Talk:Britannia (TV series)

Historical Inaccuracies

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?

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)

I approve of this suggestion and how it is sourced. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made the change. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

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) SethRuebens, do you have an independent reliable source that addresses the dispute? Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC) I've been following this issue for awhile. I could find no reliable, independent sources regarding the "controversy". A Change.org petition is meaningless, anybody can get anybody to sign an internet petition. Nor do YouTube views establish notability on their own. PAVA11 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2020 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) SethRuebens, please provide a link to the best independent reliable source that covers the content, not a wall-of-text. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 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) Schazjmd The following are screenshots of one of the references taken from original linked page. They've been written by Robin Mukherjee, who, if you follow the link, you will see co-wrote the film Lore (Academy Award nominated as Australia's foreign language entry) and a number of episodes for some of the UK's most popular television shows: File:Letter from Robin Mukherjee in Support of Copyright Claim over Tribus Part One.png File:Letter from Robin Mukherjee in Support of Copyright Claim over Tribus Part Two.png 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). File:Reference on University of Westminster's Centre for Law Newsletter Referencing Krushkoff video's and lecture on the Britannia controversy.png Reference on University of Westminster's Centre for Law Newsletter Referencing Krushkoff video's and lecture on the Britannia controversy. 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) SethRuebens, a letter from his teacher is neither independent nor a reliable source. Nor, I suspect, is it actually published anywhere. I can post a letter that says anything I want and "signed" by anyone I want. This has no crediibility. You have not provided a link to a reliable, independent source that corroborates any of the information. I'm not going to dig through the diffs; if you had a source that was acceptable to Wikipedia, I'm sure you would have linked it here. If the "story" was covered by reliable sources, it could be mentioned in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 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) A letter reportedly from an academic does not inherently make a concept notable. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. The only one here with an edit history that shows a clear bias is you. You've been asked several times to produce reliable, impartial sources that the "controversy" or his claims are notable. You haven't done so, that tells me there aren't any. Again, a petition or video views don't establish notability. PAVA11 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, you're still failing to cite a single reliable, independent, published source. Your letter file is not reliable. The newsletter merely supports that Krushkoff spoke. I never mentioned petitions. I have not belittled anyone. I have no interest in this story, pro or con. You clearly have a cause that you are pursuing; Wikipedia is not the place for it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The letter, which has been supported by the Head of Faculty, at the original university, and a reference to the 'well-recieved lecture' at the University of Westminster, are secondary referenceable sources. It is both notable and controversial due to the size of the commercial plagiarism that has been alleged and clearly supported. The statement 'a petition or video views' don't establish notability seems totally absurd, when tens of thousands of people have seen/signed them. A combination of all these facts, make this notable and controversial. The public response has been one of outrage (as can be seen in the hundreds of comments made about it, in the public domain. To suggest that 'the only one here with an edit history that shows a clear bias is you', please see the original changes that were made on this matter. Everything I've said can and has been proved. Thanks SR. SethRuebens (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, you are repeating yourself. You don't understand the Wikipedia requirements for WP:NOTABILITY nor for WP:VERIFIABILITY. If you review those two links, perhaps they will help you form an argument that addresses how the edits you want to make meet those requirements. Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Schazjmd Thanks and apologies if you've never mentioned petitions (PAVA11's comments stuck in mind), but I do find your description of the views of a highly-respected screenwriter and authority on the subject somewhat belittling to him and the situation (when you describe it as simply a letter from his teacher, this evokes thoughts of notes home from High School and not of highly-established television writer publicly supporting the claims I'm trying to reference). This is someone who has won awards and written for shows seen by millions, don't forget. My interest here is a fair and open debate. That the press have not yet run with the story does not mean it isn't notable, but I will re-read the links you've posted. I'm personally disgusted that a corporate Goliath like Sky can act like it has done in this matter and genuinely believe it isn't fair or right to suppress the controversy on Wiki. Anyway, thanks for the conversation, I'm pretty sure there will be more links about this matter (that people will try to dismiss), from within academia and otherwise, available soon. Peace to one and all. SR SethRuebens (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "That the press have not yet run with the story does not mean it isn't notable." Yes, that's what that means, as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. PAVA11 (talk) 20:12, 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) PAVA11 "Yes, that's what that means, as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned (that the press haven't run it is a reason for non-inclusion in the body of the article". This from WP:NOTE 'determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity'. And again, notability is not a pre-requiste for inclusion within the body of a Wikipedia article. I've posted the link above. Whereas neutrality and fairly representing all view points are. The page, without being reverted does not fairly represent all view points. Thanks (I hope you'll read the guidance posted above). SR SethRuebens (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, you are absolutely correct that WP:NOTABILITY was not the right page to refer you to, my apologies. The correct guidance is WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Also WP:RELIABLE. PAVA11 (talk) 20:47, 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) Thanks, Schazjmd. As you can see I have referenced the due page several posts above (WP:WEIGHT is just the alternative link). I would like to hear thoughts on the neutrality of the article (see the quote I've included - without reverting to my edits the page is not neutral). 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) SethRuebens, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (added bold). You still have no reliable, independent published sources to support that the story should be given any weight. When you provide one of those, I will return to the conversation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 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?" Because they aren't indicative of notability of the issue. A lot of people say a lot of things every day, that doesn't mean it's notable just because of who they are. "Why are their views not being given any weight and those of someone who seemingly only created pages for Sky deemed more important?" What does this even mean? Wikipedia doesn't reflect an editor's view, it reflects the views of reliable secondary sources. PAVA11 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) 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) I'm not sure why you seem to keep moving the goalposts of the discussion, PAVA11, or why you are so intent on supressing the opinions of those who are experts in this field (suggesting that people change their mind from day-to-day is not the same as them publishing written statements with their considered opinions on them). Just as you brought up notability, after it has been proved that it's not what's important here (unless a new page is created for the controversy), you have said 'no, what do you mean by...' which was completely irrelevant to what was being discussed at the time. For the record, again, I made the original edits two months prior to it being changed. After looking at the page of the person who kept changing it back (TVCameraOP), I noticed that they'd only seemed to have created pages about Sky or Sky's presenters. My point was, why were their opinions on the subject (which would seemingly represent one side of this issue) allowed to be represented on the Wiki page, and mine (and those in support of Krushkoff) aren't. The article is not neutral in it's current guise. Surely those looking into the reasons why may see it as a further attempt to quash the views of Krushkoff, his supporters and those in academia who have published their support for him. Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, as I have stated on your talk page, I do not work for Sky - particularly not in a legal or content guise - and I do not appreciate the repeated accusations that I somehow do. I've also made other pages, and edited a wide range of articles. I do not have any opinions on this issue at all, other than wanting Wikipedia articles to be accurate and backed up with "published, reliable sources"... as Schazjmd and PAVA11 have both stated - repeatedly. There is no "attempt to quash the views of Krushkoff", there is simply a belief that Wikipedia should be accurate and reliable. I should also note that originally in May I did not revert your edits - I added a primary sources tag as it was overly reliant on primary sources, I also looked for additional sources to see if it could be improved, and I even put back the section when an IP editor removed it. However, another IP editor removed it at some point and I did not revert it because I wasn't watching the page. I reverted your later edits because it was clear that there were no reliable sources which backed up the content you were adding. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:20, 13 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: File:Articles created by Tvcameraop.png A screenshot from Wikipedia of all articles created by Tvcameraop before they presumably edited/deleted their page. 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) Not at all, PAVA11. I am merely pointing out that a person who removed my edit had created (almost exclusively) articles about Sky TV and its presenters. As for me, I totally support the claims. As do over 1500 people, including experts and academics who've written about it. What's important here isn't your views or mine, or even notability: it's making the article neutral to fairly reflect all views on the matter. You are the one who seems intent on censoring the views of those opposed to your own. Which, in my opinion, isn't very cool of you and doesn't keep in line with Wiki's policies. Kind regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 10:27, 14 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) I'm not frustrated, just questioning what I consider to be the flawed logic in your assertion that university faculties, tutors and experts in the art of screenwriting aren't reliable or secondary sources. I've also noted how you've continually moved the goalposts here, to justify whatever your reasons are for not wanting to reference the controversy. Is it to do with the fact they're from within the academic world? Do you have anything against the author in question? Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (WP:INTREF4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.201.110 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC) This isn't really about academic or peer-reviewed publications though. This isn't aabout opinions of people who happen to be academics. If Seth hhad such publications, he would have provided them when asked. PAVA11 (talk) 17:38, 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) I haven't done any of these things, thanks. PAVA11 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with the original poster. You keep changing your arguments as/when disproved. 2A04:4A43:417F:493F:0:0:AA7:611F (talk) 08:46, 15 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) Thanks, I would be interested to see the response to the list of Pava11's points. Taken/inspired from comments elsewhere (re. the guidance on 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...'. 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) A highly respected university faculty's website is a reliable source. It's views are significant as it has been produced by legal experts who have clearly acknowledged the controversy surrounding this subject. 2A04:4A43:40FE:38B6:0:0:101:F0F3 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Are we looking at the same page? It's two sentences that don't even address the issue beyond describing the talk as "well received" and "illuminating." If that's what you're hanging on to, then it would certainly be a WEIGHT issue if included. PAVA11 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not hanging on to anything. You're the one that's coming across as desperate in an attempt to keep the views of a significant amount of people off the page. 2A04:4A43:417F:493F:0:0:AA7:611F (talk) 08:46, 15 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) The title of the page clearly states 'Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance'. It's a guide only, yet important enough to have its own Wiki shortcuts. Quote from the page: "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). File:Pitfalls to avoid when considering claims of significance on Wikipedia.png Pitfalls to avoid when considering claims of significance on Wikipedia 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) The article is clearly titled, is given a number of Wiki shortcuts linked to the term significance, and even replaced the old page on significance. The principles it lists, to determine significant claims within a body of an article, can clearly be applied to this issue. You have not provided any other links that supersedes the advice given in the above page. Until you do so, I think it's only fair to assume that the two part test should be used in this matter and the 'pitfalls to avoid', listed in the image, should be adhered to as well. You don't appear to be doing either. Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 23:05, 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) Ask yourself this: is it likely that Sky, Vertigo Films and the journalist family at the heart of this matter would do everything in their power to keep a reference to the alleged plagairism off Britannnia's wiki. Yes or no, Pava11? 2A04:4A43:417F:493F:0:0:AA7:611F (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC) No comment! If they had nothing to hide they would have surely issued a public statement about the matter or sued the original author. The latest video, published on the matter, shows Sky and Richardson (Vertigo) have blatantly said different things at different times about the show's creation. Their timeline totally supports the notion that they have ripped Krushkoff off. Yet here we have someone who is changing their argument every five minutes in order to keep the page from being neutral. I do wonder why. SethRuebens (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Well, I know I have no agenda other than adherence to Wikipedia standards as have been explained by multiple users, despite your insinuations. PAVA11 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC) That's good to know that you have no agenda. And this whole process has been highly informative for me. I agree that it's of paramount importance to adhere to Wiki's standards, and believe the following has been proved: 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) With respect, I understand and have addressed every point you've made and proved them to be either incorrect or not relevant (we're not talking creating an article, remember?). You haven't paid the same courtesy to myself and others (above) and have totally ignored the last few questions. That's plain for all to see at the time of writing and your choice entirely. You mention concensus. As there is no concensus on leaving the page 'as is' without a mention of Krushkoff and the controversy, I have come up with what I think it is a fair compromise: let's remove the Butterworths and Richardson as creators of the show (as this is in dispute), and leave it blank until the matter is investigated by the wider Wiki and academic communities? I'm pretty sure by then there will press coverage or more academic support provided and my edits can go back to normal? And please note, I'm not entirely satisfied with that compromise. Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, reliable sources document the show creators/writers. When you provide a reliable source to support your claim, that information can be added. You have yet to provide an independent, reliable, published source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Adding, because apparently this hasn't been clear, Krushkoff's self-published claims have no credibility unless and until independent, reliable sources take cognizance of his claim and report on it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 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) No, I'm saying that it's a published document from a secondary academic and verifiable source, written by a subject-matter expert, which completely supports the notion that Britannia was based on an unauthorised adaptation of Krushkoff's academic work (the primary source). There is absolutely no reason to suspect the document is a fraud. Or the quotes attributed to the faculty head who supported the contents of the letter. According to Wiki guidelines, as I've posted above, that on its own should warrant a return of my edits. The Westminster Law school reference adds further support to the notion that the controversy exists. Once the claims/letter are picked up by a respected media outlet, or let's say featured in an academic journal article (the above references can be used in either), then according to Wiki guidelines the Britannia Scandal would warrant a page here all on its own. I believe the current level of published support is clearly enough reason to include the scandal withing the body of the main Britannia article, for reasons clearly pointed out above. Don't forget, Wiki wants us editors to be bold (!), which 'can be explained in three words: "Go for it." The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia'WP:BOLD. Thanks, SR.. SethRuebens (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) I forgot to add that according to Wiki 'source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form" WP:SOURCE. HTH, Regards, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 09:32, 17 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) When did we pass the bold part exactly? I only just raised the matter. And if we are to stick to the guidelines, being bold would inherently mean leaving the edits on the article, in the sense of we'd be 'going for it' (and not removing them, for reasons which I've demonstrated are invalid). I believe I have clearly proved (above) that mention of the controversy is justified. So, there is no consensus on leaving the article as is, either, which is why I suggested removing the Butterworths and Richardson as the show's creators until this matter is resolved. That's seemingly been ignored. For the record, I don't believe you have addressed a number of my points (and those of others above), still. To continue a fair debate would involve these being addressed. Thanks SR SethRuebens (talk) 15:19, 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) Talking in circles? There are a number of points/questions relating to Wiki guidelines on what should or shouldn't be considered worthy of inclusion in the body of an article, that have been left totally unanswered or ignored. Subject-expert and academics opinions, such as those posted above (and others that are publicly available if you do a quick Google on Krushkoff), are being omitted and the article it is quite clearly not neutral in this matter, as per Wiki's standards. May I ask if you, or the other two editors you refer to, have ever written a film that was nominated for a major award? Or some of the nation's biggest shows? Are any of you professors of law? I'm asking this not to belittle anyone, but merely to point out that those who we know are those things, have publicly spoken out about this matter. Either way, that your opinions are being read on this Wikipedia article is acceptable; that theirs are not is simply wrong in my honest opinion. I therefore continue to request that my edits are reverted. Regards, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 20:32, 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) You are ignoring what's been said above and asked of you (that's your right), and repeating a mantra of trying to discredit the published letter. Krushkoff wasn't the one who first published Mukerhjee's letter, Mukherjee was. It has now been shared with the public. It is a secondary, reliable source. I don't believe it is plausible the letter is a fake (are you suggesting that it is?). Or the other published responses of academics and experts on the matter (Google Krushkoff and see his website). Once again, 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 Please confirm your thoughts on the unanswered questions above, as well as if you are accusing anybody of fraud here. That's a very serious allegation. Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 10:06, 18 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) I still don't know why you are ignoring the points raised in the discussion. The letter posted on Krushkoff's site was published by a subject-expert. This meets Wiki's guidelines (see above). It is therefore deemed reliable and independent, unless you are suggesting that the letter is a fake (irrespective of whether it's been republished on one, ten, or no websites: the letter has been published by a secondary, reliable source). Almost all the other references about this matter 're-published' on that website have also been published elsewhere and by subject-experts (academics and writers, etc). Thank you for making this debate interesting and for helping me learn. Please refer to the above points in the discussion, though, and address them before making unsubstantiated claims. Thanks. SR ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 16:28, 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) SethRuebens, Krushkoff's site is not a reliable source. Anyone can create a website and make claims; those claims are not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article unless independent sources take note of them. This has become extremely tiresome. Your options are listed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, please select one and take the matter up through that channel. Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC) (Edit conflict) where are the reliable sources(90th time of asking) newspapers, news websites, court cases, or whatever that discuss this controversy? You have offered none. Ygain the only source offered the the alleged writer (noit a disinterested party, and a university saying yes he made a speech, and the audience clapped politely (No comments on veracity of claim, merely that he claimed). IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:55, 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) SethRuebens, see WP:SEALION. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks, but it's not addressing the very specific questions I've posted. You complain about going round in circles, but are avoiding the relevant questions posted to you as you do so. Rgds, SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC) You've been told that britanniatvseries.com is not a reliable source. Provide a reliable source and that can be discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Schazjmd, you are ignoring the questions being asked of you by other users, and then making comments about issues that have already been addressed. And you are accusing others of going round in circles here? Nobody is saying that the website which has re-published the letter is the source here: the source is the letter itself. It has been written and published by a subject expert and academic, irrespective of whether the media have picked up on it. When they do, the Britannia Scandal will merit its own page here, which I will happily write myself. Please answer the questions presented to you, in order to move the debate the forward. 92.40.169.217 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC) There is no debate to move forward until there are reliable independent sources. Feel free to explore the dispute resolution process linked above. PAVA11 (talk) Reliable independent sources have been provided. You have not answered other users' questions which have been specifically addressed of you. Please do so before making further edits on this page. 92.40.168.200 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC) That's not how it works, as many users have pointed out to you. Also, using multiple IPs in an attempt to amplify your position is not appropriate. PAVA11 (talk) 18:38, 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) With respect, I have provided clearly linked responses to every Wiki policy document you/one or two others have provided. On the flipside, I have provided you with policy guidelines about what merits inclusion in an article which you have clearly ignored. If you are going to quote the policies, then please follow them. Furthermore, there aren't many users at all who have disagreed with me (just 2 or 3 who seem insistent on keeping this off this site, for whatever reason). Others, meanwhile, do agree with me, and didn't remove my edits - including expert users who have made many thousands of edits. Please answer my questions in order for us to reach an amicable consensus, otherwise kindly refrain from making comments which totally avoid them. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) No editors with thousands of edits have supported you. PAVA11 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC) They have, in the sense that the edits I made were ammended by them an not removed. Please answer my questions. HTH, SR Lol, that's not how it works. Those were automated fixes to sloppy formatting. PAVA11 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Also, are you saying the IP edits which readded the content are yours? Because you did not readd. PAVA11 (talk) 19:55, 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) Many users have answered your circular questions. The fundamental issues have been pointed out to you and those answers won't change. PAVA11 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Nobody has answered the questions I've posed recently. To suggest they have is an untruth. I'll ask again: Why are you suggesting that Mukherjee's letter isn't a reliable source for referencing within the body of an article when: 'with regards to Self-published expert sources (they) 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? This is not about creating an article. HTH SethRuebens (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC) As far as I can find, the letter has only been published *by* Krushkoff, or else you would have provided more than a screenshot of Krushkoff's website. PAVA11 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC) The letter was clearly first published by its author, Mr Mukherjee, who is a subject-matter expert and academic. It starts off 'To Whom It May Concern' (I'm just re-reading it). It's been republished on Krushkoff's website, along with those of other subject-matter experts familiar with the case. Mukherjee's letter has also been republished on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the guidelines posted above clearly demonstrate that it doesn't matter where such expert opinion is published (it could be on a blog, for example). The letter has been published by someone (Mukherjee) who is qualified to make it, and as has been established already (above) it does not need to have been published in the mainstream press to be referenced within a body of an article. SethRuebens (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, it's still an undue claim. No independent source has taken note of it or mentioned it. It has no credibility as a view that should be added to the article. Just because someone says something, even an expert, does not mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 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) Where was it first published then? Provide the link, please. Is he an intellectual property law expert with other published work on intellectual property law? Provide the link, please. 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC) The letter was first published by Mukherjee. Here's a link to of when it was republished by Krushkoff: https://www.britanniatvseries.com/support-and-references/4594979935 (I downloaded the zip-file with the whole letter). He's an expert screenwriter and academic who one can presume is au fait with creating original works of literature and plagiarism. The University of Westminster's Law School, who it's safe to presume have a number of IP specialists working there referenced the lecture Krushkoff gave on the controversy on their website. HTH, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Again, just because the law school noted he spoke there doesn't mean anything. I answered your question. There's nothing else to say. You have routes to explore if you want further review from other editors. PAVA11 (talk) 21:17, 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) It's not my opinion. It's Wikipedia policy and facts. Lots of people know about lots of things. Doesn't mean it's notable or inherently meets Wikipedia standards. I could find thousands of petitions with 1500 signatures or YouTube videos with multitudes of 40,000 views. That doesn't mean anything on its own. PAVA11 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC) PAVA11 The thing is, it's not just one random person who's saying this. If you look at the website linked, it's a master of script writing (Mukerhjee), another of Krushkoff's tutors (McGann) and reportedly the Head of Faculty at the nation's 'flagship writing course' (there is no reason to presume Krushkoff is lying). That's three members of one of the leading faculty's in the subject of Creative Writing, anywhere in the world. Whether you or other editors consider their views as notable is not relevant for their inclusion in the article (with respect, this has already been agreed to by others, above). In terms of video views/petition signatures, I have never seen another case like this (in television at least) with so much support (in spite of you saying it doesn't matter): the simple fact is, the controversy is already in the public domain and known by tens of thousands of people. If you, or anyone else, can justify why the views of all those who support Krushkoff - and those who know about the controversy but are sat on the fence, shouldn't be represented in the article, I'll gladly keep quiet. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:52, 26 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) Well, I maintain that you haven't, as I think going through this whole thread will show. Putting a temporary ban on me, for debating this in an amicable way, speaks for itself. By not including the opinions of academics, experts and the 1,500, whoever the 'we' may be (that you're referring to) are not, in my humble opinion, adhering to Wiki's neutrality policy. But anyway, as you can see I'm not reverting my edits and will continue to debate with those with an interest in the subject and keep an open mind to all who respond. Have a nice end to your weekend, SR SethRuebens (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) For the record, I didn't block you or ask anyone to block you. Uninvolved administrators took notice and did so. PAVA11 (talk) 12:18, 27 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) I'm not saying anything on the matter, other than the 'we did and you haven't', which did get me thinking. Anyway, I'm not going to cast aspersions here. I think the history of this debate, and the fact that a small group of people are intent on dismissing the expert opinions of academics and seasoned scriptwriters on this matter really does speak for itself. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 08:22, 28 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) You (as in the small group against my edits) have continually avoided answering direct questions by repeating the same answers. I ask you, again, to answer the following, directly and without saying anything else: 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) why are these questions be avoided? CantBbought (talk) 16:28, 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) I've looked but been unable to find one. The only sources appear to be self-published by the individual making the claim or his associates. PAVA11 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven I have responded to you in the dispute section this evening. For the record: A collection of independent sources have been re-published by Krushkoff on his webpage: linked to here; the University of Westminster newsletter referencing his talk on the controversy (described as 'very well received' and linking to his 'illuminating' video which clearly accusses the official creators of lying) is linked to here - note in their case I am only saying they have refernced that a dispute exists; the Change Petition signed by 1,500 here can be found by searching 'change org britannia tv series' on google: their views are not represented in the article without my, or other edits, making it clearly unfairly weighted in Sky's favour; the videos detailing the alleged plagiarism, seen by tens of thousands, with almost exclusive positive response are linked to here. I believe the other channel he has made is called Britannia TV News, with videos referencing the controversy also seen 6 or 7 thousand times. Combined, I really can't understand how editors are saying 'it's one persons views'. Oh, and Google 'Biggest Fraud in TV' and see if the top few links are the same as I'm getting! Thanks, SethRuebens (talk) 22:56, 30 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

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) I think it goes without saying that I agree totally that this page isn't neutral, without referencing the controversy over the show's creation, for these following reasons: it is not just one person who is claiming that Britannia was based on unauthorised adaptation of a student's (Kruhskoff's) academically submitted work (which was the argument used against having my edits included in the first place); it is the opinion of that student's subject-expert tutor (a guy who has written for a number of popular TV shows and whose screenplays have been nominated for leading international awards), another of that student's tutors (a well-respected figure in the world of theatre) and the head of a faculty which was described as providing the flagship writing course of its type in the UK, at the time. Furthermore, the controversy has been noted by a second academic institution, via a newsletter on their web page, where Krushkoff gave a lecture on the subject (to be clear, the second faculty specialises in Entertainment Law - the mere fact that it has acknowledged the dispute is noteable in my opinion, but notability isn't the issue here). Thirdly, a number of other academics have publicly stated/published their beliefs that the official creator's credits provided by Sky are inaccurate. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that tens of thousands of people have watched videos detailing the subject and that there has been near exclusive support for Krushkoff's case (nb: according to this article the show itself, which the lead article is about, had 119,000 viewers for the launch of its second series’ opener). So basically, the controversy is getting comparable views to the actual show itself! And of course, there are 1,500+ people who have signed the petition, demanding Sky remove the Butterworths and Richardson of creators of that show. Considering all of the above, which are independent sources of Krushkoff, who PAVA11 and one or two others have absolutely no basis to say aren't reliable (in terms of Wiki's guidelines on inclusion in the body of an article), it is blatantly clear to me that the article isn't neutral without referring to the controversy surrounding its origins. SR SethRuebens (talk) 08:45, 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) Thanks for self-editing that last comment. Just as at the Teahouse, and as above (and per your user page, and elsewhere), when the debate comes around to one simple point, the answers aren't forthcoming: a number of faculty members at a leading writing university (one of the most respected of its kind in the world) have stated they believe Britannia is based on an adaptation of somebody else's work. Why aren't their views, or those of a significant number of people, represented in the article? I've read WP:NPOV and its clear that this is exactly why there needs to be a independent debate around it, with the wider Wiki community. That you're saying the academic and expert opinion are not appropriate sources are, quite frankly absurd. That you are trying to avoid a wider debate, by removing someone else's 'neutrality tag' goes against the ethos of what Wikipedia is about. Your views on the matter are not more important than theirs. Obfuscating doesn't do anything to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 14:17, 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) Again, not answering a direct question that is relevant to the debate. As for the neutrality means of resolution, I agree with CantBbought. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. The article isn't neutral. SethRuebens (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Instead of debating openly and fairly, it's clear the editors against a neutrality debate are trying to brush it under the table. They keep labelling me as someone with an agenda. The only agenda I have is making sure that Wiki represents all points of view, fairly. Pretty obvious they want to stop a fair debate. I wonder why??? Total joke to dismiss academic references from experts. CantBbought (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) No, we can not put anything in the article without a reliable independant source. That is not debatable, that is wikipedia policy IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:19, 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) I'll check in on it tomorrow. In the meantime it would be nice if any of the group opposing my changes - and those of others - would actually answer questions (either here or in that other thread) instead of avoiding them. I'm more than happy to debate this and would and for this matter to be resolved, but by not answering simple questions, it's clear that can't happen. SethRuebens (talk) 17:31, 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) I'm waiting for you to answer the questions in the dispute about this matter. And also flagged your removal of the tag in the discussion. You have no right to do so until either matter is resolved. The lead section of the article does need re-writting, according to 1,500 and a growing number of subject experts. Let's not go back and forth here. It's obvious that you will just revert anything, I or other people who believe Britannia to be based on an act of fraud, post on the page. Looking forward to your answers with an open mind. Persuade me with them, in that debate, and I won't touch this page or tags again. Thanks SethRuebens (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Allegation of Plagiarism and Fraud

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) You still fail to provide a single independent reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Multiple academics, a petition signed by over 2000, an article in an international business magazine by a respected IP and business journalist, the world's leading script editing company (I could go on): how exactly are these not independent? The case is now in the public domain, and the above references prove it. It seems you (and others, some of whom I'm more than confident represent Sky and Vertigo Films) are simply trying to keep the truth from being told. Why, may I ask? SethRuebens (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Adding links to previous discussions for editors new to the issue: Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Britannia (TV series), Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#BGlobal Quoting Robin Mukherjee. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Note how the arguments were never settled. And how my preceding question has been ignored (again). Anybody (including you, Schazjmd, I'm sure) who had been told by multiple, independent academics, that they believed their academically submitted work (3 years in the making) had been plagiarised, would be making the same demands and requests. The article simply does not represent their views, and the thousands of others, however you try and deflect them. SethRuebens (talk) 17:40, 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) BillsonBobletian The source you gave is not independent, it is a website that collects information to support the claims made and likely supports or has a vested interest in the point of view it is describing. Please review reliable sources for what Wikipedia is looking for. Wikipedia is not a place to promote what I assume is your viewpoint on this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you BillsonBobletian. For the record the three page article about the dispute, was independently written by a well-respected journalist (Telegraph, Capital, Economist), and published (in print) by a reputable magazine with a strict ethical policy. This is verifiable (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611). It does not need to have been published online for its inclusion in Wikipedia and I am happy to forward over a digital copy to anybody who wants one. Likewise, the letter from Mukerherjee was independently written and published by himself, before I re-published it with his permission; I can forward a digital copy to anyone who wants one. The University of Westminster referencing the lecture on the case is available online here in an independently published newsletter by a reputable source: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/centre-for-law-society-and-popular-culture-december-news. And I could go on to point out other, independently published expert opinions on this matter. It's clear there is a concerted efforted to keep the article from being neutral and representing all significant points of view (hardly surprising), but the arguments being used against referencing the commonly held academic and expert opinions on the subject are clearly not valid. SethRuebens (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC) I've never heard of this TV show, and have no interest here. But Wikipedia is not for the posting of opinions, even those of academics or experts. It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state, which can include the reporting of the publication of such opinions, but not the opinions themselves. Any dispute about the creation of the show or who owns the rights to it or whatever cannot be settled or handled here. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC) 331dot, can I ask if you are a paid editor or have any links to the people involved in this show/other editors? You have totally changed your argument here and it makes no sense as to why (like your new attempt to justify your position). Let me break it down for you/other users: “I've never heard of this TV show, and have no interest here” - yet somehow you found yourself looking at the article, reviewing the edits and references provided by BillsonBobletian, and then reverted them within 3 minutes of them being made? That seems more than a tad strange, given your opening statement; if you haven’t got an interest in the article then why come along and edit in the first place and why so quickly? Wikipedia is not a place to promote what I assume is your presumably (and with respect) non-expert viewpoint. “But Wikipedia is not for the posting of opinions, even those of academics or experts. It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state, which can include the reporting of the publication of such opinions, but not the opinions themselves.” This is not what Wikiepedia states at all. See WP:NPOV: ‘All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic’. Significant views in this case are: an independent expert scriptwriter and academic; numerous other published expert academics; the world’s leading script editing company; plus the article in BGGlobal, which has been independently published and written by an expert IP journalist. Furthermore, according to WP:INTREF4 ‘self-published work may also be considered reliable where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic’; in this case, Mukherjee's letter, other academic's social media posts and those of the world's pre-eminent script editing company should all be considered reliable, some of which are referenced in the tertiary article. “Any dispute about the creation of the show or who owns the rights to it or whatever cannot be settled or handled here”. No-one’s asking the dispute to be settled on Wiki, but the dispute, itself, supported by thousands of people (including the ones referenced above) does need to be featured. It is highly pertinent to the subject, ergo significant. Without reference to the dispute (Sky have been served with legal papers, don’t forget) the article does not maintain a neutral POV. As a living person, it is damaging for my own reputation and career not to have it referenced in the article. It is totally disrespectful to the views of countless experts and thousands of people across the world. Given the above, neither you or any other editor has been able to justify your position at all, just changed the argument when your previously stated reasons have been proved to be unfounded. It is clearly not keeping with Wikiepedia's five pillars. In all instances the arguments are without merit and reek of a corporation trying to withhold the truth from the public. SethRuebens (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC) HAve RS covered this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC) It was being discussed on the noticeboard there, but got removed without my questions being answered. I was told I could not discuss the subject, and was banned accused of sock-puppetry etc. However, I appealed this, via a Wiki tribunal, and was told that I was allowed to discuss the matter on this board. The question as to why the BGGlobal article is not considered an independently published reliable source has never been answered. The article references what's being said here. SethRuebens (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Who are BGlobal, I can find no reference to such a magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC) COmment on content not users and can people read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC) There is no need to forward it, where was it published and who wrote it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC) I am a Wikipedia editor and as such I on occasion monitor the Recent Changes feed for edits that may seem problematic. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, so edit summaries that speak of "the truth" usually get a look from me. I am not a paid editor, have nothing to do with any corporations involved in this dispute, have no knowledge of this dispute on either side, and I reiterate that I've never heard of this show until today. I haven't changed any arguments to my knowledge. Yes, views must be represented- if properly sourced and with proper weight. The website offered as a source is not a reliable source. It is those on one side of the dispute publishing their views on it. They have every right to do that, and when independent reliable sources like the news media report on that, it can be included here. Wikipedia's primary mission is to summarize what independent reliable sources state, not what parties to a dispute wish to state. Neutral point of view does not mean that all sides must be equally represented at all times irrespective of independent sources. It means that the article text itself must be written neutrally. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC) I did not recall until I checked that I had declined an unblock request by SethRubens. I review many such requests and this one didn't stand out at me. I still have no knowledge of this dispute and have never heard of this TV show itself. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your reply 331dot; I wasn't being disrespectful, it just seemed strange how you were so quick to remove another user's edits. I can gladly forward copies of the letter of support from Mukherjee, who independently wrote and published it (I just re-published it on my site, with his permission). As he is a subject expert, his self-published views can be considered a reliable source. Same with Industrial Scripts and the other academics/experts. I can also forward copies of the BGlobal article over to anyone who wants to verify them and you can check the link on the University of Westminster's Legal Faculty's newsletter, yourself. If Wikipedia's primary mission is to summarize what independent reliable sources state, then their views should be included (not to mention the 2,000+ plus people who have signed a petition in support of me). As for you declining an unblock request from myself, fair enough. Just another coincidence in this whole situation. I was, however, given permission to post here by the tribunal that took place. Thank SethRuebens (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC) According to this [[1]] BGlobal has never hosted that article. So the source is britannia-news.org, that may not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 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) The article was included the printed version (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611). I'm happy to forward a copy. It clearly meets Wiki guidance on being WP:PUBLISHED which states 'the term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online... Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet'. I believe there is an exchange board here that I could post it on for you (even though it's been republished elsewhere online). Same with Mukherjee's self-published letter. The other links (University of Westminster, Industrial Scripts, other academics support, etc) are all easily verifiable too. This is not a biography of a living person, it's a television programme. Failure to include reference to the dispute is, however, highly damaging to my own reputation. Furthermore, it's not a personal attack asking what's motivating you and the others from keeping significant views on this subject off the article page and why you feel it shouldn't be neutral, btw. The truth is the truth: thousands of people, including a growing number of academics and experts, support me in the certainty that the show was based on my work. That is a fact that has been proven, whether you believe it or not. SethRuebens (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Yes it is a blp (as wp:blp says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." you want to include material that says someone stole your work), as you want to include information about people, an accusation of criminal activity. And you still have not answered, who are BGlobal?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) In this case failure to mention the dispute, which is public knowledge btw, is highly damaging to my own BLP (whether that be on Wikipedia or in real life). The rule must fairly applied to both sides. If it isn't, it suggests that favouritsm is being shown and I have every right to question the reason why. BGlobal is a business magazine, published by Bglobal Media EOOD, Sofia, Bulgaria. It's run by a well-established and well-respected editorial team. It is distributed both nationally and internationally. It focuses on the achievements of Bulgarian business people and national and international business issues (such as IP infringement, in this case) and is governed by a strict code of ethics according to their site. You could Google them and use a translator, if you so wish. The article has been seen by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Can you kindly explain to me how the Wikipedia article is neutral without referencing the views of thousands of people, including numerous subject experts? SethRuebens (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC) When you provide an independent reliable source that does that, I would add it myself. What you are providing is a primary source, the views of those involved with the dispute or their supporters. Thousands if not millions of people think Donald Trump won the election; the articles related to the election are not sourced to their personal views, but to sources reporting on those views. If independent reliable sources don't write about the dispute, there is nothing we can do about that. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 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) BLP refers to wp:blp one of our policies. We are not here to right great wrongs, not to be a forum to push IP disputes. BLP does not refer to your wider reputation. As to how are we neutral if we do not include this, [[wp:undu] is why. No one else givers a damn about this, not the telegraph, Capital, Economist or any other RS (apart form one Bulgarian business magazine, which is not enough for a BLP violating edit). We are not showing favoritism (and you do really need to stop casting these aspersions), we are following what the bulk of RS have said about this, sod all.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC) This again? What's the point of unblocking and topic banning an SPA? 96.255.3.81 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Not the right venue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC) How many more times, stuff published on someone's website is not an RS about them, no matter who wrote it. The publishers (not the writer) have to be a third party. One RS about a legal issue is a breach of wp:undue, and violates wp:blp. It does not matter how many times the question is asked, the answer will the same. We need MULTIPLE, THIRD-PARTY, RS discussing this. This discussion neds to be closed now, it has run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC) What goes and stays on Wiki isn’t for you to decide. It’s here for everyone. It’s articles should include facts on a subject that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance. There is a dispute over its creation. That is fact. It is highly significant to the subject and has already been referenced by a number of independent and reliable secondary sources. Knowledge of it is in the public domain and known across the world. It clearly isn't just Ben Krushkoff saying this, as I’ve noted has been said in the past, but a number of scriptwriting experts, academics and a reputable journalist, who has written about it in an internationally distributed reputable business magazine. All of these can be considered reliable and are verifiable. And that’s not to mention there are thousands who've signed Krushkoff’s petition and watched, liked and commented on his videos, social media posts, etc. This matter clearly of societal, intellectual and academic significance and reference to it needs to be made on the article. BillsonBobletian (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Then more than one RS would have reported it, only one has. It is therefore not significant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC) If the claim was as widely accepted as you claim it is, there would be multiple independent reliable sources you could provide links to (again, not a self-published website). Since you can't, it doesn't meet the standard. 96.255.3.81 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC) A comment on the BGlobal article, which I've now looked at. I've never heard of the publication, and I am looking at it in translation on the 'Britannia TV News' website, so I'm obviously making a couple of leaps by assuming that the the publication is reliable, and that the translation is faithful to the original. If I make those assumptions, and consider what could possibly be added to the article. Much of the article is an interview, which are discussed usefully at WP:INTERVIEW; much of the stuff about the dispute is presented in Krushkoff's voice (and thus is not secondary or independent), and the author of the article doesn't say anywhere that there is any merit to Krushkoff's claims, the article is just reporting his story. I think that all we could possibly add based on that would be something along the lines of "Ben Krushkoff, a Bulgarian writer, has made claims that the script for the series is an unauthorised adaptation of a script he wrote while studying at Bath Spa University. Academics at the university support his view that the similarities are too much to be coincidence, but this have been rejected by Sky." What we then get into is whether inclusion of that material would be WP:DUE, based on a single source: at the moment I would suggest that its inclusion is not due. If this is picked up by more independent secondary sources (as is likely to happen if the court case gets off the ground), that situation would change, and inclusion would be warranted, but at present, based on this single source, I don't think that it is. None of the other sources that have been put forward - open letters, Facebook pages of commercial companies, Change.org petitions, and the like - are reliable sources as the term is used here, and cannot be used to support content of this nature. Girth Summit (blether) 10:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Girth Summit. Thank you for your time and constructive feedback. A couple of quick things: 1. The following sentence was written in the article, not from my voice, but from the journalist (who was forwarded the academic references and checked them himself): ‘The academic leadership of the university supported Ben’s view and is of the opinion that the similarities between his script and the plot of Britannia cannot be the result of a simple coincidence’. 2. Your suggested edit would be (or would have been) acceptable to me, apart from the fact that I am British born and bred, with a Bulgarian father, so I'm of British/Bulgarian mixed heritage. 3. Along with the article, I would also argue that the University of Westminster Newsletter, referencing my lecture on the case (linking to one of the videos about it) should also be considered reliable and independent: it was from the Law Faculty, there, who are experts in IP and Copyright. As for the Industrial Script post to 50,000 users, it at least supports the notion that the case has been reported by another reliable and independent source and has been verified by other editors here. I am not going to add anything more to this talk page until the matter is resolved on the other noticeboard. But whatever your (respected) thoughts are, and others, on Wiki policy and guidelines, I do want to reiterate that my moral rights are being infringed upon whilst the article remains in its current form. It's the academic opinion that Jez and Tom Butterworth did not create this show, rather they adapted my original work, led by James Richardson. Art 27 shouldn’t be ignored. Many thanks again for your time and input. Regards, Ben. SethRuebens (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC) There is certainly no academic consensus on this matter, because that would require many widely published peer-reviewed articles stating such. What you mean is *an* academic has *an* opinion on this, which isn't notable whatsoever because many academics have many opinions about many trivial things. As you've been told repeatedly over the course of a year, come back when this "dispute" is widely covered in indepdnet, reliable sources. Until then, you're wasting everybody's time and being abusviely disruptive. 2600:6C60:6A00:1B2:7C23:D112:B70C:1FCC (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC) And to add, you have no "moral rights" to a Wikipedia mention, and claiming so just further proves you are only here for your self-serving agenda and should have never been permitted back. 2600:6C60:6A00:1B2:7C23:D112:B70C:1FCC (talk) 01:45, 6 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) In case you or others missed it, I accept that nobody has the God given right to edit a Wikipedia page. However, the UDHR provides the universally accepted moral principles or norms that apply to a human's rights, including mine. Human rights 'are commonly understood as the inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'. If you don't think that Wikipedia or ot corporations should respect human rights, just because there's no written rules or guidance about it, then that's down to you. Personally, I do. It doesn't matter who makes the edit, but failure to do so and acknowledge the fact that a number of academics and experts (along with thousands of others) all agree with me, that I created the material which this show was substantially based on, means that article is infringing my human rights. Specifically Article 27 of the UDHR. That is a fact. SethRuebens (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC) No, it isn't. Facts are universally accepted. Your opinion is not. 2600:1003:B841:6DBD:9F28:8F7D:5F71:E9E (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC) SethRuebens, a couple of further comments, in response to your notes. 1 - Yes, I'd seen that sentence, that's why I included the clause about academics at the university. It's a bit vague though - the source refers to 'the academic leadership', but it's not clear what that means. 'Academic leadership' could be referring to the university's senate, to a dean of a faculty or a head of department, or to the professoriat within a department. It doesn't allow us to be clear and specific about the facts. 2 - Apologies - I'd missed that. The article headline calls you Bulgarian, but the body of the content does indeed say that you grew up in Britain and have British citizenship. 3 - Those other sources give us nothing at all. The University of Westminster Newsletter doesn't even mention the subject of the talk you gave; there is also no byline, so we don't know who wrote it (was it one of the academics? A junior administrator? A PhD student who knocks up content for the website for beer money?) The same goes for the Industrial Scripts post - it's a post on a Facebook page, written by an unnamed person on behalf of a commercial company, and it makes no assertion of fact, it just gives a link to your YouTube video. As others have said, there is nothing in either of those sources that could be used for any purpose here. I have nothing to say to you about your human rights. The content of our articles is determined by discussion framed around our policies and guidelines, not declarations by the UN. I wish you luck with your attempts to fight this in the courts, but Wikipedia is not part of that struggle. Girth Summit (blether) 12:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC) All discussions of human rights need hatting, as they are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Can we please cease discussion of a social media post that was liked by four people (one of them Ben Krushkoff, and the other the page that posted it. So in reality two independent people) and commented on by two people (one of them unsurprisingly Ben Krushkoff). Pictures of my lunch on Facebook get more attention. FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC) The OP has been site banned (link), so yes, I think we can stop discussing that. Girth Summit (blether) 12:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)