Britannica - we can deal with topics and events that are notable within our criteria at minimal expense. Also, it is not for us to judge what others may find important a hundred or more years hence; that's one of the mistakes made by chroniclers throughout history- they didn't write things down. We do. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)