User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161221044703

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161221044703 Intended as a response to Thread:206566

Shambala108, I agree with your technical points: the presence of Simon Bucher-Jones and Philip Purser-Hallard is indeed potentially questionable in this thread. However, unless we're to suppose a multi-year conspiracy dating back to before either were particularly public figures, the posts by Stuart Douglas (who runs all Obverse social media accounts) and Andrew Hickey are undoubtable. And even then, Purser-Hallard's post cites several pieces of in-text supporting evidence that can be used to establish his opinions on this matter. While the PPHF and SBJ posts could possibly not be by who they claim to be, the facts they contain still constitute evidence for the purpose of this thread.

EDIT: Based on this post on Stuart Douglas' Facebook page, where all of the four authors comment, including Stuart and Simon both confirming the veracity of their comments while affirming that Philip and Andrew wrote the others, I think it's safe to assume that those anonymous posters are whom they claim to be. (It also features supporting comments by a preponderance of other FP writers, including Ian Potter, Sarah Hadley, Rachel Redhead, Jonathan Dennis, Blaid Bidmead, and Paul Hiscock. I think the authors have definitively spoken on this one.)

And while self-reference is reasonably disallowed for instances of autobiography or self-promotion, I think a more technical reading of the self-reference clause allows for these comments to be relevant:

"David Tennant's opinion, given to Doctor Who Confidential, about the filming of 42 is perhaps of interest at the page 42 (TV story). However, Tennant's tweet of his age or hometown or other biographical information absolutely cannot be used at the page David Tennant."

Note that these authors are not trying to convey factual information about themselves, nor are they trying to edit the articles about their own work. And the argument isn't about whether the writers have licenses (for ideas originating in their own stories, nonetheless)! They are simply conveying their opinion about their stories, which is allowed under current rules, right alongside David Tennant's opinions about filming 42. This is especially relevant since, as you yourself cited earlier in the thread, the main reason for excluding Faction Paradox depends on the authors' opinions. For this reason, not only does self-reported authorial opinion fall under the "Tennant's opinions on 42" clause, any expression of intent confirmed to have originated from the author is directly relevant and key to the discussion at hand.

(If we're to start taking the veracity of the source into account, I think the entire discussion needs to be re-evaluated, since the interview from which CzechOut's only evidence comes gives no reputable source and is self-admittedly unverifiable.)

PS: Thanks for the input Josiah! :)