There have been some misunderstandings and questions of late how our policies apply to this section. These appear to come from an over-literal reading of a specific rule, without reading the entirety of our policy and putting the selected part in context.
Applying the rules
In most cases, applying the rules is a simply binary affair, either a situation meets the trigger standard a rule gives, or not, and there is little, if any overlap. For example, linking porn in chat is uncontroversially against the rules.
Sometimes however, it might appear that there is a conflict in the rules, however in most cases these "conflicts" are caused by misunderstandings in how the rules interact with each other.
In all of our rules, there is some sort of heirachy. We have general rules, and in some cases these general rules are trumped by the more specific. Example: In chat, the general rule is you can talk about whatever you like, but there are specific topics/behaviour that are not permitted (eg - Porn) and certain things that may depending on the context not be permitted (eg- Rule 9). The general rules give way to the more specific.
In the case of Articles, we have one of these apparent conflicts.
The More general rule reads:
and
Whilst the more specific rule when it comes to the behind the scene section reads:
If we read the rules as being equal or even with the more general rule taking precedence, we have an irresolvable conflict, one rule renders the other meaningless; this is an obvious absurdity to have a more specific rule rendered null (it would also mean that references without visual/textual correlation but confirmed by the developer would be ruled out, another obvious absurdity).
The Golden Rule of legislative interpretation instructs us to read rules in a way that takes out the absurdity. As such, the only way to read the rule is with the most specific rule trumping less specific rules where there is a conflict.
The Behind the Scenes section does not, nor has it ever, needed developer confirmation or citation. Occasionally mistakes are made, but we cannot rely upon asking a developer for every obvious reference - they are very busy people and do not exist at our beck and call.
Do we need to refence this?
Yes and no.
We do not need developer confirmation. If we have it, through the bibles or a statement, great, use it.
In the recent case that brought this to light we have a character (Vice President Bird), who is a parody of former Vice President Dan Quayle. A user, who seems to be unfamiliar with Quayle's gaffes didn't see the link between the two.
We can however, even without developer confirmation meet both standards. We are drawing a link between a character statement/mannerism and real world behaviour, and we can reference that.
For example, when we say that Vice President Bird is a parody of Quayle, we can point to his dialogue files (eg - his lines about how to spell Potato) and video clips/news reports of him making the relevant gaffe (telling a child it should be spelt potatoe). (Just for clarity this is not the only link between the two).
In this case, we are applying a level of analysis, but still showing the proof of the working for anyone to confirm/challenge it later.