User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-6032121-20200610181731

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-6032121-20200610181731 DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: you say that it is "not speculation to say [the extract] comes from the novelisation" but then question the novelisation existing in the first place... that makes no sense, it either came from the novelisation - because the novelisation existed - or it didnt. Obviously I cannot be sure this is what User:Chubby Potato meant, but my reading of the situation is that there's too little evidence ot know either way, and so the Wiki should remain agnostic on the matter; so that it'd be speculation to decide in either direction, and we should simply present the facts ("Harness said [X] at [Y date]") without either disbelieving them, or giving them undue credit.

As for your other points: if you do not believe the alleged novelisation was written long before the tweet, when do you think it was written? I struggle to imagine a scenario where it really existed as a book project separate from the prose "extract", yet was created just before the tweet. Please elaborate.

I think User:Najawin's calling up of the definition rather lays the matter of whether the extract, if it was meant to be read as such, counts as "a story". Again, Friend from the Future counts as an invalid story even though it was ruled to constitute an extract from an earlier draft of The Pilot' — a deleted scene, in essence — because it was released as an independent entity, before'' the story it would have been a part of. How does that precedent not apply here?

And — no one is attempting to force you away from this discussion, or at least I certainly am not. I am trying, tirelessly, to convince you, or at the very least to make you see my point(s).