Talk:Downton Abbey/Archive 4

British series
Describing this series as "British-American" doesn't reflect the balance of authoritative sources, which even in the US widely describe it as a British television programme, and a British creative product, for example by CNN, Washington Post, cabletv.com,, Philadelphia Magazine, New York Times, Fox News, etc etc, as well as NME.com and a host of authoritative British sources such as the Guardian, Radio Times and Telegraph. Described by deadline.com as a "non-U.S. show". Sold by retailers such as Amazon.com as "the original UK version". Categorised by WP as British television. That PBS put up some of the money in order to screen the series with a different pattern of breaks doesn't make it '-American' any more than ITV's current screening of The Americans with its own ads makes this '-British'. MapReader (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC) MapReader (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, before we even begin, please familiarize yourself with the extensive previous discussion on this topic (as can be found in the archives). Then you can contest the conclusions already drawn, which current consensus is based on. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a handful of editors with strong opinions advancing their own analysis, but analysis that conflicts with the majority of authoritative sources is WP:OR. Reputable media outlets across the world describe DA as a "British television series", and as an encyclopaedia WP should surely follow the sources, not the contrary argumentation of a few editors? MapReader (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, but have you read up on previous discussion? You seem to reply to me as if I stated an opinion either way. I'm not. Honestly, your latest post appears to merely rephrase your original comment (but I could be wrong). Your argument would gain considerable weight if you were to reference exactly where you wish us to reconsider previous consensus. At this stage, I merely wish to avoid retreading old arguments, especially considering how you're re-opening a topic of well entrenched and longstanding consensus. (If you can't or won't do so, no worries - I'm just asking, not telling :-) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it wasn't clear, my above post was my reaction to the earlier discussions, or at least those of them that I found; these didn't appear to address the matter of sources at all. I will find time to go through the archive thoroughly, but meanwhile I simply flag that this article is divergent from the opinion of most reputable external sources. At best, we have OR by synthesis. MapReader (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have had another scan through the three archives from the talk page. The purported 'consensus', mostly arising from discussions from 2012, rests on a very small number of editor contributions - indeed mostly the argument is carried by a single editor.  They rely heavily upon the reference to Masterpiece in the credits (there is subsequent discussion, unresolved, as to whether or not this is an actual production company) and to the fact that one of the production team works for a US company.  Even if true, these citations are being used to synthesise the conclusion that DA is somehow 'British-American'.  As OR by synthesis this should carry very little weight when considered against the volume of reputable comment - both British and American - that labels DA as a British television production, some of which I linked to above.  Reputable comment recognises that the writing, acting and production (not to mention the storyline and locations) are predominantly British and, as such, the series is very clearly a British creative product. MapReader (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then. If noone objects* you should change the article. Better give it 10 days or so to collect the opinions of interested editors. CapnZapp (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * *) By engaging here in talk; the phase where reverting without discussion was sufficient has passed.
 * pings don't work when you resign a previous post so let me add this to alert everyone. Next the fact of the matter is that the series would not have been made without the money from Masterpiece and PBS. Rebecca Eaton's book Making Masterpiece details how the US company was consulted on various aspects of the shows production. So yes it is a co-production and the mention in the lede is appropriate. BTW most WP:CONSENSUS discussions are decided by a few editors and this one actually had more than most that I have seen. The way to get a wider discussion is to file a WP:RFC. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Agreed with . If even one of the production companies is American, then by Wikipedia standards, it is classified as British-American. If even one of the production companies was Australian, then by Wikipedia standards, it would be classified as British-American-Australian. It doesn't matter if it's dozens of companies or just one - determining the level of importance of that one company is OR in itself. Secondary sources have their own methods of determining what nationality a series is, typically by their own opinions, and Wikipedia has its own method as well. --  Alex TW 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the crux of the issue is that MOS:TV does not actually specify any procedure for determining production countries. Reading the relevant passages I get the impression its authors did not anticipate there being this kind of controversy over this detail. I can say that this article is not the only one where consensus is to trust production company data over reliable sources, so it's not as simple as merely dismissing the analysis of this information as synthesis/OR. Maybe you need to escalate this higher up, for a broad discussion not confined to this one series, Mapreader? Maybe similar discussion has already been had at relevant forums? (I couldn't immediately identify any talk archive discussion relevant to the matter at hand, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place) CapnZapp (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As you say, there is no established procedure for determining nationality, but it is a general WP principle that we follow reputable sources. The closest equivalent to WP, britannica.com (now headquartered in the US, btw) is quite happy to describe DA as a "British television series", as are all the internationally renowned newspapers and websites I listed earlier. It is WP that is out of line. It makes no sense that because one company from a different country puts up some of the money or does some of the distribution, that changes the nationality of the artistic creation - no-one would dream of taking such an approach to a piece of writing, music, or art. MapReader (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are also sources that describe DA as British-American, for example the New York Daily News, and Deadline.com which describes it as "a British-American coproduction to its very core." EdwardUK (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are established guidelines for establishing country of origin, which were applied here. It's in the credits that it's a co-production, and Rebecca Eaton is the executive producer for WGBH/Masterpiece, alongside the British executive producer. We've been around this a number of times, every time someone British gets a burst of possessive nationalism about this and a number of other productions, and it always comes out the same: it's a British-American production. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  18:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From the archived discussions, and your latest comment, the argument rests heavily upon the credited reference to Masterpiece, used mostly by you (on a striking number of articles - suggesting that the nationalism problem may lie closer to home) to defend British-American for television series that are clearly, as widely commented upon elsewhere, British. WP's own page for Masterpiece (TV series) refers to its role being to present "acclaimed British productions" and the same role is widely referred to online, for example "PBS for British programs" (an American website), PBS's series "featuring British adaptations", Time magazine's PBS "British drama", decided.com's description of Masterpiece as "dedicated to showcasing the best in foreign — in this case, British — entertainment", etc.  The sources clearly establish that PBS/Masterpiece is dedicated to distributing British television to American audiences, and often funding same.  WP's tag of "British-American" is out of line with the large majority of authoritative comment elsewhere online. MapReader (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Drmargi, could I ask where those policies ("established guidelines for establishing country of origin") are defined. I could not find them. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even PBS says it's British: "The blockbuster successful British TV series, “Downton Abbey” begins its sixth and final season here on PBS next month"..."the blockbuster British television drama, “Downton Abbey" - from PBS.org MapReader (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * and Ms Eaton herself: "The generosity and vision of all our funders creates the potential for a fantastic 50-percent increase in the number of new hours in 2015," said executive producer Rebecca Eaton. "This is truly a golden age of British television and we're very proud of this affirmation of the MASTERPIECE brand."MapReader (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I trust that by now you realize you're talking past each other. The issue isn't that not enough RS support the notion the series is British. The issue is that RS isn't used to determine production country. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Moreover, selected quotes are insufficient to meet the standard of WP:RS.  The credits are the seminal, definitive source, as has been consensus for some years, and those won't change.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this isn't what I am agreeing to at all. This is not about sources and their quality! It is about the fact that the method of determining production countries isn't what Mapreader expected. Should consensus (overall to Wikipedia's coverage of TV shows) change to base production countries on what reputable sources tell us, rather than the current analysis of involved production companies, I would definitely deem Mapreader's coverage sufficient to at least discuss a change. It's just that here (one out of many many individual articles) is probably not the right place to discuss a change in method. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, could I ask where the consensus for "established guidelines for establishing country of origin") were arrived at? It would probably also help Mapreader. (Actually, having been around Wikipedia a while, it is entirely possible this is never put in ink in any one place, as with so many other "unwritten rules" around here.) To challenge something ephemeral like that, Mapreader, you must first identify a good place to have a discussion, one with sufficient authority, and then start one. From scratch, starting all over. All I can say is that this talk page is not that good place. Thank you and good luck CapnZapp (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is notable that, despite having asked the question, no answer has there been. You are right that this also raises a wider issue (not least because the same editor has pushed the same edit through on various other pages), as an unusual instance of editors carrying out "analysis" (=OR) rather than following reputable sources.  When we have a situation where reputable media outlets across the world describe it as British, as do its own American distributors, and as does Wikipedia in various other places, the edit at the top of this page appears out of line.  Meanwhile, this talk page is a legitimate place to raise your question as to which policy the editors are using to justify their conclusion on this page.  If they can't point to anything, then we should follow the sources. MapReader (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not without a WP policy to support such an approach, and not if the executive responsible for the credited brand has stated on the record that its purpose is to distribute British television, as she has. MapReader (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think you will be able to accomplish what you want (a change in consensus) by further discussion here at this talk page, to voice my personal opinion. I suggest you start a process of changing consensus on how to arrive at production info in general (for all tv series). Unfortunately I cannot say where the appropriate place for such an endeavour might be... other than this ain't it. If and when you accomplish this, let us resume this discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources should be followed? – the ones that describe DA as British because of its filming locations, style and setting, or because of its production companies ITV and Carnival (part of NBC), or those that say British-American because it has a US co-producer – it looks like trying to sum it up either way with a just one or two-word description may rely on "analysis" by someone, yet this nationality topic doesn’t seem to be covered in the main body of the article where the sources could be presented for the reader to consider. EdwardUK (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To CapnZapp, actually it isn't unreasonable to expect the editor to have cited the policy they were relying on here, since you asked them the question. No answer came. But you're right that the discussion raises much wider issues and I have raised it here, which appears to be an appropriate place. Thanks for the advice. To EdwardUK, this isn't really about the balance of sources: yes, there is the occasional one that is different, but the overwhelming majority of reputable sources around the world describe this programme as British. PBS put up a small-ish proportion of the funding, in return for US distribution rights, and their director (who refers herself to a golden age of British television when she got the money for more episodes from PBS's funders) appears to have had some input into high-level decision making, although it isn't clear specifically how much. But the bottom line is that this is a piece of British-written and British-produced television that was sold to the US. The majority of commentators can see this and accept it readily, but a handful of wikilawyers have led WP to an aberrant conclusion. MapReader (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with your "sources": you're cherry-picking bits and pieces from various media, clipping quotes out of context, synthesizing them, and interpreting them to mean what you want them to mean: that Masterpiece purchased a British program for broadcast. Wikipedia has specific policy regarding synthesis and interpretation of material, and what you're doing does not meet these guidelines.  The issue of when WGBH/Masterpiece became involved in the production of Downton Abbey and a number of other programs has been discussed extensively, as has Rebecca Eaton's role as a credited executive producer, along with Masterpiece.  You say they've put up "smallish" funding in exchange for broadcast rights.  Where's your source for that.  Other editors have tried that angle and lost.  You've brought nothing new, or reliably sourced and unsynthesized to the table.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  19:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you need to spend a bit more time reviewing the sources, which would dispel your view that there is any cherry-picking here. DA is very widely seen as a British tv series; Eaton herself has referred to Masterpiece's output as British television.  WP should reflect reputable published sources, rather than editors' own "analysis", which is OR by another name. MapReader (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The material point here is SYNTHESIS. You're cherry-picking and synthesizing to win an argument. That's a no-go on WP.  Moreover, where is your source that PBS funds 10-15% as you claim elsewhere?  Some of this is coming out of thin air.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You really do need to go read WP:SYNTHESIS, which refers to "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". All of the sources I have cited - there is a good batch of links above - explicitly state that DA is British.  There is no synthesis there.  Whereas your trail of argument starts with the credits (which contain no such explicit statement) and proceed via research into the nationality of Eaton and her company etcetera to derive or synthesise your conclusion, which is explicitly stated by very few authoritative sources indeed. MapReader (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. By the way, here is an interview with PBS President Paula Kerger from last year, where she is asked "PBS has been the home for British programming for decades now, but particularly the success of Downton Abbey..." and answers "We've been doing this for a long time..." and goes on to refer several times to Downton. She ducks the chance to say "it's not British programming, but British-American...."
 * and a fund-raising appeal by the Masterpiece Trust (the creation of Ms Eaton herself), on PBS's own website, asking people: "With your help, the MASTERPIECE Trust can secure the future of superb British drama..." MapReader (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In Ms Eaton's own words, interview from March 2016, published in the Huffington Post: "The executive producer of Masterpiece is the person who chooses which British programs will be included in Masterpiece, and it means looking at a lot of shows that are already made, reading scripts, and choosing the ones that would suit this audience. It’s a dream job! I talk to British producers about their hopes and dreams for upcoming shows and to those who are taking pitches, and then we fund those productions to make them possible. We don’t make them here. They’re made by British companies and British broadcasters - for the BBC and ITV - and once they’re done, we bring them back here." MapReader (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * from the fuller version of the same interview: "that’s why we created the Masterpiece Trust. It goes directly into buying new British programs" and "We're not the final word because we're not the most money. The broadcaster, the BBC or ITV, usually has the final word because they put the most money in. They are either made in-house at the BBC or ITV, or they're made by independent companies and we license them stateside" MapReader (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: It doesn't seem like there is going to be agreement to add "British television series" to the lead, short of instituting an official WP:RFC for Wikipedia-wide comment to see what the official consensus may end up being. As a remedy, I have added to the first sentence that the series is set in England, which I feel is the primary issue here anyway, regardless of where the funding came from. Hopefully that provides the desired clarity about venue (as opposed to funding). Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With so many reputable sources establishing the point, including direct quotes from the American distributor and American executive producer saying as much, the question would be 'why ever not'? We are still waiting for someone to point to and justify any approach that doesn't rely directly on sources without editors' own syntheses, according to normal WP standards.  A simple bias against using the word "British" in an article - for whatever reason - obviously isn't enough. MapReader (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you; it's very common for British films and television series to receive upfront some funding, however small of a percentage, from U.S. production (and/or distribution) companies in return for distribution rights, and this does not make them American or British-American films or TV series. (One of the reasons is often that British studios don't have a lot of money to throw around and need American largesse.) And I don't see that anyone has come up with more than two weak citations saying that this is a British-American TV series. What I am saying, however, is that given the amount of opposition to the idea of stating that this is a British series, it's probably going to continue to be an edit war unless an official WP:RFC is instituted, which will stop the edit war and the repeated conversations. Having said that, I'm not going to engage in any further discussion of the matter unless there is an RfC, so that's probably my final take on the matter for now. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC); edited 06:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but let's not confuse "amount of opposition" with the strong views of one editor in particular. Without wishing to make this unduly personal, the same editor was recently edit-warring the 2028 Olympic Games article to replace every reference to "football" with "soccer" despite the former being the official IOC title for the event used even by the LA organising committee in its publications. This was only settled when every other editor on the talk page said that Olympic articles should use IOC event titles, plus the compromise of including 'soccer' in brackets at first reference.  It's the same editor who has thrust 'British-American' into other obviously British Masterpiece programme articles.  MapReader (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mapreader, I really hoped you would have realized by now that offering even more sources Does. Not. Help. The problem is that production country (at least for this article) is not arrived at using the method you prefer. Until and if you get consensus to change this method, there is no point in continued discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It does when the issue eventually becomes balance of sources, particularly where they are authoritative such as quotes from PBS or their exec producer themselves. It also illustrates how dramatically WP is out of line with reputable sources - which is not supposed to happen. You know what I have already raised the wider issue on the project talk page.  It is also worth noting that the wording in Mos:TV is ambiguous, because it refers to nationality as "defined by reliable sources" then gives examples in brackets that refer to the nationality of production companies.  Yet a source defining the nationality of a series and a source defining the nationality of a production company are not the same thing at all. MapReader (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, nobody has come up with a citation this is British-American because that is not this article's method of arriving at this fact. The consensus for this article is that it is a British-American production, but not because of what sources say. Or to be exact: because one source is given priority over all others - the credits stating production companies, and their respective country of origin. CapnZapp (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Zapp, you seem to be reading the bracketed parts of the MoS as 'i.e.' when actually they say 'e.g.'. The policy says nationality is "defined by reliable sources", with the bracketed parts intended merely to provide examples.  It doesn't say other reliable sources can't be relied upon.  You refer to "priority", but an example given in an MoS doesn't infer any priority whatsoever. Further, the "method" as you describe it would be synthesis, because the conclusion is not explicitly referenced, but based on editor analysis. MapReader (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are indeed hard to get a message across to. No, I am not talking about policy. I am making my personal observation as to why you're not getting any traction here. I am saying maybe forget about policy for a sec, and listen to what people are saying to you about what consensus is using as a method in practice (for determining production origin). Why am I telling you this? To make you understand that you can't convince an entrenched position they're using policy wrong when they interpret policy to be compatible with the method they use! I'm trying to help you! My reading of the situation is that you're much more likely to get anywhere if you question the rather nebulous and fluid state of affairs wiki-wide. Instead of talking to (in my mind bloody obviously) deaf ears here. Cheerio CapnZapp (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further advice. I do understand that editors will be attached to the existing approach, simply out of human nature as it has become an editing habit. Taking the matter further than this wikiproject may eventually be necessary.  Nevertheless I think the project should have the chance first to address the matter itself: the way things are currently being done is a textbook case of synthesis, and isn't by my reading what was intended when the MoS was somewhat clumsily written.  Nor indeed what the MoS, read carefully, actually specifies.  I would like to believe that tv editors are sensible people, and I will give the discussion I have started on the tv project talk page a chance to develop before deciding to seek wider input. Thanks again. MapReader (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to compare a couple of television series that were genuine co-productions between two countries, with British series that merely get extra funding from PBS (for distribution rights) but have no further involvement with the American company in regards to actual production of the series. [As some of you may know, "producer" and "production" have numerous meanings (which can include merely writing a check), and this is why some films or television series have dozens of individual "producers", many of whom have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual production (they merely wrote a check).] The two genuine co-production series I refer to are War & Peace (2016) and The Tunnel (2013–2017). Both have actors from each country, and both of the actual production elements from each country are covered in the "Production" section of the Wikipedia article. There is no mention in the "Production" section of this Downton Abbey article that it is a co-production, or how. Arguments that Downton Abbey is a British-American series would carry more weight if this was spelled out and cited in the "Production" section. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Softlavender: the article did state it was British-American. Then AlexTheWhovian at 08:54, 16 December 2016 noticed this is specifically advised against in policy, and so was removed. There's even a wiki comment asking people not to add it back. So at the risk of repeating myself the consensus has firmly established the series as British-American, and then consensused that this should not be written out outright. CapnZapp (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As suggested above, this discussion moved here and then here and here. As suggested at the end of the latter discussion, I am restoring my earlier edit of the page. MapReader (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would not characterize that discussion as anything near conclusive. As a matter of fact, you got one editor to agree with your views, Mapreader, but not your proposed policy changes. Nobody has stood up for current practice here at Downton. My own opinion is: if you (anyone) revert/contest this edit, I would encourage you to actively participate in the policy discussion over at MoS. Best Regards CapnZapp (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Capn - you'll see that I haven't made any change to the tv MoS; there may indeed be more discussion (although it has been a long time already), let's wait and see. On the article-specific issue, an experienced and respected editor has made the point that the balance of sources justifies returning to the edit; in WP the RS take precedence.  MapReader (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why I responded, since without a policy change my belief (based on good faith) is that Downton's editorial believes themselves to act according to policy. As for your reference to SMCandlish, I did not believe all editors were equal only some more equal than others... nuff said. Finally: saying "the RS take precedence" means you have not understood the opposing side one iota. This article is using RS*, just not the ones you prefer! Changing which sort of RS to use (or to prioritize) requires - to my mind - an actual change to policy. I am saying this for the umpteenth time, Mapreader! CapnZapp (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * *Clarification: I meant "is using RS or so its editorial believe". That is, I am not talking about my personal opinion, which is a) policy doesn't say either way and b) myself I lean toward DA as British, not B-A; though without a policy change (or similar site-wide consensus) I weakly oppose forcing this page's editorial to abandon their ways. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not the purview of any one editor to determine what are or are not reliable sources; as I have noted repeatedly, MapReader can spray sources until he's blue in the face, but unless they are on point (i.e. can WP:VERIFY his position the satisfaction of the community) and are not simply a WP:SYNTHESIS of all manner of disparate sources that in come context describe the show as British (which he's doing now), he has not established his point. The credits for the show clearly show both British and American production companies produce the show.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  17:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You do need to refresh your understanding of what synthesis actually is. It is not weighing up various and possibly conflicting sources, and deciding which are reliable - that is called editing.  It is using sources for pieces of information, but then using that information to infer or compile a conclusion that is not itself being directly referenced. MapReader (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion since 1 June on the MOSTV page has reached consensus around the primacy of direct referencing for establishing series nationality, with the secondary consideration being where the creative control is exercised. As referenced above, Downton is referred to as a British series by CNN, Washington Post, cabletv.com, Philadelphia Magazine, New York Times, Fox News, NME.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica - all American sources - as well as by authoritative British sources such as the Guardian, Radio Times and Telegraph. And, most fundamentally, is described as British drama and British television in multiple interviews with senior executives from PBS, who have also stated categorically that creative control sat in Britain. Further, MOSTV talk has revolved significantly around the Downton issue, with multiple editors supporting the view that it should be referred to as a British series, provided the PBS involvement is given due weight. On this basis, hopefully we can now put the issue on this page to bed. MapReader (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-Irish allegations"
Do a few whines from some Irish publications merit an entire section to itself? It sounds like it was written by some white Irish guy who thinks he is still oppressed because of events of the past. Hilarious. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:3D4E:D0A8:161E:DFF0 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never been so involved in a series as "Downton Abbey". It became an obsession after being given the whole set as a Christmas present. The storyline, the actors chosen, made this part of my life and I felt I knew all. (very sorry Matthew was gone so early in the series though). Congratulations to you all, you must have made an amazing team. I look forward to the movie if there is one. Norma Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.184.157 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed Wikipedia has a requirement that facts and opinions be "weighted" according to their prevalence in published sources (see WEIGHT). If the "anti-Irish" allegations are only made by a fringe group, the section can be pared down or removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

British medical journal article on Sybil Crawley's death
Found this, written by a fourth year medical student: If you use it, remember to follow WP:MEDRS and ask WikiProject Medicine if you're unsure. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Copy at the National Institutes of Health.
 * On the MEDRS board I was told that it ordinarily would not apply to speculation on the death of a fictional character. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

need more info about this statement posted under Critical Response
No supporting information was provided regarding the statement below about "...critical accusations of political correctness in the media."

Series 4 also introduced a recurring character, black jazz musician Jack Ross, who had a brief romantic affair with Lady Rose. The casting of Gary Carr drew critical accusations of political correctness in the media.

I'm asking for more information about these critical accusations of political correctness. Was the accusations about casting a British actor playing an American character? Or, was the accusation against the storyline of a Black man being involved with a white British aristocrat and that something like this would not have happened in the time period?

Please advise if you can shed any light.Edisonwato (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Edisonwato


 * The statement is sourced, right there in the article. You just need to click on the links to read the cited sources. Cnbrb (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)