Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
I totally agree that creators of fictional
material are not a reliable
source for their own notability in 99.9% of the cases,
but I also believe that for uncontroversial information like character
information creators are a source far more superior than fansites (who
speculate) and newspaper articles and interviews (who can misunderstand and
misinterpret).
I agree completely with this. As long as some credible independent
sources exist for the major premise of the article, sourcing details
from the originators is no different from sourcing minor details on a
company from the company's website. Why would anyone have a problem
with that, at least in general?
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where is a list of what
would be "standard" information in a biographical article. Essentially
we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a
"Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of
birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths stuff
could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.
Ec