Talk:Wilfrid Brambell

message: This page is very poorly sourced.--Crestville 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC
:In what way? It all comes from the cited online and print sources, and the details check out with the ODNB (I've added that for good measure). Tearlach 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His funeral was mentioned in When Steptoe & Son - I think it was Galton & Simpson who recalled it as being poorly attended and heavy rain. I'll fish out my copy later this week - can anyone recall the Wikipedia format for footnoting television shows? Timrollpickering 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 comments

message: :Image:Steptoe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Steptoe.jpg

message: This section needs some formatting clean up that is beyond my capabilities, maybe put the content in a wikitable? – ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography section 

message: This page should really be called Wilfred Bramble because that is how he is credited in his screen appearances and is how the public know him. The reader is the important thing here, not the factual events of his birth certificate. fr33kman -s- 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is proved here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many other sources found at Google Books. fr33kman -s- 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the BBC website, the British Film Institute, and indeed the opening titles of Steptoe and Son all show the "Wilfird Brambell" spelling. So I think you're wrong in suggesting he's credited as "Bramble". Angmering (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of surname 

message: Which cancer? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: During his lifetime it was widely known that Brambell was not just a closeted gay man but also a paedophile who holidayed in Thailand and Jersey in order to have sex with boys. All of this was mentioned in the Channel 4 documentary "When Steptoe Met Son" in 2002, and in many books about the series. (92.11.37.142 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a reliable third party source out there, cite it. Meanwhile, it stays out per verifiability policy, which will be enforced is necessary. Rodhullandemu 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will this do - http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-dirty-old-man.html?  It names him as one of those who went to Jersey for their annual "sodomy summer break" and the owner of the blog is a Senator in the Jersey government who is active in trying to clean up the island's image - quite authoritative I'd say and backed up by some of the comments.  The venue for the molestations was of course the notorious Haut de la Garenne home for orphans and "wayward" children.Scunnerous (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. For one thing, it's a self-published blog, for another he has an axe to grind, for another, his information is at best second-hand, and finally, he can't even be bothered to spell "Brambell" correctly, and of course, Brambell is now dead and cannot sue. About as reliable as a chocolate armchair in a warm room. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no axe, other than yours, and Sen. Syvret is an "established expert" in the field of corruption and the history of child molestation & abuse in Jersey, which has also been widely investigated and reported.  I'll have to see if his work has been published in any other reliable publication but there are certainly UK govt. papers on the general subject from his attempts to get UK judicial action.  Syvret is an elected Senator with obvious public support and access to police & court records who is painting unflattering pictures of his home country because he wants the abuse to stop so "second-hand" does not imply rumor & innuendo and seems a bit contrived and feeble in the context - sounds like you did not read the article or any of the supporting articles in his Blog.  As for the name-spelling, that is common and is documented at IMDB with three variants used in movie/TV credits - again feeble as well as inaccurate.  One has to wonder what your axe is and why you are intent on grinding it.66.97.11.4 (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My "axe", if any, is to ensure that this encyclopedia contains only material supported by reliable sources. Thus I dispute that your Senator's blog is such a source. After all, he's a politician and therefore subject, I presume, to reelection at some point- which would be assisted by having his own "axe to grind". Wouldn't it? If you wish to put this to a wider audience of experienced editors, you could always ask here. Rodhullandemu 12:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paedophilia

message: Probably best - if this is covered at all - to refer to the BBC's report on the ruling here. There is also this report in the Express that does at least constitute a usable source for the allegations. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Curse of Steptoe'' complaint 

message: This edit was reverted. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for this type of claim.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence that this particular news source is less reliable than others?  PCC statistics? Without evidence, a blanket revert seems arbitrary and untenable. Lachrie (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  IanMacM, you claim that my update was related to a passing mention of Wilf Brambell in the news story and that it also referenced the Daily Mail article. The Daily Telegraph article was almost totally about Mr Brambell and it never once mentions the Daily Mail and the reporters are different. Are we to assume that the Daily Telegraph is now also on your list of unreliable news sources? Mapryan (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit being referred to here was made by someone else. However, I stand by the decision to remove the material because of sourcing and notability issues. This is part of the current fad for dragging up allegations from years ago. Jim has certainly fixed it for Wikipedia in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's simply not adequate: as an explanation, "sourcing and notability issues" isn't really transparent enough to justify a reversion. I think you'll need to give a better reason. Lachrie (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the current Jimmy Savile controversy, this information would be of limited value. People have said before that Brambell had paedophile tendencies, but allegations of this kind are not usually reported in Wikipedia articles unless there is plenty of sourcing to avoid inflating them to undue levels of prominence. For example, the Times and the BBC have not reported this. If other editors agree (or disagree) with the reversions by Philip Cross and myself, please comment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This explanation seems deeply flawed. If allegations of this kind have been made publicly before, it only casts further doubt on the rationale for their suppression here. The information has value independent of its relationship to the Savile revelations, even if the publicity over the latter helped bring the former to light. The Mail and the Telegraph are major news organisations in their own right. The BBC does have a potential conflict of interest, as it has with Savile, since the allegations concern one of its stars. No attempt has been made above to demonstrate that either the BBC or The Times really are more reliable sources of information than other major media. That seems a rather rash assumption to make. It's unsupported and so wouldn't stand, even without the circumstances of this particular case being taken into account. It certainly doesn’t seem strong enough argument to justify the exclusion of other major sources of information from the article. We should be able to avoid sensationalism without resorting to total expurgation. Lachrie (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I always try to gain consensus for edits, but it is difficult in the current Savile controversy, which has been used by parts of the media to trawl up very old allegations. The BBC, Times and Guardian have not reported the Brambell allegations, which leaves an important gap in the area of RS. I'm at best 50:50 about these allegations on the basis of the current sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC may be compromised when reporting on itself, and frankly no evidence has been adduced to show that titles like The Times or Guardian actually are any more reliable as sources of reporting than other commercial papers the Telegraph or the Mail, or that they should constitute the only admissible sources of information. Lachrie (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "If allegations of this kind have been made publicly before, it only casts further doubt on the rationale for their suppression here." No, it could suggest that further investigation by reputable news organisations or writers in this field found no supporting evidence. We just do not know, but anyway editor's are advised to be conservative (note small 'c')  in what we include. Philip Cross (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's also speculative, and a likely over-reach in this case: due caution out of fear of causing reputational damage can shade into a deferential attitude towards celebrity: a general reluctance to treat even historical allegations with proper seriousness seems to be part of the problem. Lachrie (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Not unless they appear in more reputable sources, or the "evidence" improves dramatically. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm very puzzled by some of the comments above, particularly that the Daily Mail and Telegraph are not reliable sources. They are as reliable as the BBC or Guardian. They have a different political positioning, with the BBC and Guardian both being socially liberal, and the Daily Mail and Telegraph somewhat more conservative, and it seems that for this reason some WP editors don't like them. Personally I don't like much of the output of the BBC and Guardian but it hasn't stopped me using them as sources hundreds of times in WP. I think an RfC is in order here. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail allegations 

message: The allegations that Brambell sexually abused children are reliably sourced. Wikipedia mentions unproven allegations about many people including Sir Edward Heath, Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Cliff Richard, Jimmy Tarbuck, General Gordon etc. (86.135.187.65 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These particular allegations aren't very notable because they don't amount to much more than hearsay. WP:DUE applies even if a person is dead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. The reports about Brambell were made during his lifetime. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:5057:C64B:4CFA:79D5 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question of WP:WEIGHT, as Brambell was never arrested, charged or convicted over these allegations. As User:Nick Cooper said in this edit summary, the allegations were never much more than hearsay. If you've visited the blogs and the message boards, you may have come across wild allegations about Brambell and Edward Heath (among others) being involved in a child abuse conspiracy in Jersey.  The Daily Telegraph article cited is thin stuff and comes nowhere near verifying the allegations. Also, as Nick Cooper said, no further action has occurred on this since 2012.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text: It's not gossip - two boys said they had been sexually abused by Brambell in the early 1970s. The Telegraph is a reliable source, and the allegations were first made during his lifetime. Brambell always holidayed every year in Thailand where he had sex with underage boys in child brothels. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:FD3E:78DC:D8CE:33DC (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Brambell is now dead and we will never know the truth in all of this. While the Telegraph is reliable, hearsay is still hearsay. Brambell was gay and there are many stories about him liking underage boys, but there is a problem if Wikipedia repeats them simply because other people have said them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Brambell actually gay though, or was he only interested in children? If formal complaints were made to the police it should be mentioned in the article. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:FD3E:78DC:D8CE:33DC (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't get involved in speculation. As I've said, you can spend all day in the blogs reading stories about Brambell's alleged paedophile activities, but none of these sources is suitable for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy Savile was never arrested or charged either, but his wikipedia page mentions all the allegations about him. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:FD3E:78DC:D8CE:33DC (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations against Savile led to an inquiry led by former judge Dame Janet Smith, which makes them far more notable. While there were a lot of stories about Brambell and underage boys, the Telegraph article has problems with WP:WEIGHT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text: There have been multiple investigations into Savile's alleged activities (notwithstanding the fact that some were shown to be false), but not into whatever Brambell may or may not have done. You can't argue equivalence on such disparity. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text: It is certainly hearsay. One politician claims he was told by two men they had been abused as children. No corroboratory evidence has even been offered, and the allegations have not been repeated to the authorities or any other third parties. Your claim that "Brambell always holidayed every year in Thailand" seems similarly without foundation, even before we consider that the country was a very unusual holiday destination for Brits until fairly recently (i.e. long after Brambell's death). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . Isn't that a logical contradiction...cu...covfefe...?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I find the approach to this issue bizarre. Whether or not these allegations could be proven, the allegations were reported in a number of prominent, national publications that have been used as sources across Wikipedia. I find the Daily Mail as distasteful as anyone with a reasonable critical faculty but if the Mail and multiple other outlets report something, it becomes part of the story of that person's life whether distasteful or not. It is also far above the level of a self-published blog. That these allegations were made, in prominent publications, is factual. Were they later found to be fictitious, this would also be a relevant fact to include. The lack of the latter should not preclude the former from inclusion. 2A00:23C7:BB02:4801:85E2:4BB2:64AC:4476 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Use the Telegraph article then! 2A00:23C6:6587:DE01:142E:E7EC:43DF:86C0 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child sex abuse allegations 

message: Re this edit: it is now seven years since these allegations were reported, and they never went further than hearsay. They would not have lasted five minutes in court in this form, so it is somewhat unfair to include them. See the discussion above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the approach to this issue bizarre. Whether or not these allegations could be proven, the allegations were reported in a number of prominent, national publications that have been used as sources across Wikipedia. I find the Daily Mail as distasteful as anyone with a reasonable critical faculty but if the Mail and multiple other outlets report something, it becomes part of the story of that person's life whether distasteful or not. It is also far above the level of a self-published blog. That these allegations were made, in prominent publications, is factual. Were they later found to be fictitious, this would also be a relevant fact to include. The lack of the latter should not preclude the former from inclusion. 2A00:23C7:BB02:4801:85E2:4BB2:64AC:4476 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Use the Telegraph article then! 2A00:23C6:6587:DE01:142E:E7EC:43DF:86C0 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2019

message: : I'm a bit worried by the Duplicate Detector report. It looks like a false positive, because there doesn't seem to be either large or deliberate copying of text from this online bio. Are we sure this is OK?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit that I reverted had simply copied and pasted the first four paragraphs of the comedy.co.uk page into the article, along with some detritis from the navbar at the top.  I think you can verify that by comparing this diff with the content of the bio?  I think that the duplicate detector report is not showing that because I've reverted the copied content back out of the article – I've never used that tool, though, so I don't know much about how it works.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: His mother was Jewish. (86.154.234.187 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish 

message: Do we have any evidence he WASN'T Paul's grandfather? After all, he was entitled to two!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Buzzard of Shepherd's Bush 

message: Steptoe and Son's Wilfrid Brambell latest star to be accused of child sex abuse | UK | News | Express.co.uk 86.148.205.204 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse 

message: "The Telegraph" is a reliable source: Jimmy Savile: Steptoe and Son actor Wilfrid Brambell 'abused boys in Jersey' claims whistleblower (telegraph.co.uk) (Aardi18 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations