Talk:Britannia (TV series)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Historical Inaccuracies edit
Isn't the sentence in this section a bit of non sequitur? It could be historically inaccurate wherever it was filme.d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.110.9 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a bit daft to talk about "inaccuracies" for a show described as "a cross between [Game of] Thrones, the Carry On films and the most debauched year you ever had at Glastonbury." Let's remove it and see if anyone can make a argument for putting it back. CapnZapp (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Genre? edit
I changed the definition to "historical mystical drama". I'm four episodes in, and there is no fantasy or magic whatsoever. What there is IS religious symbolism. The Druids use and administer herbs, mushrooms, and incense, then apply hypnosis and power of suggestion. So people suffer weird visions and imagine strange effects, but -- again -- there's no actual magic. Even the opening review [4] admits the trailer isn't clear if there's magic, and there is none. And the series is a lot better than people are slamming it. It actually shows HOW people viewed the world as full of magic and the working of the gods in everyday life. And for historical accuracy, I haven't seen anything wrong, and a ton of day-to-day-life activities are dead on. Over the top, sure, but it's TV. Clayton Emery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Emery (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Clayton Emery (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Historical period drama" Are you making fun of us? If you'd ask me I'd say "pure fantasy on acid". But you aren't asking me - we report what our sources are saying, and we don't have any sources as is. So I googled reviews, and came up with these four, and any scraps of relevant genre-defining:
- https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jan/18/britannia-review-jez-butterworths-epic-fantasy-rules-the-airwaves says "epic fantasy", "tale of swords and druids" and "more spliffs, less incest"
- http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/britannia-tv-show-s01e01-season-1-episode-1-review-sky-atlantic-a8164956.html says "Carry On: Up to Westeros"
- http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-02-16/sky-atlantic-britannia-review-game-of-thrones-meets-the-most-debauched-year-you-ever-had-at-glastonbury/ First it says "Game of Thrones meets the most debauched year you ever had at Glastonbury" but then it does say "historical romp". A romp is not exactly a period drama, though.
- https://www.empireonline.com/tv/britannia-season-1/ I actually can't make out a genre definition here, unless you count "Pythonesque farce" and "discordant cake". maybe we need a better example?
Anyway, I'll boldly go ahead and change our genre definition to "historical romp" safe in the knowledge y'all will add more sources and change it again ;-) CapnZapp (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Anyway
- @CapnZapp: No one is "making fun" of you. The "historical period drama" was added back when little was known about the show and sources (1 2, 3) actually referred to it as such. Not sure why you think "we don't have any sources as is", since the "historical period drama" genre is sourced in the lede. Again, obviously that cited source is outdated now and needs to be updated. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, "historical romp", while it may be accurate, doesn't sound very encyclopediac. I suggest "historical fantasy" (1 2 3) instead, or just having "period drama" and "fantasy" as the genres in the infobox. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Controversy edit
Collapsing discussion, issue resolved at WP:DRN
|
|---|
|
Please refer to the recent edit history over this suggested section of the page. The simple fact is that another author, Ben Krushkoff, is publicly disputing Sky's claims that the show was created by Jez and Tom Butterworth (with a third 'creator' James Richardson). I've posted links to secondary references (letters, messages and website links) from a variety of academic sources, supporting these claims, and have been told they are not secondary references. I've posted a link to a Change petition with over 1,500 signatures and told this isn't evidence of notability (the YouTube videos detailing the similarities and the links between the writers have been seen over 40,000 times). To top it all off, the person who was changing the edits (Tvcameraop) seems to have pretty much exclusively created pages on Sky's behalf. As an academic myself, I find it preposterous to suggest that there isn't a noteable controversy surrounding this show. It is already known by tens of thousands of people, Sky's only response has been full of mistruths and contradictions (as shown in the last edit I posted), and the person changing the edits (surprise, surprise) seems to work for or with Sky. To say Wikipedia isn't my soapbox is true: it's not. Nor is it a marketing tool for a corporation that have been proved to have lied about this matter. SethRuebens (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are multiple, independent, reliable secondary sourced references that I've cited about this. It is not just one person's claim. The references are from academics at multiple British universities. I will cut and paste what I've just written to an editor about this and ask that PAVA11 take note: 'Thank you for replying again. With the greatest respect in the world, taking into account what you've said (above): the videos can be argued to act in exactly the same way as books (providing academically referenced sources of information to the public, about academically submitted work). They have been peer-reviewed by multiple sources from within academia (which is exactly what I provided the links for in my edit: written academic secondary-references about the work- x4, the main one, certainly, could be included in a journal article). The calibre of the referees can not be brought into question. As the videos have been seen tens of thousands of times (more people than the average attendance at a Premier League football match) and the petition signed by 1,500+ people (more engagement than many front page articles), to suggest that a reference to the controversy on Wiki is being used as 'a first stop on the way to notability' is clearly a non-sequitur. The numbers themselves are facts. Given that the people at the heart of this controversy have a major influence on the UK press (a member of a well-known family of television journalists, who have worked/work at numerous papers, and what was a majority owned News International business at the time), it is understandable that they have yet to run with the story. Please note, I'm not trying to get the last word in, here, but genuinely believe the reasons you have quoted for not allowing the revert are questionable, if not disproved. Multiple academics (the ones closest to the original story) are united in the belief that Britannia has been spawned from plagiarism - this cannot be questioned - and due to the fact that the story remains in the public domain, and is known by tens of thousands, I remain of the absolute belief that a section on the controversy should be referenced on the page (as do other higher ranking academics I've spoken to).' Thanks for your interest. SR SethRuebens (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen any articles, interviews, etc. linked. It's all this man's word, his self-published website and videos, and his claiming people support him. That's not notability. Just because you believe it and others you have spoken to believe it, doesn't make it encyclopedic. Can you provide the reliable, secondary sources you believe establish notability here? PAVA11 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
So Mukherjee, who it cannot be denied is an expert in this field, was also a Scriptwriting lecturer at Bath Spa University when Krushkoff submitted his work there, ergo he is an academic. 'Staggering' and 'Non-coincidental' are the words he used. If you see the references re-published on the website linked, you will also note that the Head of the Course at the time, Dr Paul Meyer, has also been quoted as supporting Mukherjee's statement (above). Furthermore, the University of Westminster website references the videos and the lecture Krushkoff gave on the subject: they wrote it was 'very well received' on the screenshot (below) and 'terrific' (elsewhere). These are multiple, secondary-sourced links, all from within highly respected academic institutions. PAVA11 With respect, you have made an untruthful statement when you've said: 'it's all this man's word, his self-published website and videos, and his claiming people support him'. The above references are in the public domain from true experts and intellectuals. I personally find it absurd that you, or anyone else can say that 40,000 views of the videos these references refer to, and 1,500 signatures, do not qualify this for notability. They are above and beyond what some national newspapers may get. I believe there is therefore a concerted effort to supress this story getting on to Wikipedia, not because it isn't a controversy of national and public importance (it is), but because there are people involved in the controversy who would rather not see the story getting further exposure. News International, or whatever they're called now, should not be allowed to control Wikipedia. SethRuebens (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd This isn't a letter from just his teacher, though, is it: it's multiple, academically referenceable secondary sources from experts. Maybe you're of the opinion that the opinion of experts doesn't count? Or (with respect) you have zero faith in the academic system? Just like you've said that 'anyone can start a petition and get 1,500 signatures', what you're saying does not stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion, and I'm sure in those of the professors and doctors (of various disciplines) who have publicly supported his case. To belittle a man who has risked his career by publishing the letter (Mukerherjee), someone who has written at the highest level, is poor form. Clearly you're more interested in suppressing the story (just like the person at the start of this chain, who funninly enough only seemed to have created articles related to Sky). NB. The original edits were on the site for over 2 months, untouched by numerous visitors. They've only been removed since the latest video was made. Kind regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
So, according to the WP:NOTABILITY page, the very first line states: 'On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.' The second line states:'...if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.' I'm not trying to create a separate article, I'm simply adding to one. Wiki's page also says 'the criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it'. But this is what is happening here. According to WP:WEIGHT 'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources'. To not include a reference to a controversy supported by more people than Britannia's biggest non-official fan groups, is not neutral. The University of Westminster website is a reliable source. They have described the video as 'illuminating' and the lecture on the subject as 'very well-received'. Thanks. SR. SethRuebens (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The page doesn't mention Britannia fan groups, so they are entirely irrelevant to the conversation. PAVA11 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
As for why Britannia fan groups were mentioned, I was merely showing that there is a relatively significant amount (weight) of people supporting the claims that the controversy is about. How can the article be fairly weighted when the amount of people who have signed the petition is greater than any of Britannia's independent fan groups/and even some of the official social media channels of the show? Whether you agree with the claims or not, it is clear that the article itself is not neutral without mentioning them. It is not fairly weighted. Thank you, SR SethRuebens (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me for my ignorance, but what gives you the right to say that a university's website or the published views of a decorated scriptwriter are not reliable? Are you suggesting that the letter has been forged and the website hacked? Perhaps you think the 1,500 signatures on Change and countless comments aren't real? Other statements, such as tweets from the editor of a law journal and those of a prominent theatre stage manager... Why are their views not being given any weight and those of someone who seemingly only created pages for Sky deemed more important? This is all in the public domain and clearly not some kind of one-man conspiracy theory that was suggested as being the reason not to mention the controversy in the first place. It seems odd that you are so intent on not wanting this information - these facts - to be on the page. It's not what Wiki is about in my opinion. SethRuebens (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "but what gives you the right to say that a university's website or the published views of a decorated scriptwriter are not reliable?"
"Why are their views not being given any weight and those of someone who seemingly only created pages for Sky deemed more important?"
How indicative they are of notability is entirely subjective and not even relevant (as has already been proved: this is about the article's neutrality not the notability of the controversy). In my mind (and those of others) the published views of a law school, university lecturers and a writer are all notable anyway. Otherwise, why bother having universities? What does the 'weight' mean: Neutrality (in Wiki( requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources' . University's are significant. Other writers are significant. The article doesn't fairly represent their viewpoints (whatever yours is on the importance of the matter). Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC) No, what do you mean by: "someone who seemingly only created pages for Sky deemed more important"? Again, individual opinions, in a self-published or informal format aren't reliable sources. PAVA11 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Tvcameraop I sincerely apologise if you're somehow offended, but it really did look strange (to me and a Professor I discussed this with over the weekend) to see that the articles you've created on Wiki had pretty much exclusively been about Sky or for people who work there (I just took a look at your page, last week, and was surprised to see this, so took a screenshot and sent it to my friend). Naturally, I think, most people would assume you were associated to the company in someway (as there is a lack of articles created about all the other TV broadcasters and employees, etc), but if you're not, fair enough. For the record, here's a copy of that screenshot before you/somebody else edited your homepage: If you truly believe that Wikipedia should be accurate and reliable (and stick to its desire to have articles that are neutral and fairly represent all views on the subject matter), I have posted links and screenshots to the letter of support of Krushkoff's claims (from a prominent scriptwriter and academic), as well as to the University of Westminster's link to the videos and comments on the lecture given. I would hope you do the right thing and revert back to the edit that you yourself have removed. Many thanks and sorry for any offence: I don't like to see the little guy walked all over by a corporation with a bottomless pit! Kind Regards, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Here, here, SethRuebens. I've been following this case for a while now and there are clearly many people who support it. That their views are not represented in the article mean it is not neutral. 5.61.207.163 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Seth, are you asserting users can't edit and create articles that interest them? You've only ever edited this article. Should we assume you have some connection? PAVA11 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but omission is entirely consistent with Wikipedia standards. As has been pointed out to you, the standard is neutrality among reliable, secondary sources. If there is ever a lawsuit that is covered by reliable, secondary sources, that would certainly change the discussion. PAVA11 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Pava11. You have repeatedly made statements and claims that are untrue in this thread. I have made a list of these and would be happy to post them for you to respond to on your talk page. It seems strange that you are so intent on stopping other people expressing their views on this matter and editing the page, which is totally unbalanced ‘as is’. 148.252.132.245 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
There are ways Seth can request assistance if he believes I am acting improperly. But I'm not stopping anybody from doing anything. In fact, I searched extensively for appropriate sources that would support keeping the information. I'm just pointing out the standards, as others have as well. PAVA11 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
"neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...'. PAVA11 is saying the views published on a respected legal faculty's news page are unreliable; they acknowledge the talk Krushkoff gave on the alleged plagiarism as being 'very well received' and the video showcasing the similarities as 'illuminating'. They have clearly acknowledged that there is a controversy, even if they've not said their opinions on it. Remember, notability is not what's important here, rather reliabilty. I believe PAVA is also suggesting that the letter written by the university lecturer/writer is also not reliable (if not, then why risk publishing it in the first place?). Both of these are secondary, academic sources to Krushkoff's claims that his academically submitted work has been plagiarised. Alongside reliability, the other important factor to determine an article's contents is whether or not it represents a 'signficant viewpoint'. Following the "Credible claim of significance" two-part test on WP:SIGNIF: A. is the claim being made reasonably plausible to be true? Given the academic support in this matter the claims that Britannia was created from academic plagiarism, are clearly plausible. B. assuming that the claim were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability? Yes, in both instances. If the claims are true, many of us believe that they are, then both the subject (the controversy) and the author (Ben Krushkoff) would be regarded as notable and therefore have their own entire articles on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the article on Britannia is not neutral and I call on other editors out there to re-include a reference to the controversy. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC) You continue to misrepresent the significance of the sources you provided. The university site says only "Ben Krushkoff gave a very well received talk to our LLB Entertainment Law Students on scriptwriting; Creativity and conflict on 4 December. This illuminating video was used as part of his talk." Describing the talk as "well-received" doesn't particularly mean anything - was everybody in agreement, did they give polite applause? All that shows is he made a video and talked about it and those in attendance listened and maybe liked it. And all of this is on top of the fact that a newsletter webpage is not the same as academic work. PAVA11 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
PAVA11, you've gone from 'the only person who is saying these claims is one person' to 'anyone can get 1,500 people to sign a petition' to 'the references don't make it noteable' to 'the references aren't reliable' to 'the references aren't significant'. Have you done the test on significance I've copied and pasted above? SethRuebens (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC) The test from WP:SIGNIF which concerns only speedy deletions and states at the top the page: "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."? PAVA11 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
"WP:Significance" and "WP:SIGNIF" redirect here. For the now-historical Significance guideline in use until 2006, see Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Significance. For Wikipedia's current Notability guideline, see Wikipedia:Notability." That's a long old presence for a page with its own shortcut to be ignored and the former official guideline to point to. So you don't agree with our fellow Wiki editors who've made it? Maybe you could change it for them and remove the test (as you seemingly don't want to take it) or the pitfalls to avoid (I've copied them for you and other users in the image below). It seems clear that you have succumbed to the pitfalls listed: the references provided do meet the requirements of those given in order to be considered significant. Show me any other official guidance if there is any and I'll happily reconsider my position (and please, do that test anyway and let us know your reasoning in your answers). SethRuebens (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC) No, I'm saying that is about the speedy deletion process (WP:SPEEDY) which is deleting junk articles and has nothing to do with what we're discussing. PAVA11 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It literally says everything I've told you in the first handful of sentences. I can't force you read and understand it. The issues have been explained to you by multiple users and at least one admin here or on your talk page. There's really nothing else to say. Cheers. PAVA11 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Hi Pava11. You have not provided any links to guidance that supersede the one posted in the 'Credible claim of significance' page, and have not done the two part test or applied the list of pitfalls to your argument. Furthermore, the issues you say have been explained by multiple users (2 or 3 people?), including one who clearly created a number of articles about Sky and then suddenly deleted their public record about the fact, have been proved to be non-sequiturs. The controversy does not need to be notable to be included within the body of an article. I can also think of at least 1,500 people who think the edits should remain on there, and can point to a growing number of academics and experts who would agree. That their views are not being represented, because a very small number of people on Wikipedia - including yourself - are using invalid arguments to try and keep them off this site, is neither neutral or morally the right thing to do. But at least this chain and the constantly changing reasons you are citing to support your subjective view on the matter make for interesting reading. I look forward to your response to future real world articles about this matter, and in the meantime ask other editors to put my original comments back on this page. Thanks! SethRuebens (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
a) The sources referencing Krushkoff's videos, which highlight the claims of commercial plagiarism over his academic work, are secondary sources (they are not just him saying it, as you originally said), are reliable sources (published independently by academics and experts) and are significant (if true, many people believe they have to be, including myself, they would justify both new pages for 'Ben Krushkoff' and 'Britannia: the biggest known fraud in TV history'). b) Given the references, and that the videos and petition (1,500 signatures) have remained online for so long, there is no reason to think this is some kind of implausible accusation. Therefore, if you really do believe in adhering to Wikipedia's standards you'd do the right thing and revert the edits. Thanks SethRuebens (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC) My argument hasn't changed, you're just unwilling to understand it. There's no consensus to add the disputed content, others have explained the problems with the sources you are trying to use, and so until you can present different sources, there's nothing else to discuss so I'm just going to leave it at that. PAVA11 (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, are you suggesting the claims being made by Krushkoff aren't plausible? And can you confirm that if they were to feature in a reputable newspaper or, let's say, an academic journal (along the lines of referencing sources that you are insisting on) that Krushkoff and the Britannia Controversy would then be considered as notable (i.e. they would then have their own pages here)? Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I've also just seen this on Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:VER: 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' WP:SPS. Mukerhjee is a clearly a subject-matter expert (whose letter was posted above) see IMDB, Wiki, Google etc for work he has published. He is just one of a number of other academic experts who have publicly supported Krushkoff. I will upload screenshots of these if you like and look forward to opening up this debate. And kindly note, that my repeated request to judge the significance of the references using the two-part questions and pitfalls (above), or provide Wikipedia (not subjective) advice that supersedes this, have not been adhered to. I am simply trying to understand why. Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Are you claiming the screenshot of a letter purportedly from Mukerhjee is the same as published academic work? PAVA11 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
We're already past WP:BOLD, which was when you added the information in the first place. Now we're on WP:CONSENSUS which there is not. PAVA11 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in continuing to talk in circles on this. It's been explained multiple times by multiple users. Your continued refusal to accept that is wasting everyone's time, so this will be my last comment on it until you provide new reliable secondary sources as requested. PAVA11 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The article isn't based on my or anyone's opinions. It's based on facts as documented in reliable, secondary sources. You keep refer to publicly speaking out. If that were true, you would be able to provide reliable, secondary sources covering this, rather than screenshots of a letter apparently published only on Krushkoff's site. PAVA11 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted the controversy section that was restored by an IP editor as it still is sourced almost entirely to Krushkoff's website. That is not a reliable independent source. Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazmjd, please answer the questions presented in this talk page before re-editing the main article. It seems that you and others are simply bypassing the points raised here, or obfuscating them with your initial arguments. It seems the references provided are from academics and experts close to the matter. 92.40.168.228 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd With respect, you are continuing to ignore my questions on this matter (as is the above user, who says '90th time of asking' - what about answering my questions). a) Is Mukherjee a subject-expert (yes/no)? (Remember, he co-wrote an Oscar nominated film and has written for some of the nation's biggest shows). b) Is the self-published letter from a subject-expert deemed worthy of being included in the body of the article (yes/no)? (I have posted a link above which shows that it is). c) Is Mukherjee's letter a secondary source (yes/no)? (Given that Krushkoff's claims are the first). IdreamofJeanie it was established further up this page that inclusion in 'newspapers, news websites, court cases' etc are not required for mention of a relevant matter within a body of the article. This is not my opinion, but fact, based on what has been published on the matter in Wikipedia. You have also not mentioned 'academia': are you suggesting that the opinion of a newspaper/website holds more weight than academic/expert opinion??? Please address my questions on this matter, so both myself and others can continue to hone out understanding of editing on Wiki. Thanks - SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly how a talk page works: users discuss the issues and try and seek a resolution that ensures the page is fair and neutral. Ignoring a number of questions directly asked of you isn't adhering to these principles. And accusing me or other users of having multiple IP log-ins isn't helping your cause: there are 1,500 plus people who support Krushkoff's claims in this matter (and yes, I have been discussing this talk page with others who I know who have signed). Why are you ignoring this from Wiki:'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' WP:SPS? It does seem strange that you and a couple of others are so intent on keeping the views of experts on the matter from this page, whilst ignoring all the questions relating to Wiki's guidelines that have been asked of you. SethRuebens (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Seth, I can't force you to understand the policies that many users have pointed out. There is no consensus to add the disputed content because it does not meet credibility standards. If you feel the need you pursue other means of dispute resolution for editors, you can certainly do so but you are just being disruptive at this point. PAVA11 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
You also just admitted to brigading the article. PAVA11 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC) This is not true. I said I'd discussed the talk page, not encouraged anyone to come and post here. Please answers the questions posed to you. Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Here is the next step Seth: WP:DRR. PAVA11 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Before I do that, I'd like to see you answer the questions asked of you directly. How can the matter be resolved when you won't answer them? SethRuebens (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd As has been noted above: Krushkoff is the original source, Mukherjee's letter is a secondary source supporting this. It's already been established that this letter doesn't need to be have been featured in the mainstream press in order for its inclusion in the body of an article. His is not the only secondary reference in support of Krushkoff's claims here. That 40,000 people know about this controversy, and over 1,500 people have publicly supported it, whether the press run with the story or not is immaterial: it is already in the public domain and supported by a growing number of experts. You or I cannot deny that there IS a controversy surrounding Britannia, that has been supported from within academia. How can that not be encyclopedic? Failure to reference it is definitely not being neutral. SethRuebens (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
PAVA11 You've not answered a number of my questions if you go back through this discussion, but I accept that you've made your opinion clear. What I don't accept is that your opinion holds more weight than those of bonafide experts who have commented on the claims, using words like 'non-concidental', 'staggering' and 'blatant plagiarism'. That a University's Law School website has referenced Krushkoff's talk on the controversy there as being very well received, is absolute proof that the controversy exists. Again, the controversy is already in the public domain (40,000 people at least know about it and 1,500+ people, including a number of experts, support it). Any future articles in the mainstream press will warrant the controversy gets a page here all of its own. The article is not neutral without including reference to all those people who believe Britannia to be based on fraud. Thank you SethRuebens (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
We did and you haven't, as explained in the explanation of your block. PAVA11 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't look suspicious at all how all the 'unbiased' editors who have posted against SethReubens changes (unreasonably imho), all posted messages on the above user's talk page within minutes of each other (one the following day), especially when there was no discussion guiding editors there. Keep going Seth. There's way more than 1,500 people who are behind you. CantBbought (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
By we, I mean several experienced editors who have explained the issue to you here and on other pages. There's no conspiracy here, you just don't like the answer. PAVA11 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
A. is the claim being made reasonably plausible to be true? B. assuming that the claim were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability? SethRuebens (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I am new to this thread, can we have one independent third party source mentioning this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
PAVA11 Can you please answer me in the dispute section, where I've also asked you 'what makes you say that the people who have provided the reliable references are Krushkoff's associates? Are you saying he can influence entire university faculties and writers with their own reputations on the line?!?! It seems absurd to me, SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) |
Neutrality edit
Collapsing discussion, issue resolved at WP:DRN
|
|---|
|
Having looked at the academic references mentioned above (see a copy of these in support of the dispute from within academia at: https://www.britanniatvseries.com/support-and-references/4594979935 ), combined with the view count and support on Ben Krushkoff's YouTube channel, and the signature count and comments on the Change petition, it is clear that a substantial number of people (including a number of subject experts) do not believe that Britannnia was originally created by Jez and Tom Butterworth, as the article currently states. The fact that Sky have been served an official cease and desist notice is also publicly known. Quite simply, failure to acknowledge the disputed origins of the show means the article is not neutral. CantBbought (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Please review WP:NOTHERE. Your user page and edits seem to indicate you are only here to push an agenda. To be clear, a neutrality tag isn't a weapon to use when you've failed to reach consensus on content and NPOV doesn't apply, again, because it concerns positions documented by independent reliable sources. PAVA11 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPOV. Neutrality isn't an issue for the same reason the sources aren't appropriate for inclusion. We've down this road. You've been told the same thing at WP:TEAHOUSE. PAVA11 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You were told about other dispute resolution means. Feel free to pursue one. WP:DRR. PAVA11 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
SethRuebens, it seems clear we are not going to get anywhere here in regards to whether the article should contain the content or not, so I have started a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Britannia (TV series) for the discussion there. Thanks. Also pinging PAVA11 and Schazjmd as they have been the most prominent other users in this discussion. Tvcameraop (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
A POV claim not backed by reliable, independent sources is not a valid claim. It's not a different weapon in your continued battle. PAVA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Allegation of Plagiarism and Fraud edit
Collapsing discussion, OP site banned
|
|---|
|
Wikipedians, Following correspondence with Wiki’s arbitration committee, earlier in the year, it was agreed that I could post in the talk section of the Britannia TV Series page. For those of you familiar with my earlier edits (in particular those who were keen to ‘out’ me), my name is Ben Krushkoff (born Crushcov) and I am the academically acknowledged creator of the original script which this show was based on. Because of my links to the show, neither myself or close family members (CantBBought) are allowed to edit the main page itself. However, I would like it to be known that the article for Britannia does not accurately or fairly ‘represent all views’ with regards to its creation and I would request that my earlier edit be reverted immediately. Failure to do so is damaging to myself, in a number of ways. Thousands of people (a substantial amount) from across the world, including a number of academics and subject experts, support the view that the show was created using an unauthorised adaptation of my own original, academically submitted spec script. This information is in the public domain and known to a large number of people, including the copyright holders Sky TV, who have been served with a Cease and Desist Notice to stop infringing on my original creation. Evidence and referencing supporting the fact that these views are not just my own, and shared by those who know about the case, are as follows: An independently published letter by the head of Script Writing, at what was the UK’s leading Creative Writing course at the time (Bath Spa University), where my script was submitted prior to Britannia being written; the author of the letter, Robin Mukherjee is himself a highly respected screenwriter (academy award nominated), subject expert and author. The letter describes the similarities between my work and Britannia as ‘staggering’ and ‘non-coincidental’ and has been republished on the following site: Mukherjee (2018); available online via https://www.britanniatvseries.com/support-and-references/4594979935 The Law Faculty at Westminster, where I lectured on what I’m certain is a major IP fraud, noted my 3 hour talk was ‘well received’ by those present. They have shared a link to one of my videos detailing the case and described it as ‘illuminating’ on their independently published newsletter: University of Westminster (2019); available online via https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/centre-for-law-society-and-popular-culture-december-news The world’s ‘leading scriptwriting consultancy’, Industrial Scripts, publicly shared a link to the petition (below), to their 50,000 subscribers, quoting the case as ‘outrageous’ and ‘staggering': Industrial Scripts (2020); available online via https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=industrial%20scripts%20krushkoff The petition on Change Org, entitled ‘Help a single dad's battle against Sky UK over #1 Google ranked 'biggest fraud in TV', demanding a change in the creator’s and writer’s credits of the show , has been signed by over 2,000 members of the public, making it one of the biggest social groups related to Britannia in existence: Change(2021); available online (by adding 'britanniatvseries' after the the lead URL on Change). A three page article, by a respected Intellectual Property journalist, about the case, has been featured in an international business magazine, read by tens of thousands of people: Business B-Global (2020); translated and available online via: http://www.britannia-news.org/bglobal/4595202887 (full details and copies of this are available for anyone doubting its existence) YouTube videos, detailing the case, have been seen over 50,000 times, the website published about the case has been visited over 16,000 times and hundreds, if not thousands of people, have commented publicly about the case on various social media sites. The feedback has been almost 100% exclusively in favour that Britannia was created using an unauthorised adaptation of my work. Furthermore, a number of my former tutors, and the head of faculty at the time, agree that Britannia is based on a plagiarised version of my work: http://www.britannia-news.org/support-and-updates/4595203191?preview=Y I therefore request the following clause be re-added to this article, whilst I continue with my legal action against Sky, et al: It was officially created by Jez Butterworth and Tom Butterworth, a fact disputed by British screenwriter Ben Krushkoff who has been supported by a number of academic and expert sources. And kindly ask that it is done so immediately. Thank you, Ben SethRuebens (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I have re-added the text. The argument that there are no independent reliable sources is absurd. Having read the arguments and looked at the references the following is clearly the case: Ben Krushkoff is the primary, non-independent and original source of the dispute (as anyone in his position would be). Mukherjee is a secondary, independent and expert source; he was the one who originally wrote and published the letter of support; he is an Academy Award nominated screenwriter and highly respected academic in this field. Other secondary, independent and expert sources have supported Krushkoff, including the world’s pre-eminent script editing company and a number of other academics. The article published by BGGlobal, which references the primary AND secondary sources, was written by a highly reputable journalist in an internationally distributed magazine. It is a tertiary, independent and reliable source. The fact that there is a dispute over the creation of this show, which is known by tens, if not hundreds of thousands people, is in the public domain. Failure to reference it means the article does not represent all significant points of view on the subject. BillsonBobletian (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
COmment on content not users and can people read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Note also wp:blp we can't make serious allegations against living people unless they are made (or at least repeated) by top-line sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
331dot With regards to the Donald Trump analogy, whilst I don't think it's that valid there are whole articles about his dispute on Wikipedia. Just as there are references to sources who are reporting my certainty that my work was taken and used without my permission (BGlobal, Industrial Scripts and others). I, Ben Krushkoff, am the primary source. The university faculty, considered at the time as running the leading course of its type in the country, is the main secondary source: my accusation was peer-reviewed - my work was cross-referenced and compared to Britannia Episode One, twice, by an internationally recognised subject expert and academic, who wrote and published the letter in support of me. This makes it of academic significance and I republished that letter. There are a number of other secondary sources (my supporters as you call them, who have acted totally independently of me), who reported on and support my views. These include: self-published posts from a number of other academic and subject experts (that can be considered reliable and verifiable according to WP:INTREF4). The article, written by a well-respected IP journalist and former editor of Capital, was published and distrubted nationally and internatioally, has to be considered as a tertiary, independent and reliable source. The one you are looking for. How and why are you claiming it to be a primary source? Please confirm. SethRuebens (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
No one has a right (legal or otherwise) to edit here. Any more than I have a legal right to come round your house and stand in your living room shouting "this man ate my hamster" to any passer-by. This is a private body, not a governmental one (or national government, and so is not covered by a UN charter). Thus any argument based upon those principles is flawed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
All discussions of human rights need hatting, as they are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
|