Talk:The Concept of War (novel)

Investigation

Hey. Admin here. Prima facie this seems to be legit. However, this page was briefly created in 2017 by a user who was since blocked for sockpuppetry, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The page was then deleted with the rather bizarre rationale that "Only source is invalid", which doesn't seem to be logically applicable to a real-world page about a story, so I think there was some sort of mistake.

However, all that background is, well, fishy, if you'll pardon the expression.

Thread:190950 gives us a precedent for a completely illegitimate "spin-off" about a DWU species of fish-based aliens, and that is such a specific precedent that I think The Selachians bears further investigation, even if there is no evidence at this time that it is in any way related to whatever was going on with The Piscons.

This isn't an exclusion debate — yet. (It couldn't be, we don't have any forums.) But this is a call to anyone with any information on the matter to provide any data that would suggest The Concept of War was not actually a licensed DWU spinoff. Or, conversely, any additional evidence that it was licensed by Steve Lyons, which would place it beyond reproach (unless it happens to fail Rule 4, but that seems unlikely).

In your investigations, bear in mind the basic summary of our policies at Tardis:Valid sources#Terminology:

We also specifically do not consider the quality of the narrative when deciding whether to exclude a story. Instead, we are guided by the legal status of a work as well as the authorial intent. Those things which don't have the permission of all relevant copyright holders, or those which were never meant to be continuous with the established DWU, are excluded.T:VS

P.S. I'm not going to tag the existing The Concept of War (novel) page as invalid, because either Concept of War is a valid story, or it's fanfic we shouldn't even have a page about. In no plausible scenario could it be covered-as-invalid. But that doesn't mean the Wiki am not approaching this with a healthy degree of skepticism. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:57, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

I want to be honest here, and while I would love for evidence to surface that proves this story's legitimacy, with what evidence I can find, I'm not exactly hopefully. The fact that it was published in a physical format in such a small quantity nobody has a copy, and the only way to read it is to purchase this dubious looking ebook for best part of £100, seems awfully suspicious to me.

As for the author, he doesn't even appear to have a bibliography (so would an unheard of author get permission to write the first story in a series (unless if it's a pseudonym)), and his writing style, as evidenced by the "look inside" section on its Amazon listing, reads poorly. The only evidence of it being licenced is its front cover, which could be a lie.

While I believe this should be covered by this Wiki for now, as it seems to be a case of innocent until proven guilty, I'm not holding my breath for this story, and this is coming from a guy who wants to be as inclusive of all stories as possible. Epsilon ^{Contact me!} 15:13, October 27, 2020 (UTC)