Jump to content

Talk:The Doctor/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ten's persona

Thus far, the Tenth Doctor is lighter and more easygoing than his predecessor, both flippant and energetic, but still quick to anger when he perceives an injustice. He is also more gregarious, being friendlier with Rose's friends and family than his predecessor.

I'm suprised we haven't mentioned the Tenth Doctor's "no second chances/I used to have so much mercy" attitude. It seems to me that the Tenth Doctor is a lot less forgiving that his Earlier incarnations, the Ninth included. --GracieLizzie 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree: there is a hardness to his character. Another reference is his actions in the Runaway Bride when Donna had to shout at him to stop (and recommended that he find a companion because 'sometimes you need someone to stop you.') Gwinva 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Sue?

This is not a criticism, but would it be fair that the Doctor is one of the few examples of a good Mary Sue, or mary sue style character? I'm thinking, impossibly smarter and better educated than everyone, alien birth, access to advanced technology, everyone likes him, except his enemies who get roundly defeated or humiliated... ANTIcarrot 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I see him more of the "Wise old man" character, but as a main character, than a Mary Sue myself. --GracieLizzie 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
He's also a wizard character -- sonic screwdriver=magic wand, etc. DonQuixote 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is just personal opinion but I see Mary Sue's as also being a bit of an author self-insert. Heinlein did this a lot, the grumpy old wise man in his stories were obviously him. This sort of egregious situation is bad enough in a story with characters an author created himself but it's even more ridiculous in fan-fiction. "Hey, here's this brand new character who can boss around the established heavy hitters and still woo the girls." It's worse when you're talking about something like a TV show or comic book where multiple writers will be involved. A new writer will bring in his new character and egotistically try to make it the center of attention. --Gmuir 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Master admiring the Doctor

Oops, I just realised that I'm mixing-up my lines. That's what I get for copyediting away from my DVD/video collection. Sorry about that.

However, then I the thought occurred to me that the line as-is, "A cosmos without the Doctor scarcely bears thinking about," is a bit ambiguous and any reading of the line is inference (is he in admiration or is he fantasising?). I think that, before adding that the Master admires the Doctor, we should find a better, less ambiguous, line to quote. DonQuixote 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

I am considering nominating this article for Featured Article status, as the content is excellent and concise. What does everyone else think? Smomo 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the information is useful, relevant, well-written and up to date. It also doesn't lean heavily towards one doctor but concerns them all. Just one mistake I can see - the "Spoiler Warning" doesn't end - but I'm not sure where the end should go. JameiLei 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We'll need a lot more citations before this can be promoted to FA. I don't know if it would even pass GA these days with the current level of citations. (Wikipedia as a whole has become much more stringent about requiring citations for FAs and GAs than it was back in the days when Doctor Who passed FA.) I won't oppose an FA nomination, but I think that it might be better to work on improving the citations on the current Doctor Who FAs than to nominate this article right now. To see how much work is required, take a look at the Featured Article Review for Dalek; this shows how much work was required to get Dalek up to the current FA standards. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

I think someone should put in somewhere that not much is known about his early life save for the fact it was lonely and that his favourite bedtime story was a book entitled Moxx In Socks. I got that bit from Nightmare of Black Island.

The Doctor's Alias

Alias, name, title, whatever you call it. The article asks the question, why is he called "the doctor"? My theory is that he's called that because you could suggest that he is a "doctor of time". Seeing that there can be doctors of almost any profession (not just medical), the doctor could be a a time doctor. But why? I would think this because basically the role of the doctor is to go through time and space resolving problems, just like a doctor. Remember the Reapers (Father's Day)?

Maybe because the doctor wonders all over the place, healing time, fixing the earth's problems, maybe he could be reffered to as a "doctor of time". Does anyone else agree with this theory? --rjcuk 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all original research and cannot be included. Alientraveller 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then, Alientraveller. So what if I put this information on my blog and then linked to it as a source on the article? Is that legal? I can see what you mean, though. I mean, look at Meaning of life - original research is written all over it! Thanks if you can reply :D --rjcuk 10:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:Verifiability (and the other 'three core rules' pages), I found out that blogs are not good sources. As this is original research, and is only a theory and opinion, it has no home on Wikipedia. None at all. Oh well... Thank you very much for pointing this out, Alientraveller! I've learnt a lot about Wikipedia's rules now, thanks to your direction! --rjcuk 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It has to be published by a reliable source ie RTD or the BBC, it can't be sourced on your own theory(s) or rumors that you have heard weather they are true or not.--Wiggstar69 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I have found a reliable resource - two actually - one of them being from Tom Baker himself! (after doing a quick Google Search). I'm just gonna check Wiki's article now to make sure nobody else has already done it and if not then I will add this important detail! --rjcuk 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

- in thhe last episode it states the doctor chose the name the doctor, this should be included

After "Sound of Drums" can it really be said that "why the Doctor uses the title of "The Doctor" has never been explained on screen"? I mean, yes, you can argue that it's not the doctor himmself who said it, but from the dialouge between the Doctor and the Master, it seems that this was the actial reason, (or at least one of them). Necnec 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The moment we have to start coding information in the form "it seems that", we're presenting opinion as fact. Besides, it's not clear that the Master's asserting that's a reason for the Doctor's choice of title. Mark H Wilkinson 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
So, even if the Doctor wil say it himself, we cannot add it, as it's not clear whther the Doctor said the truth, or lied for some obscure reason? If RTD will say it in the commentary, it will not be good enough, as maybe he is only stating his opinion and previous producers have thought otherwise? Necnec 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If Russell T Davies were to say in an interview on GMTV that the Doctor chose his name because he liked the letter "D", we write that Russell T Davies, in an interview on GMTV, said that the Doctor chose his name because he liked the letter "D" (provided we reference it properly). Were he laughing while he said it, we can add that he was laughing while he said it. And so on. Intepreting things on people's behalf risks violating WP:NPOV, which is something to be avoided. Mark H Wilkinson 18:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Two points: 1. Every encycplopedia runs the risk of being obsoleted. It does not mean that every fact you write, based on some research, should be avoided. If you want to be exact, you'd say "according to the latest researches...". If you want to be practical, you'll write the fact as is, and count on the intelegence of the readers, who know that science is progressing all the time, and our knowledge may be updated. 2. Even if you doubt the validity of the Master's explanation (which is your POV, of course), the sentence became false after the TSoD episode. The reason of the doctor using this title was explained on screen. One can add the doubts regarding the validity of it, but I think it should be changed.Necnec 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor's Body Temperature

It's stated in the background section that the Doctor's internal body temperature is 15–16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit). Do we have a canonical source for this (ie. a mention in an episode) or is it from spin-off material? It occurs to me that on two occasions we've seen him in hospital (Spearhead_from_Space, Smith and Jones) and there's been no mention of anything abormal in connection with this. Digby Tantrum 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Offspring

Although there is much discussion of the Dr.'s sexuality within the context of the series - there is no discussion of the fact that Susan is his granddaughter, hence the Doctor must have sired a child at some point in his past. However, the Susan Foreman article indicates this quesstion was never addressed in the series. Anyone know anything to the contrary? Ellsworth 16:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I came up with the crazy idea that the Doctor might be his own son. He states he is 'half-human on his mother's side'. Who would his father be? Would this be an acceptable theory? Aliastris 15:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be Original research and unsuitable for inclusion in an article. --Fredrick day 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the whole "asexual" thing is misunderstood. Given the portrayal of the Doctor, Time Lords are far smarter than humans, far far smarter. If you think there are difficulties with a 30-year old adult having a relationship with a 20-year old, just imagine the vast difference between a 20-something and a 900-something. Since humans look like Gallifreyans, of course there could be a physical attraction. But assuming the Doctor is past the "nail anything that moves" phase most teenagers of any species should go through, he'd likely be beyond interest in a "friend with benefits." To put it in human terms, how many people would be interested in sleeping with a beautiful 20-year old woman whose mental development is the same as a five-year old? Sure, some would be interested but to me that would seem an awful lot like pedophilia.
But that's all just a canon rationalization, just like "the TARDIS being hard to fly" is the canon rationalization for why the Doctor winds up in crazy places. In reality, we know that's just because it makes for fun stories to write. The real world reason for "no hanky panky in the TARDIS" is that this isn't what the show is about. Doctor Who is about goofy fun scifi for the whole family. It has to be safe enough for parents to show the kids and well-written enough to keep the older set engaged. Who does this brilliantly. Sure, raunchy humor can be done well. I've seen excellent examples of shows aimed explicitly at being erotic, others that try to work through the emotional turmoil of realistic relationships, etc. But that's not Who. Imagine if someone took Sex and the City and threw space aliens into it. Actually, seeing the fan reaction to that would be hysterical but it would still be rude. :) --Gmuir 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The quality of mercy (sorry, couldn't resist)

I've reverted this addition:

He also says "I'm so old now. I used to have so much mercy. You get one warning. That was it." to Mr. Finch in the episode School reunion suggesting that maybe before the timewars he would give mercy but the lack of mercy shown during those times has made him cold to it.

Aside from punctuation, capitalization and spacing problems, it strikes me as unsourced speculation, and quite a leap between premise and conclusion. We don't really know much about a "lack of mercy" in the Time War, and the Doctor has exhibited ruthless behavior previous to that event, notably in Remembrance of the Daleks. If anything, the School Reunion quote seems to attribute the Doctor's lack of mercy (beyond the single warning he gives on numerous occasions from Rose onward) to age and experience. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

I think that the Doctor should be added to "Category:Fictional vegetarians," having as he did a no-meat policy from the Sixth Doctor's era up until Boom Town. 71.168.203.107 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who?

Would it be too much to list every instance it has been asked "Doctor who?" as a question in the series and related appearences? I know the Dimensions in Time-Children In Need special was one of them, but in that instance it was the asking "Doctor who?" in regard to being given a name of someone who wasn't "The Doctor", rather than the usual other-way-around. 67.5.147.67 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather trivial. We don't list how many times companions trip over or scream (as far as I know). Mark H Wilkinson 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Or how many times Sarah Jane 'thought you were dead'! --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Romance section

If it mentions almost-getting-married in Loups Garoux then surely it should cover Adventuress of Henrietta Street too? I'd add a bit myself but it's too long since I read it for me to get the details right. --86.128.137.136 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Species

Ehem isn't the Doctor a Time Lord not a hybrid? Of late at least he continually states "Time Lord" as his species.

They've never definitively stated what in the world was up with the "half-human" bit from the Fox TV movie. It's discussed more in the 'Continuity Curiosities' section, but regardless as far as anybody knows the Doctor is currently not a hybrid at all.--MythicFox 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
that's not true, the TVM is cannon. The BBC book Doctor Who: The legend continues in which RTD contributed states that the Doctor is half human and links it in to the big secret of the 7th Doctor era, the plot of the TVM is based around him being half human, two characters state that he is half human, he has human eyes and he states that he has a human mother. All this has not been officially retconned on screen and RTD has even gone on record as saying that the Doctor in the new show is the same Doctor that battled the master in San Francisco. I think it is pretty clear that he is half human and should be recorded as such in the info box. This isn't the place for fan sensibilities and we have a duty to ensure that the article is correct.163.156.240.17 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Lord/Human Hybrid

Just to let people know, it's been unilaterally decided the Doctor's race should be stated as Time Lord/Human Hybrid. Mark H Wilkinson 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Except the Doctor never mentions being human, and he's never been identified as being anything other than a Time Lord in the new series despite repeatedly having his race identified by third party aliens. The whole point of the show is that the Doctor isn't human, I'm glad the producers of the new series understand that. 24.167.31.93 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As posted above but relevant to here; that's not true, the TVM is cannon. The BBC book Doctor Who: The legend continues in which RTD contributed states that the Doctor is half human and links it in to the big secret of the 7th Doctor era, the plot of the TVM is based around him being half human, two characters state that he is half human, he has human eyes and he states that he has a human mother. All this has not been officially retconned on screen and RTD has even gone on record as saying that the Doctor in the new show is the same Doctor that battled the master in San Francisco. I think it is pretty clear that he is half human and should be recorded as such in the info box. This isn't the place for fan sensibilities and we have a duty to ensure that the article is correct.163.156.240.17 12:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that you're asserting an unsourcable principle of canonicity to overturn the work of other editors (contra WP:OR), leaving the article less neutral in tone (WP:NPOV: we don't thrust an opinion on people); moreover, the numbers appear to be against you (see WP:CON). You need to understand that stating the Doctor's race as Time Lord doesn't set in stone that he is, or isn't, part human; it deliberately avoids the question by choosing a term the character uses both in the TVM and elsewhere (again, see WP:NPOV). The article, as it stands, explicitly discusses this detail of continuity, and people are left to make up their own mind on an issue that can't presently be decided by citation.
See? This is done from an encyclopedic point of view, specifically with Wikipedia policy in mind. Mark H Wilkinson 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is “sourcable” from the BBC Book “Doctor Who: The Legend Continues”, you are trying to impose your personal distaste for this fact about the character. The article isn't less neutral if this is included; if anything it's more neutral with it in. The whole plot of the TVM revolves around him being Half Human, he has a human mother, he has his EOH set to only work with human eyes which he possesses. Come on guys, I think you should stand back because what you are arguing makes no sense.163.156.240.17 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, what is sourcable from that book is that that particular book describes the Doctor as half-human; and that's already covered in the article. What isn't sourcable is the principle that the TVM dictates that Doctor is incontrovertibly half-human in every single episode of the series, purely because the new series hasn't unambiguously stated he's 100% inhuman. Which is your opinion, and that's fine, but it's wrong to force this upon the readers of a reference work; WP:OR applies. Mark H Wilkinson 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, this doesn't make any sense. The TVM is considered to be part of the continuing narrative of the show by the content owners, the BBC.This has been confirmed on screen in the in new show and by the head writer in magazine interviews and on Doctor Who Confidential and it has also been confirmed by the BBC Book Doctor Who: The Legend Continues. The TVM makes it impossible for him not to be half human. He has a human mother. How do you explain that away?
I'm sorry but no, if this article is to be correct it needs to have it recorded that he is a Time Lord/Human Hybrid. 163.156.240.17 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It is appropriate to acknowledge what has been stated in the various shows and spin-off material, but not appropriate to draw a conclusion based on one story and ignore the many times the claim has been explicitly denied elsewhere. (And I keep thinking of the line in "The Runaway Bride", in which Donna asks, re being human, "Is that optional?" and the Doctor says, "Well, it is for me.") The Infobox should acknowlege both possibilities. Please let it go at that. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that line doesn't contradict what was revealed in the TVM. I'm sorry but the TVM is part of the accepted narrative of the show and this is further strengthened by the official BBC Book Doctor Who: The Legend Continues. It feels like some people are letting their personal distaste for the idea cloud their judgement on this issue. He has a human mother.163.156.240.17 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Speculating about people's motives in this manner doesn't help your case. Mark H Wilkinson 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
From where I am standing it looks like he is providing attributable, verifiable sources and you are providing what exactly? Movellon 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An understanding of Wikipedia policies WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Mark H Wilkinson 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is being violated with these policies? Movellon 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) As I see this, the problem comes down to possible contradictions in continuity - something that will inevitably happen in a franchise this large - and how we should handle them and decide which is "correct." Before going on, let me lay down some facts, and see if we can at least agree on these as describing the situation:

  1. Prior to the TVM, there was no mention that the Doctor might have been half-human. He was always stated to simply be a Time Lord (after the race was introduced, of course).
  2. In the TVM, it was revealed that the Doctor was actually half-human, and this was a major plot point.
  3. Fan theories have arisen to attempt to explain this contradiction, including one theory that only the body of the Eighth Doctor was half-human.
  4. If the half-human nature was intended to apply to all the doctors, this constitutes a retcon.
  5. The TVM is canon.
  6. Since the TVM, there have been no explicit references to him either being half-human or completely a Time Lord. There have been events which could be said to imply either possibility, but nothing definite. Thus, the events of the TVM have been neither confirmed nor denied.

I can see #5 being a bit of a point of debate, but it seems that the consensus on Wikipedia is to treat it as canon.

One other note I'd like to make: Just because something is a compromise doesn't mean it's the correct choice. If there are competing camps on whether 2 + 2 is 4 or 6, you don't split the difference and say it's 5. However, compromises can be useful in resolving edit wars if the facts are unclear. If that turns out to be the case here, then a compromise may be reasonable. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the issue, Infophile. Responding to an earlier point: just off the top of my head I remember the Third Doctor explicitly saying "But then I'm not human," the Ninth and Tenth referring on multiple occasions to being alien or a Time Lord (with no qualifications), and even in the tv movie, the Seventh Doctor stating on the operating table that he's not human. But the issue isn't really whether the Doctor was telling the truth in the tv movie, or even whether he is half human now. It is whether a conclusion should be drawn in the infobox with respect to a much-disputed point of continuity for which there is evidence on both sides, no explicit on-screen answer in the current series, and no word to date from the current production team on which is to be considered correct. I submit that from the whole body of work, he may or may not be half human at all times (except during his sojourn as the human John Smith), and that both possibilities should be acknowledged. I have mentioned the controversy on the Project discussion page, in the hope that a wider discussion can help resolve this. Infophile's summary seems to be a good starting point. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
On point 1 Hartnell described himself as human. So this contradiction can be explained by him being both human and Time Lord. On point 2 The Doctor states that he has a human mother so this obviously applies to all previous incarnations. On Point 5 The BBC have officially recognised the TVM in the BBC published book Doctor Who: The Legend Continues and the current show runner has also been on record as saying that he considers the current Doctor to be the same Doctor that battled the Master in the TVM.Movellon 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Being half human would still make you not human. Hartnel said that he was Human and there was allusions to the Doctor being more than a regular Time Lord during the 7th Doctor's era. so the TVM revaluation actually fits this better by allowing him to be both Human, Time Lord and neither at the same time. Movellon 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And again, you're building an original theory (WP:OR). Mark H Wilkinson 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
On point 1, you're producing an original theory (WP:OR). On point 2, you're asserting, without an indisputable source, that this constitutes a retcon which applies to everything that's come before it (and after it; again, WP:OR). On point 5, you're just wrong: the BBC has never taken a stance on what constitutes official universe continuity; it's always been left to production teams to make up their own, and Russell T Davies has never stated the Doctor he writes for is half human. Mark H Wilkinson 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way but have you actually watched Doctor Who? All that has been stated on point 1 and point 2 is on screen and with point 5 RTD is on record on Doctor Who confidential saying that the Doctor is the same doctor as the one in the TVM. Tellingly he has never said that he isn't or isn't half human. The BBC have also produced a book, published by BBC Books which details all the events of the TVM. Do you deny that the Doctor said that he has a human mother? Do you deny that Doctor Number 1 said that he is human?Movellon 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The point you're missing is that it's your interpretation of these on screen events which constitutes building an original theory. Indeed, RTD has never claimed the Doctor is or isn't half human, but that rather backs the compromise that's been on offer several times now. Moreover, the book you keep banging on about is neither here nor there. There have been many officially licensed Doctor Who books over the years; none of them constitute the BBC taking an official line on any aspect of continuity. Mark H Wilkinson 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) First of all, I'll admit that I haven't watched the earliest episodes, so I can't confirm off-hand whether the First Doctor said he was human (if you could point to the specific episode, this would be helpful). However, I will note that there have been retcons of the days of the First Doctor, such as him getting a second heart, regenerations later not changing clothes, etc. It's possible they'd intended to retcon him into completely a Time Lord (or never realized he'd said he was human).
Secondly, as evidence of the TVM being canon, have you seen the episode School Reunion? In it, the Doctor meets up with Sarah Jane Smith again, and a count of the regenerations between when they last met is given: Six, which requires the inclusion of the Eight Doctor.
On the subject of referring to himself, it's kind of a gray area of what's acceptable. If someone is half-Time Lord and half-Human, I could plausibly see them as referring to themselves as a Time Lord, as a Human, or as both (depending on context, much as people of dual-citizenship would assert either or both). He might also refer to himself as "not human" or "not a Time Lord" in the sense of not being fully a human or a Time Lord. Not much he's said could really falsify the premise that he's a hybrid, though it is possible if he ever were to say he's completely, 100% a Time Lord. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This book that is produced by BBC books as a guide to the show which has contributions in it from RTD is as near to the official line as you are going to get. It's becoming clear that actually what the issue here is that you (Mark H Wilkinson) do not like the concept. Well that is irrelevant, the Doctor has stated during the run that he is Human, Time Lord, Not Human and being "half human" covers all that. So it's not a retcon or original theory, it's officially recognised (by the BBC in the RTD contributed BBC book produced by the BBC) pulling together of the loose contradictions in the officially recognised TVM. Here is a news report from the BBC website that confirms that Paul McGann does count http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2004/01/06/8722.shtmlMovellon 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words we don't have an official line on the half-human concept. (And you clearly have no idea of what concepts I do or don't like.) Mark H Wilkinson 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Infophile, I'm not trying to argue that the Doctor definitely isn't half human or that there wasn't an eighth Doctor who fought the Master. I'm arguing for a neutral stance on this. The Doctor has consistently claimed to be a Time Lord ever since the Time Lords were first introduced, with one exception during Tom Baker's time (cf. Pyramids of Mars); the eighth Doctor is included in this, so it can't be viewed as a controversial point as far as the info box is concerned. The half human aspect of his heritage does present those kind of difficulties, as we're in the region of clashing interpretations of what the vast patchwork quilt of continuity actually implies; there is nothing, apart from personal theories of how it fits together, to compel us to take a stance either way. Which is why I'd be happy with the "Time Lord (but see below)" approach; it satifies a neutral point of view.
As for your point about School Reunion, this presents its own difficulties from an in-universe perspective. Prior to that, from the POV of Sarah Jane's chronology, she encounters Doctors one, two, three and five on screen in The Five Doctors, shaking hands with the last, although it's not clear she fully grasps who's who in that mix apart from Pertwee's Doctor, who indicates he'll give some kind of explanation (off screen; she leaves with him). So, if we're to take it that there have been exactly six regenerations between SJS's last meeting with a Doctor, it could be taken to mean that Tennant plays the 11th Doctor. Or the 9th. Or the 10th. Again, this is one for the fans to bat around on forums, and probably shouldn't be something we take a stance on. Mark H Wilkinson 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Doctor's last meeting with Sarah Jane was when he was the Fifth Doctor. Sarah Jane's last meeting with the Doctor was when he was the Fourth Doctor. So it's all a bit confused. At any rate, the question is not whether the 8th Doctor is canonical (presumably he is - John Smith drew a picture of Paul McGann alongside his pictures of the other Doctors in Human Nature, for instance), but whether one particular piece of information found in the 1996 TV movie is canonical. john k 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That the TVM is considered on a general level canon does not mean that every single point in it is automatically canon, especially a particular extremely controversial point which is implicitly contradicted by more or less every moment in both the preceding and the succeeding TV series that deals with the point. In the TV movie, he is clearly intended to be half-human by the writers. Throughout pretty much every other televised portrayal of the Doctor, it seems fairly clear the writers do not envision him to be half-human. The idea of him as half-human is an abortive retcon, imagined for a revival of the TV series which never actually happened, and which was not picked up by the creators of the new series, who returned to the older conception of the Doctor as a Time Lord. john k 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

what was intended isn't important only the narrative of the story. It doesn't contradict anything that came previously and actually makes more sense. The half human revelation in the TVM has yet to be retconed and wont be until it is stated that the Doctor doesn't have a human mother. Your person distaste for it isn't relevant.Movellon 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It has yet to be confirmed, and while it has not been directly contradicted, virtually everything in the new series implicitly states that the whole thing has been repudiated (just as virtually everything in the old series, except maybe some of the earliest stuff, is not really reconcilable with the idea of the Doctor as half-human, either). They've done everything short of directly "state that the Doctor doesn't have a human mother" to suggest that they're pretending that little bit of the TV movie never happened. For something to be in the infobox, it ought to be well-established and uncontroversial. The idea of the Doctor as half-human is neither. It's an oddity, made up and abandoned in the TV movie. BTW, the article on the Doctor says that Davies and Collinson have stated that they don't think the Doctor is half-human. A reference for this would be nice, but it's entirely plausible, given the way the new series has entirely ignored virtually the whole continuity of the TV movie, and particularly this issue. The basic point, though, is that continuity is not absolute. Things are more or less well-established, and this particular thing is very poorly established. john k 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it wasn't picked up by the production team there has been nothing that I can see that contradicts what was revealed in the TVM.Movellon 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty damned obvious they're ignoring it. I'm not sure what you would want that would explicitly contradict it. The Doctor repeatedly states that he's an alien, that he's not human, and so forth, in the new series. He is obsessed with being the last of his kind, with being alone in the universe, and so forth. The general way he relates to humanity is quite clearly that of an outsider. There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that the writers consider the Doctor to be half-human, and tons and tons of material to suggest they don't consider him to be such. There's been nothing explicit, but pretty much every implicit approach to the subject in the new series has screamed "we're ignoring the TV movie saying he was half-human on his mother's side." john k 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think John Kenny stated my thoughts quite well. It's not hard to see that the writers of the new series have gone out of their way on numerous occasions to avoid any mention of the Doctor as half-human. Thinking that these new writers will go back and pick up a half-finished plot revelation from 10 or 20 years ago written by people not part of the show now is silly. Spock is a scientific genius/alien from the future too and he mentions being half human every time his race comes up. Why? Because it's true. It doesn't matter what goes into the Wikipedia article as long as the writer's don't want it to be true it won't. The Doctor has said he's contradicting ages many times because writers just wrote what they felt like at the time. You can bet when he reaches his 14th incarnation that the writers will write their way out of that issue too. 24.167.31.93 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
More likely, they'll entirely ignore that they ever set limits on the number of regenerations. They've more or less already done it with the Master in the most recent episode. john k 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Right this is all very basic. You can be Alien and Half Human. You can be "not human" and half human at the same time. How? Because being half human would make you not human. The Doctor calls himself Time Lord because technically he is, he was raised a Time Lord and has Time Lord lineage, he also has Human Lineage and the 1st Doctor described himself as Human. He has a human Mother. He is half human. Movellon 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't know any such thing. The Doctor has repeatedly discussed his origins without saying anything about being half-human, both before and after the TV movie. I don't disagree that they haven't explicitly contradicted the TV movie version, but there is such a thing as subtext, and all the subtext pretty obviously goes towards the point that they're largely ignoring the TV movie's continuity. There have been numerous times when the writers could easily have had the Doctor say that he was half-human if they wanted to. They have not done so. Repeatedly. And being "half human" most certainly does mean that it is, at the very least, misleading to call yourself "not human". john k 22:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't know that they are ignoring it. Case in point; Doctor: That's impossible, they are all gone. Jack: Not if he was human. It comes down to you not liking it. You are trying to inflict your point of view on the article. Movellon 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for half human, all I can see on the Full Time Lord side is lots of WP:POV. The half human side has provided lots of verifiable facts and references. 90.192.2.3 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to this. He has(had?) a human mother. Until that is officially retconed there can be no other logical conclusion to draw other than he is half human. Point me to the reference or statement that was given on screen that retcons that and I'll concede. As it is I have the weight of the plot of the TVM, the two independent references by characters to him being half human in the TVM, the Doctor saying he has a human mother. The 1st Doctor stating that he is human, the 7th Doctor being alluded to being more than an average Time Lord. The references, The BBC published BBC book that is a companion to the show that states that the Doctor is Half Human, RTD saying that the current Doctor is the same Doctor that battled the master in San Francisco, the big picture of Paul McGann in "Human Nature." Let's not forget that it actually helps to draw the previously contradictory statements about the Doctor lineage together. What have you got? Movellon 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We've got that you're advancing a synthesis of certain references in a way that builds a particular case which you favour; we've have that you've offered no evidence to support the principle that, unless a particular item of continuity is inarguably contradicted by the current series, then it's somehow "true" and written in stone; and so we have that all you're really offering is original research. (Oh, and I'd question that Hartnell's Doctor ever claimed to be human.)
The compromise is still on the table. Mark H Wilkinson 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that he lied to about being half-human, much as the Tenth Doctor has lied about being a member of Hermits United, working as a postman, etc. Bottom line is that there is no consensus that it is a solid and incontrovertible fact. I would also suggest the real possibility that this question could be settled over the next few weeks. If the Master still believes, based on his observation of the Eye, that the Doctor is half human, he might taunt the Doctor about not really being "the Last of the Time Lords", but a half breed - which would give the Doctor an opportunity to admit it, deny it, explain it, etc. Might happen, might not, but since the Master is a key figure in this bit of continuity it's not unreasonable to think the question could come up, especially if RTD intends to deal with the movie's continuity in general. --Karen | Talk | contribs 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets lay this out:

  1. Doctor 1 originally states that he is human and from the future.
  2. Subsequently the Doctor says that he is a Time lord, not human or Alien
  3. The 7th Doctors tenure is full of reference to him being more than an average Time Lord and that he has a secret.
  4. The TVM is accepted as being part of the continuing narrative of Doctor Who (Human Nature/Family of Blood , The Doctor Who BBC Website, Doctor Who: The legend continues, RTD interview on Doctor Who confidential and DWM)
  5. The Master discovers that the Doctor is Half-human
  6. The Doctor reveals he is half human
  7. The EOH is only set to work with human eyes, which the half human Doctor has
  8. The Doctor reveals that he has a human mother
  9. The Doctor has kept being half human a secret for much of his on screen time.
  10. The Doctor was raised on Gallifrey and went to the Time Lord Acadamy
  11. Being half human will mean that he can be both Time Lord and Human.
  12. Being Half human will mean that he isn't human in the strictest terms
  13. Being Half human and raised on Gallifrey would still make you Alien
  14. The Doctor has a fondness for Earth which other Time Lords are shown not to have, this explains it
  15. The Doctor has difficulties regenerating which other time lords are shown not to have (Romana)
  16. There is nothing that has occurred on screen that has been shown to directly contradict the above

All of the above can be reference on screen or on BBC published materials. It does not represent original research. I submit that interpretations that suggest that the Doctor or Master was lying or that he isn't half human contradict the official narrative of the show as stressed by the BBC through the on screen presentation, BBC books or the official website can be considered be WP:OR. I don't believe that a compromise is the way to go because clearly the compromise is wrong and the Doctor is clearly Half human. I have yet to see a proper constructed argument that refutes the above points. I have seem a lot of hiding behind rules that actually don't fit this. Come on you keep banging on about how much you are sure that he isn't half human, prove it because you are making a very poor job of arguing your corner 90.195.154.80 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll tackle your points one by one:
  1. The first Doctor never stated he is human.
  2. The Doctor has said he's alien a number of times, yes.
  3. The 7th Doctor's "secret" was part of what's commonly known as the Cartmel_Masterplan. It has no connection to the TVM.
  4. The Brain of Morbius is accepted as part of continuing continuity. Not all of its continuity contributes to later continuity.
  5. The plot of the TVM is not being questioned.
  6. The plot of the TVM is not being questioned.
  7. The plot of the TVM is not being questioned.
  8. The plot of the TVM is not being questioned.
  9. This synthesis constitutes original research.
  10. Ok.
  11. Ok, if he's half human.
  12. Ok, if he's half human.
  13. This is disputable. Advancing one case over another contradicts WP:NPOV.
  14. The Doctor is not unique in being a Time Lord fond of Earth (cf. Planet of the Spiders) and you're merely speculating about his reasons for being so (it's not sourcable).
  15. The Doctor has evidenced difficult regenerations. This does not mean he is unique in this.
  16. There's nothing in the series before or after the TVM to inarguably support that the Doctor is half human. Which further supports our taking a neutral stance on this.
In closing, you're still stuck with the difficulty that you're trying to establish one synthesis of evidence over another, and this constitutes original research. We should remain neutral on this point.Mark H Wilkinson 09:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Right
  1. Yes he did and if you don't know this then I really don't know why you are commenting on this topic.
  2. Good we have agreement..
  3. Yes it may well have been, however the show was put on hiatus until that could have been realised on screen, the TVM took this and built upon this, so you see the half human (although not intended by Cartmel) can be seen as the very secret the Doctor was hiding and make perfect narrative sense. What was intended doesn't really matter, what matters is the narrative of this work of fiction.
  4. That's right but where continuity conflicts occur the latest version is the one we should accept,. otherwise we would still be calling the Doctor Human. This point you make still doesn't address the point that the current production team and the BBC have all been explicit that the TVM is part of the continuing narrative of the show. You are failing to argue your point on this. It is pretty hard to accept that the TVM occurred without the Doctor being half human.
  5. Good
  6. Good
  7. Good
  8. Good
  9. OK granted, it's just that we haven't heard the Doctor state that he is half human on screen up until the TVM.
  10. Good
  11. Well he is, you can't accept that the TVM happened as part of the narative of the show without accepting that he is half human and this is where we come to the point at hand. You don't accept it because you don't like it. The BBC have stated as pointed out that it DID happen and it IS part of the coninuing narative of the show, if you accept that you have accept that the Doctor is half human seeing as it is an essential and integrated and central to the plot of the TVM. Are you now saying that the TVM didn't happen because that is the only way you can discount the half human with a human mother point?
  12. Well he is, you can't accept that the TVM happened as part of the narative of the show without accepting that he is half human and this is where we come to the point at hand. You don't accept it because you don't like it. The BBC have stated as pointed out that it DID happen and it IS part of the coninuing narative of the show, if you accept that you have accept that the Doctor is half human seeing as it is an essential and integrated and central to the plot of the TVM. Are you now saying that the TVM didn't happen because that is the only way you can discount the half human with a human mother point?
  13. Well, if you want we can look at the dictionary word of Alien and deconstruct that, believe me I have done it many many times.
  14. I'm not suggesting that it should be included in the article, I listed that because I am trying to demonstrate how the Half Human revelation adds to the understanding of the show and the Doctor. I also sure that if I really wanted to I could find you plenty of source to that effect.
  15. There is an onscreen consistency with the Doctor experiencing difficulty in regenerations that are not consistent with other Time Lords and we have yet to see other Time Lord experience the same level of difficulty that the Doctor experiences. The ones we have seen from other Time Lords appear to be quite smooth.
  16. There is nothing that contradicts either as you agree if you accept that the TVM is part of the continuing narrative.
So there we are I am still waiting for the main points to be argued. It seems clear that the only way you can discount the half human argument is if you deny the TVM as part of the continuing narrative and you can't because the BBC is on record as saying that it does count. 90.195.154.80 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The central point to all this is that you're advancing your own interpretation of what constitutes canonicity and how it applies to other episodes: you've yet to justify that the Doctor currently, or prior to the TVM, need be seen as half human. WP:OR and WP:NPOV still apply.
And you certainly haven't backed up your assertion that Hartnell's Doctor ever claimed to be human. So, you at least ought to front up a reference for that one. Mark H Wilkinson 11:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The 'half-human' debate is a significant one, which deserves its own section in the body of the article (as currently). To maintain NPOV, this should not reach conclusions but present the references and evidence for both sides of the debate (inluding the 1st Dr ref mentioned above). Remember, it is not the place of Wikipedia to reach a conclusion in the debate, but present the debate itself (since it should be writing from an out-of-universe perspective). The infobox is not the place to make OR claims, or for one person to choose one side (ie. which references to use and which to ignore). When asked his race, the Doctor calls himself 'Time Lord'. The other characters call him a 'Time Lord'. The BBC refer to him as a 'Time Lord' (ref. Doctor Who Files: The Doctor, and Doctor Who Annual 2006 if you want a couple of examples). Such a statement neither confirms nor denies he might at one time or always contain some human blood/DNA/inheritance, just as anyone might describe themselves as 'British' but still have Polish, American, Jamaican and Samoan ancestors. Call him a Time Lord, which is undeniable, and is how he is usually referred to, but add a link to the controversy. Remember: Wikipedia presents the debate, but should not be reaching a conclusion on such a contentious matter. Gwinva 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like the logic of Teach the Controversy to me. A section of the public finding a fact unpalatable is no reason to not present it as a fact, even if they come up with ways to rationalize it away. Remember, just because there's debate doesn't mean compromise is the best solution (though I'd prefer leaving the article in a compromise while debating on the talk page to constant edit warring).
I have to say though, it actually sounds to me like those claiming he needn't be characterized as half-human are the ones engaging in Original Research. To say he's half-human, you just have to point to the TVM (which explicitly states it numerous times) and to evidence that the TVM is canon. This is not OR, this is just stating what the canonical sources say about the matter. Trying to rationalize explanations of why this might be no longer the case (and not pointing to any specific instances where the TVM is contradicted), on the other hand, does sound like OR to me.
Let me ask this, though: Let's say the TVM had instead revealed the Doctor to be the reincarnation of The Other. This would also be controversial, and would go against a lot of what had been said previously (as was the intention of the Masterplan). Further, let's say that after the TVM, this revelation was significantly downplayed and not mentioned at all. In that case, would it be appropriate to factually characterize him as having been the Other? If we add significant fan debate to the subject, with many fans trying to rationalize how this isn't true, should we then back off from claiming this as a fact? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not stating an opinion about the non-human/half-human thing at all, just recognising that many people don't consider the half-human thing to be a 'fact' and can produce any number of references to back them up (just as the 'he must be half-human' contingent can produce sources). Wikipedia shouldn't reach a conclusion, not so much for NPOV issues, but in-universe issues. To say 'The Doctor is a half-human' or 'The Doctor is fully Time Lord' (or any other variation on that theme) is writing as if he really exists. Out of universe style requires 'The television episodes and associated literaure provide conflicting and contridictory evidence about the Doctor's heritage. Some writers have portrayed the Doctor as half-human (eg eg eg), while others seem to downplay or retcon this (eg eg eg).' So that's the controversy section. As for the infobox, I don't believe that is the place to regurgitate the debate. It's a quick reference, and should contain the basic information. 'Time Lord' allows for both possibilities, it's how the character is usually referred to, and it's how the BBC refers to him in similar quick-reference formats (ie. not when presenting the full history/debate). For example, Doctor Who Files: The Doctor by Jacqueline Rayner (official BBC book), p 6 "Doctor Data": Name: No one knows! He's always called just 'the Doctor'. Age: approx 900 years old... Home planet: Gallifrey, now destroyed. Species: Time Lord. Gwinva 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering this further, I think the debate should be discussed in greater detail in the article itself, perhaps a whole section as it is soemthing that is likely to come up again. Instead of arguing over the infobox (which currently has a good compromise statement -let's see how long that lasts!), perhaps people's energies could be directed to drafting a new section about the controversy. In out-of-universe style, with references. Gwinva 14:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Many people also don't consider Evolution to be a "fact," and can produce much research of their own to back themselves up. Yet Wikipedia treats Evolution as a fact in all areas except where it's explicitly addressing the controversy. There's nothing new about taking a stand where it's clear what stand to take. At this point, I'm starting to think that it might be best to leave it at the compromise version in the infobox, as it characterizes both the debate and what the current writers' opinion on it seems to be. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but evolution is a real-world issue. We're dealing with fiction here, where facts are rather fluid, according to the whims of the writers, and contradictions do exist (and there are contradictions to the 'half-human' stance). For all we know, it'll all be retconned, or it'll be explained it was only the 8th Doctor who was half-human, or Time Lord/Human hybrids are infertile, or the Doctor's Time Lord father was actually half-Sycorax. We DO know the writers intend him to be a Time Lord. We DON'T know that any but the writers of the TVM want him to be half-human. Gwinva 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The continuity of a television show cannot be compared with scientific theories about the origins of life on earth. It is not a "fact" that "The Doctor is half-Time Lord and half-human." That's nonsense. There is no Doctor, he's a fictional character, and given that there's been forty years of stories about him, a whole ton of shit has been said about him that doesn't all quite fit together. The only fact here is that "in the Doctor Who TV movie, the Doctor is depicted as being half-human." That's certainly true. Whether that means that we are to view the Doctor as being half-human in other contexts is not a matter of fact, but of interpretation. john k 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Infophile, can you (or anyone else here) supply me a reliable, inarguable, ex-Wikipedia reference for what constitutes canon? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way, as canon is, in fact, a fan construct.) The fact is, trying to argue for the importance of one continuity "truth" over another effectively sets competing fan syntheses against each other, and these can have precious little to do with the intentions of writers/production teams at work during different periods of the show.
If we were really aiming for an encyclopedic approach to discussing the show, then we'd source continuity "facts" according to each episode/book/whatever, without trying to take an authorititive position on anything (except to add sourcable notes on discrepancies). Mark H Wilkinson 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, there is no official word on what is or isn't canon for Doctor Who. All we really have to go on is the word in Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Canon or not.3F, which says to treat the TVM as canon. If that's the part you want to dispute, do it there.
Aside from that note, how about this proposed fact/interpretation: This debate has gone on too long and just isn't worth it. There are arguments to be made for three different ways to present it in the infobox, and none of them is really that big a difference to be worth this much debate. At this point, I think the "compromise" version is best, not because it's a compromise, but because it points out to the reader that there's a debate on it and directs them immediately to the section on it. This then let's them read more and decide for themselves. However, I don't think it's that big a deal to keep arguing about it; we could be spending this time making more meaningful contributions. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree the compromise version is the best option. I did allude to that further up the discussion. Mark H Wilkinson 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed this discussion has been so moderately civil. Perhaps it's because a lot of your are English (I'm guessing). But I'm American and I can't help but ask who personally thinks the impending story arc with the Master will give the slightest hint that the Doctor is half-human. I'll wager it doesn't. On a more important note, my brain has no trouble believing that the character of the Doctor is half-human during the small segment of Doctor Who when the writers made him out to be that way and not human at all at the other times. (It's not possible in real life, but fictional reality is capable of great contradiction and fluidity.) And I think the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.31.93 (talk • contribs)
I agree, largely. I think a lot of this comes down to the difference between in-universe and out-of-universe perspective. We ought to strive to keep in mind in writing this stuff that Who is a TV series that's been written over more than 40 years, and that we can't expect all the continuity to add up to any kind of consistent whole. While it's true that in the TV movie, the Doctor was presented as half-human, it's also true that, otherwise, he's pretty clearly been presented as, well, not half-human. It's not Wikipedia's job to reconcile the discrepancy by fancy footwork about only the 8th Doctor being half human, or, alternately, to insist that he was half-human all along, despite the fact that none of the writers f or the first seven doctors or, apparently, the ninth and tenth, conceived him of him as such. We should merely report the discrepancy and move on. If we're going to have silly info-boxes, they should only contain entirely uncontroversial information, and the idea of the Doctor as half-human is not (while the idea of the Doctor as a "Time Lord" would have to be such - whether or not he's also half-human) john k 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It is quite simple, as the previous people have mentioned, the TVM is considered to be cannon by the BBC and the way the Half Human aspect of the Doctor was introduced makes it impossible to discount and accept the TVM, I have seen a lot nonsense being spouted off by some people quoting NPOV and OR but lets be frank, it isn't a POV issue or is it OR. It is clearly referenced and attributable and verifiable. I think those that don't like the idea step back and remember that this isn't about what people like it's about what is factually correct. As I said you can't dismiss the half human concept and accept the TVM at the same time and as the BBC have explicitly said that the TVM does count and is part of the narrative of the show there is now other conclusion you can come to. The compromise solution is not the right way to go because there is NOTHING to debate, the TVM is cannon, you can't have that and not have the Doctor being half human. It was central to the plot if the Doctor wasn't half human there would be no TVM. The fact that the TVM was the first to state that the Doctor was half human changes nothing and I am disgusted that certain individuals are letting there own POV pervert the function of Wikipedia, Really I am utterly disgusted. Come on guys the BBC, the owners of the franchise have produced news items, books and the production team have all gone on record as saying the TVM counts, the book is explicit about the half human nature of the Doctor, RTD contributed to that very book. I suggest everyone who insists that the Doctor has never stated that he is human goes and listens to The Savages right away 90.195.154.187 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's goes the civility. Oh, and it looks like there's now some edit-warring about the inclusion of the category for fictional hybrids. Great. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the line the Doctor uses to decry the treatment of one of the Savages? Given the context, it's open to interpretation whether the Doctor meant anyone present was actually Homo Sapiens. Mark H Wilkinson 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OH wouldn't that be POV? Funny how you can use it to support your case. It is clear that you don't like the idea and are letting your person feelings get in the way. No, this should be now brought to a close, The TVM is canon, the Doctor is half human with a human mother and this is confirmed by the BBC (references given above). I'm going to update the page again and changes away from Time Lord/Human Hybrid will be considered vandalism.90.195.154.187 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What's to discuss? BBC stated the the TVM is canon in a variety of mediums, the half human thing is central to the plot of the TVM ergo the Doctor is half human. I am puzzled that people are still debating what is an open and shut case. I'm sorry, the ant half human side are the ones forcing POV on the article and the article shouldn't suffer because of it. Take the debate to a fansite because it has no place here.90.195.154.187 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and restored the "under discussion" version so that we can resolve this here. There is no point in tossing around accusations of "vandalism" over this matter - it won't help anyone. --Ckatzchatspy 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I just reiterate that this subject is not worth edit warring over? And no, it's not vandalism on either side, it's an edit war. The information in the infobox isn't Wikipedia's official final word on the debate, it's just a quick reference. If someone cares that much about the subtleties, they can read the section on the controversy - which is why I prefer the version that points to it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, both on the edit war and the infobox. The version linking to the controversy states the undisputed information, that the Doctor is a Time Lord, while indicating that he may also be half-human without saying it is an absolute fact. This would seem to address both sides of the issue. --Ckatzchatspy 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
and so in doing so you have allowed editors to put their POV as overriding the stated, verifiable and referenced stance of the BBC, the owners of this character. So really Wikipedia isn't worth the servers it's hosted on and on this point of principle the criticisms of the whole project are quite clearly demonstrated. Clear, verifiable, NON OR and POV arguments and examples were given for the half human side and what has the other side given? Emotive arguments, POV statements and utterly no attempt to present a clear, verifiable and reasoned argument to the contrary. I am really saddened by this. For the record I hate the half human concept and wish it would be explicitly retconed however it's what is right which matters in this case. If you are going to put the false "compromise" up then please include that he may also be a God and a Human on there as these have also been mentioned over the past 40 years. Movellon 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's more the lack of evidence. There's no emotion involved. Simply that the new Doctor Who program never mentions the Doctor as a Human hybrid despite the numerous times when this should have happened assumming he was. Since the new Doctor Who is presumably the most recent "canon" of Doctor Who it gets preference when it contradicts past canon. There are too many examples of the Doctor being refered to as a Time Lord in the new show to count and none referring to him as half human. No emotion, logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.31.93 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid it's not as simple as IP 90. will have it. Doctor Who contradicts itself all the time. No one doubts the TVM is canon, or that the human element was central to the story, but if that contradicts canon established elsewhere, then all the ideas need to be held in balance, just as other "facts" about the Doctor, such as his age, whether Susan was his granddaughter, whether Time Lords have 13 regenerations (and why the Master isn't affected), how the TARDIS is powered, why the TARDIS didn't pick Jack up in the hub, how the Doctor has two hearts etc etc. These are continuity curiousities, not facts. If you’re going to be dogmatic about one issue, then you’re going to encounter problems throughout Doctor Who. If you’re prepared to consider that the TVM retconned “facts” that were established in earlier years, then you have to accept elements of the TVM will be retconned in the future. Considering the ‘half-human’ element was disliked by so many fans and writers (of the books and new episodes) it’s quite likely it’ll be directly retconned eventually. It certainly has been subtley. The logic that insists it must be true because the TVM states it can be used on every issue, and will result in edit warring on every issue. EG. "The TARDIS is living", "No, it was built"; "The TARDIS is powered by the Eye of Harmony", "No, simpleton, it's powered through the rift"; "Susan invented the word TARDIS", "How could she, since all Time Lords have a TARDIS"; "Guns don't work in the TARDIS", "Course they do"; "The TARDIS has a camouflage unit", "No, it's a chameleon circuit";... and that's barely started TARDIS issues without going on to anything else. Unless something is confirmed and backed up time and again throughtout the continuity of Doctor Who, then it cannot be categorically declared "fact", and you cannot accuse of vandalism those who interpret the matter differently. It's a fictional world. It shouldn't be difficult for us to believe six impossible things before breakfast, even if they're contradictory. That's the fun of it. Gwinva 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the new series hasn't exact;y taken the opportunity to retcon it either, they have had plenty of opportunity to do so. He can be both a Time Lord and Half Human, my step dad is mixed race and he refers to himself as black, he's still half white. You have also slipped up here it is an emotional stance that you are taken that is born out of your dislike for the concept. " Considering the ‘half-human’ element was disliked by so many fans and writers (of the books and new episodes) it’s quite likely it’ll be directly retconned eventually" well when it is change the front sheet because what you are doing now is not fair. You are forcing your POV on the article when it is clear, explicit and verifiable. I offer this for a compromise, why not put in Time Lord (Born to a Human Mother)?Movellon 11:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"Well the new series hasn't exactly taken the opportunity to retcon it either..." - Unless you count the second episode of it, that is, where his race is identified simply as "Time Lord." To explain that away, you'd have to do some rationalization of your own, such as saying the coaxing it took was it having trouble with his hybrid nature. And then I could reply that, if he were a hybrid, why wouldn't it have an easier time identifying the human part of him (a race which was still in existence) than the Time Lord part (a race which almost completely wiped out of history)? The coaxing is just as easily explained by the fact that the Time Lords shouldn't exist any more. Additionally, in that era hybrids were common (see Gridlock, where a cat and human have children), so why wouldn't the scanner pick this up? All in all, this seems like a retcon to me. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtml "The Doctor manages to convince Grace that he is the same man that she thought had died on her operating table, and that he is an alien Time Lord - albeit half-human on his mother's side." Give it up. Not only have they produced the BBC book Doctor Who The Legend continues where its is explicitly mentioned, they have also made online news reports and that clearly state that the TVM counts and that can't count unless you accept the Half Human aspects as presented in it. The have also got an online episode guide that has it clearly referenced. As already stated you can call yourself a Time Lord and be half human. Movellon 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You completely missed my point right there: They may have already retconned it, as early as the second episode of the new series. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No I haven't, this is where the TVM is quite clever. It provides a mechanism for the Doctor to be Time Lord and Half Human. So nothing short of "I am not half human" and "I don't have a human mother" will do. Movellon 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about how the Doctor would describe himself; I'm talking about how a scanner would describe him. This isn't a person who would bother to drop the hybrid part; the scanner simply says "Time Lord." As I also mentioned, it would presumably also recognize hybrids and would definitely recognize humans (and human DNA in a hybrid), yet it didn't. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the scanner have trouble identifying his species? Seemed like an endorsement of the half human status of the Doctor to me.Movellon 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The scanner had difficulty admitting the Doctor's existence. And Jabe had trouble believing its conclusions. Seems like a reference to the consequences of the Time War to me. Mark H Wilkinson 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break, the sequel

You misunderstood me, Movellon. I don't dislike the fact the 8th Doctor was declared half-human. But what I will not subscribe to is the idea that we can somehow rewrite what has gone before. The writers of the 2nd-7th doctors had no intention for the Doctor to be anything but Time Lord, and we must honour that. In the same way, if a future writer says he's not half-human, that will not change the reality of the 8th Doctor. To assume that the most recent is the most true is wrong. Imagine if in a few years some writer or new producer decides that the Doctor is really a Slitheen from the planet Skaro, and the Master is his father and Rose his mother, then that won't suddenly be true and everything else false. In a fictional world, created and contibuted to by any number of people over many years, there will be many ideas bandied about, with only a rough continuity and generally accepted conventions. As I said earlier, it's possible in such a world to believe six impossibly contradictory things before breakfast. I fully accept the 8th Doctor was half human; I refuse to write that backwards to the the 2nd-7th (the 1st is a bit of an anomaly..he didn't even have two hearts, and didn't regenerate), and I'm waiting to see what the current writers do with him now... certainly on screen he has only been presented as an alien and a Time Lord. Lets not jump to definitive answers.. the nature of the programme is that there aren't any... which, as I've also said, makes it fun. Instead of arguing here, how about putting together a better referenced section on the half-human debate and presentation... showing how the Doctor has been seen through all incarnations. But, being Wikipedia not a fansite, there is no need to reach a conclusion. The debate is what is interesting, and the way it shows how continuity and canon develops. We're supposed to be writing about the creation of a fictional world and character, not reaching absolute conclusions AS IF HE REALLY EXISTED. He doesn't. Gwinva 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but what was intended means nothing when talking about this work of fiction. All that matters is what was on screen. Following your logic the Doctor should only have one heart and still be pure human. No sorry, what was intended by previous production teams mean nothing, only what is presented on screen. As it is the half human aspect of the Doctor does not contradict what was presented before and the way the TVM was realised makes it impossible to to split that part of the movie out. So far there has been official BBC online episode guides, BBC news items that confirm the canononical (sic) nature of the TVM, on screen endorsements of it's status in the new show (human nature), the BBC published, BBC produced, BBC endorsed book Doctor Who the legend continues with contributions from RTD, RTD on screen on DW:Confidential saying that current doctor is the same as the one who fought the master in San Francisco and him stating the same in DWM. Nothing in the TVM regarding the half human status really contradicts what went on before, the Doctor even states that he is a Time Lord in the movie (albeit a half human one), he reveals that he has a human mother. All I can see is bunch of people on this site wanting to manipulate and remove reference to him being half human and I'm sorry that is a political agenda (albeit from a fan group) and it's not what Wikipedia is for. The status of the doctor being half human, should and must be listed under the species on the info box as it is what is correct and right and it should remain there until it is properly retconed on screen. If his status is listed as anything else then I think it makes a mockery of Wikipedia and demonstrates some serious flaws in the design. The content owner has been explicit in it's view on the matter and if a group of people who don't like the concept can go against that then I'm sorry but Wikipedia isn't worth anything. Movellon 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And nothing official says that the "half-human" status goes beyond (or before) the Eighth Doctor. For that matter, the fact that the TVM is considered part of continuity doesn't mean that every single detail of that film is considered to be canon. (There's even text - and I don't mean fan-forum stuff - on the BBC's website that mocks the notion of "half-human".) As previously explained by others, an overly strict interpretation of events in the series would make for an extremely contradictory history for the Doctor. The simplest - and most neutral - way to address this is with the pointer to the text about the controversy. It doesn't deny the possibility, but it also doesn't confirm it - consistent with how Wikipedia should operate. (By the way, before you label me as a "no-human-Doctor" POV editor, let me state that no, I don't think he should be half-human - but if he is, that is that, big deal, write it up and get on with life. Don't insult your fellow editors by trying to claim that they cannot look past their own preferences to create a good article.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. The BBC published book Doctor Who The Legend Continues does. The fact that he has a human mother is also pretty hard to retcon. No I don't think he was joking, it would be a massive coincidence to be joking about something that relates to something that someone else discovered about you independently.Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, you are wilfully misunderstanding me, or not bothering to read what I've said. My logic does not mean "the Doctor should only have one heart and still be pure human." My logic means the exact opposite... the nature of the Doctor changes according to the writers and production teams, so we need to hold all ideas together. (ie. not deny the 8th doctor is half human, but not insist that it is an absolute truth which the whole of the Doctor Who franchise must also be bent and twisted to fit). "Doctor Who" is full of contradictions. Those references are good, but lets put them together with other references which are more ambiguous or state the opposite. If you want official BBC books, I can give you an annual and a Doctor Who file which present facts about the Doctor, that don't mention the human bit but do define him as an alien and Time Lord (ie, a format which should mention the half-human bit if it were undeniable fact). The evidence on screen has been very ambiguous...and the writers have certainly not taken up the many opportunities to push the half-human bit. We must think from an out-of-universe perspective. It is NOT a "fact" that the Doctor is half-human (or fully Time Lord). The facts are that "the writers of the TVM presented the Doctor as half-human, a vital part of the plot" and "Early Doctor Who writers presented the Doctor as a being from another species: a Time Lord" and "The New Series writers have been ambiguous about the Doctor's heritage, presenting the Doctor in such a way to neither confirm nor deny his human heritage", "Some sources continue to describe the Doctor as half-human, which annoys many fans", "The writers made what seems to be a coy reference to the controversy in "The Runaway Bride" when the Doctor said being human is optional for him" etc etc. That is what Wikipedia is about. Not taking sides in a debate (even if you think the debate is groundless/stupid/sensible/relevant/vital/waste of time). The debate exists. The portrayal of the Doctor changes. That is what is important. Not who or what the Doctor may or may not be this five minutes. See MOS for fiction. Gwinva 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The claim of the Doctor's mother being human cannot be taken at face value - the claim was made by the Doctor in a jocular fashion, as part of a ploy to pick the bloke's pocket (and the Doctor has a track record of lying through his teeth to achieve his aims). AS for his partially-human nature in general, it's been contradicted by the 9th Doctor ("I'm a Time Lord. I'm the last of the Time Lords" - End of the World. "My planet was destroyed - my entire family" - Father's Day) - given the context it is highly unlikely that he wouldn't have mentioned not being a full Time Lord if that were the case. The cause of the 8th Doctor's condition (proven by the Master's realisation on seeing the 8th Doctor's retinal patterns) could be debated 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that it was limited to the 8th, and the 8th only. MartinMcCann 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be a pretty big coincidence that he chose that same thing to joke about that relates directly to the masters discovery and the entire plot of the TVMMovellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Movellon, you said: "the half human aspect of the Doctor does not contradict what was presented before"?? Sorry; it does. I quote the Doctor from the pilot episode: "We are not of this race, we are not of this Earth. We are wanderers in the fourth dimension of space and time, cut off from our own planet and our own people by aeons and universes far beyond the reach of your most advanced sciences." Whatever the 8th Doctor was, the first was entirely alien. Gwinva 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And being half human would make him not human and not of this race. That's not even hard. Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You are really stretching. Has he ever said to another Time Lord that he's not Time Lord, and he's not of that race? john k 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Straw Poll

Might I propose a quick straw poll to see if we have consensus on what to do here at this point? It seems only Movellon is arguing that it has to be changed from the current version, but there could be lurkers who aren't chiming in. If there's currently a consensus to keep this version, then we should be able to just end the debate here (and if we don't end it soon enough, we're crossing into WP:LAME territory). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As indicated elsewhere, I'm in favour of putting "Time Lord" in the info box, plus a link which points people towards the discussion section -- like the compromise version in place at time of writing. Mark H Wilkinson 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think either "Time Lord (Born of Human Mother)" or "Time Lord/Human hybrid" is the only way to go. Anything else is just incorrect.Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The compromise version ("Time Lord (may be half human; see discussion)"). As stated earlier, it notes the verifiable part ("Time Lord"), acknowledges the disputed "hybrid" theory, and doesn't take sides. --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read through the whole discussion; Gwinva's reasoning seems the most sound to me, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. I actually think it should just say Time Lord, as that is how he is most commonly described (which is what I think the infoboxes are for), but I'd be all right with the compromise wording. --Brian Olsen 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My first choice would just be to say "Time Lord." My second choice would be the aforementioned compromise, which is also perfectly acceptable. john k 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, I provide 6 verafible sources that confirm the Half human status and you are going to ignore them? Way to go wikipedia! looks like the criticisms of your are correct. Well done everyone you've all done a bang up job of proving how little this system is worth. You'll never be taken seriously. Movellon 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
A user-maintained web encyclopaedia isn't going to be taken seriously, anyway, first off. Otherwise, the half-human status of the Doctor is, in fact, not verified. In forty-years, there's been far more evidence to the fact that the Doctor is fully alien than that he is half-human. You have six sources proving he belongs in the hybrid category and other people probably have six sources proving that the Doctor is pure. It's not cut-and-dry and we all need to leave room for compromise and future development in canon. Leeson 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just like to make a comment that in a hundred years time this will all be irrelevant. Just look at King Arthur or Robin Hood and you'll see that there's no such thing as "canon" and scholars just talk about "versions". Hell, just look at Superman and you'll see something current evolving into such a thing. DonQuixote 03:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The compromise version ("Time Lord (may be half human; see discussion)") seems like the sensible way to go, as it acknowledges both the way the Doctor is referred to in the bulk of the series, and the half human portrayal in the film, without drawing a conclusion (which would necessitate discounting evidence on one side or the other). -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
My preference is 'Time Lord' as that is always how he is referred. However, the link to the discussion is not inappropriate, if a bit messy. As an aside, the 'born of a human mother' is problematic... do we know Time Lords are born? It might just be a DNA mix...Or he hatched from an egg...or the human mother just donated an egg, or was a surrogate mother of a wholey Time Lord foetus, but transferred some DNA at birth. Just think of the fun to be had if you're a writer.... Gwinva 07:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Time Lord, with no mention or link to the debate section. To nit-pick, all his having a human mother would mean (if he wasn't joking) would be that he isn't a full-blood Gallifreyan, since it's clear that not all Gllifreyans are Time Lords. MartinMcCann 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a summary of the poll at the time of my writing this:

Alright with current version ("Time Lord" with link to discussion)

  1. Infophile (Talk) (Contribs)
  2. Mark H Wilkinson
  3. Ckatzchatspy
  4. Brian Olsen
  5. john k
  6. Leeson
  7. Karen | Talk | contribs
  8. Gwinva

Not alright with current version

  1. Movellon (prefers it to say hybrid)
  2. MartinMcCann (prefers it to say Time Lord)

That's eight who will accept this version and two who won't (split on each side). 80% alright with this seems like consensus to me. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would note that most of us who have said we will accept the compromise version have also said that we would prefer to just say Time Lord. Movellon (and perhaps the anon) seem to be the only people who have clearly rejected just saying "Time Lord" in the info box. Perhaps some sort of process is in order to decide between those two alternatives. john k 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm in favor of linking to the discussion (although the cleanest way to do that can be debated), so that actually puts the count at 5-4, in favor of just "Time Lord." It's a majority, but far from a consensus. How about if we simply say "Time Lord," but link to a note at the bottom which references the discussion? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Category

(Splitting debates on this issue into a different section.) The category issue seems like it might be a bit different to me in how we should handle it. In this case, there's no compromise we can take with it, so we basically have to decide between the merits of including or discluding it.

The point of using categories in Wikipedia is as an aid to readers, and so we should decide what's best for readers. There are two ways the use of this category might come into play with them: When they see it at the bottom of this article, or if they see this article on the category page. For the first case, I think it's safe to assume that the reader will have read through the article and will understand the context of the use of the category. For the second case, they'll be directed to the appropriate section by the note in the infobox (assuming it stays that way) and will read what they're interested in about the Doctor.

The potential harms of using a category are that it could lead to clutter on pages that include too many tangentially-relevent categories (not an issue here, at least yet), or that it could be misleading. In this case, it is possibly misleading in that not everyone agrees that the Doctor is always a hybrid.

However, the category isn't simply for confirmed cases of characters who are definitely hybrids. There are also serials and movies in the list that deal prominently with hybrids (ie. The Island of Doctor Moreau). The criterion for getting in seems to be more that the subject is discussed in the article, which is the case here. Remember, categories aren't meant to be definitive answers to questions, they're simply meant to aid readers find information on related subjects. My opinion (at least at this time), is that the category should go in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, inclusion seems reasonable to me from what you've laid out above. It doesn't negatively affect the contents of the article. Mark H Wilkinson 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what this has to do with discussing the aforementioned category. But I am sure you don't get to unilaterally declare anything other than your position to be vandalism. Mark H Wilkinson 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


You do know we're discussing the category and not the info box, don't you? Mark H Wilkinson 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand the argument regarding series etc. - and that the category is intended to be broader than just an individual character. However, this particular article is specifically about the character of the Doctor - not the series as a whole. Given that the classification is disputed, shouldn't we hold off until that discussion is resolved? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the BBC has stated that they consider the TVM to be part of the series (it was intended to possibly relaunch it, so think of it like an extended pilot). However, I trust no one has any problem with adding the category to the Eighth Doctor article, so I'll add it there at least for the time being. That should catch anyone browsing the category. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think adding i t for the Eighth Doctor article makes the most sense. The Eighth Doctor is clearly presented as a hybrid in the only story we have of him, and for those looking from the category page, it makes most sense to go straight there which ought to have a longer discussion of the issue than this page. john k 06:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Just because the Doctor is "half human" or has a "human mother" does not mean that he has to be biologically half human. If it turns out that the movie's revelation hasn't been retconned - and at the minute I suspect that it has - then I imagine that it'll work in a very similar fashion to the Half-elven from Lord of the Rings. (195.92.168.165 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Family

I think there should be a bit more detail given regarding known family references. I've started this in the Background section, following the reference to his brother in Smith and Jones. Susan is discussed elsewhere, but if there were any other clear references to family, it should be included in the background. (Having only seen Smith and Jones I don't know if any further family references occur later in season 3). 68.146.8.46 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There was also a mention of him being married previously in The Runaway Bride (Edit: according to the article, that was Blink), though this might better fit in the romance section. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
From the current article: "During his second incarnation when asked about his family, the Doctor says his memories of them are still alive (The Tomb of the Cybermen) but whether that means they are deceased is unknown." If the line *wasn't* intended to mean that his family was dead at that point, what exactly is meant by including it in the article? It's a time when his family was mentioned, but it doesn't actually provide any information about them. --68.44.13.236 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't specifically say they're dead. Especially when time travel is involved, there are a lot of alternative explanations that could fit here, such as someone living out a natural life in the past. When he's in their future, they're dead, but he could still go back and visit them in their time. Given this, we can't go making our own conclusions and should just report what's been said. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to answer my question. --68.44.13.236 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hurndall

Richard Hurndall's name was added to the infobox recently... I've removed it as it seems that the box is used for the actors who are primarily associated with the Doctor's various incarnations. (As well, the placement suggested that Hurndall played a version of the Doctor between Doctors #4 and #5, which is incorrect.) What do people think about a) including Hurndall, and b) the placement? I think he shouldn't be there, but if he is, he should either be next to Hartnell (i.e. Hartnell/Hurndall) or the list should be alphabetical. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up... I'm trying to figure out what the policy should be, for instance, when you look at the page for The Master (Doctor Who) it had 8 actors listed when there were only 6 versions (and arguably only between 3 to 5 incarnations) of the Master... should the Master page only have 6 actors too (removing Geoffrey Beevers and Gordon Tipple)? Maybe Hurndall should be listed under actors with a note.... also... I'm talking here about actors who played the Docor/Master in cannon episodes so actors such as Peter Cushing and Johnathon Price still would not count. I'm honestly looking for opinions and a definitive policy for the who pages here.--Dr who1975 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK... I've tried removing Gordorn Tipple from The Master (Doctor Who) because, more so than even Hurndall... he is not well know for playing the part... I've linked it back to this discussion here so people can comment. This is not an experiment... I need to see what arguments arise.--Dr who1975 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we descending into fancruft by being so concerned with people's impressions of how many doctors ther were... wouldn't the more encyclopedic thing to do be listing all the actors who played canon versions of the doctors... this is wikipedia... not a Dr who fan page.--Dr who1975 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that unless the infobox specifies that it's only actors primarily associated with the role or incarnation, Hurndall, Tipple et al. need to be in the two boxes. But they need to be set off, either next to the other actor playing that incarnation (which is tricky in Tipple's case, since we don't know for certain he's the Ainley Master) or perhaps in parentheses or with an asterisk at the end of the list. Or the infobox itself could be modified to specify primary actors only in each role. (Technically, a child once played Tegan for a few seconds, but it's not vital to the infobox to say so.) Really, any of the options seems pretty reasonable to me, including leaving them out. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok... I've now tried something along those lines on both pages.--Dr who1975 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes are good. DonQuixote 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks messy and duplicates material already to be found in the article. Mark H Wilkinson 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Zynth removed Hurndall almost immediatly after the note went away. Footnotes do not look messy and it isn't a huge duplication of material... there are lots of cases where such material is mentioned twice.. for the time being... I've simply put Hurndall back (that must be what Digby/Mark also wants since I;m sure he's concerned about the encyclopedia being accurate) howvere, I'm likely to put back the footnotes (either that or report Zyth as a vandal) if I get more push back on this.--Dr who1975 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually have strong feelings either way about whether to include Hurndall or not; I'm happy to monitor the discussion/edits and back whichever consensus arises. I just thnk it's redundant to add footnotes which repeat information already clearly covered in the article and the indent and extra clutter looked bad. If someone want to see what the article has to say about Hurndall's involvement, it's not difficult for them to find his name on the page. Mark H Wilkinson 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The footnotes have been removed...I've reverted, but it might be a continuing problem. Perhaps an alternative would be to list the 10 doctors (who are the defining actors for each regeneration) then just have [List of actors who have played the Doctor|plus others] or similar. Gwinva 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Mark H Wilkinson 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is non encyclopedc to leave Richard Hurndell out of the list of Doctor Who Actors! If somebody thinks there must have been 11 doctros because that without reading the resto f the article then that idiot deserves to be misniformed. This is an encyclopedia. If people read the article they will ssee he was playing the first doctor... I'm putting Hurndall back.--Dr who1975 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. There might be many good reasons to include Hurndell, but "to exclude him is unencyclopaediac" is not one of them. Firstly, there is no obligation on an encyclopaedia to list everything (although it's often a good idea to mention many things). Secondly, this is a quick reference infobox, not a discussion on who played the Doctor. The box contains the photos of the ten incarnations of the Doctor. Below, we list the actors who played those ten incarnations. Hurndell once played Hartnell's incarnation. He deserves credit, but is not essential to an infobox, and is covered elsewhere in the article (plus the 'and others' link). Or perhaps his photo should be included in the collage? Or perhaps we should also include the stuntmen who played Tennant playing the Doctor? Gwinva 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comments seem to ignore previous discussion.... I don't know if you have been reading the whole discussion or not so I'll recap... if you look at The Master (Doctor Who), there are six pictures in the box but 8 actors listed (including one who had literally 3 seconds of scren time as the Master)... a big point of this discussion is to find common ground for all the Dr. Who pages... and personally, something being an encyclodedic fact is good reason to list them in an encyclopedia if you ask me. The box is supposed to list all canon Dr. Who actors so therefore it is an encylopedic imperative to put Hurndell in there. MAybe I'm carzy for thinking that is probably the most important reason for putting the name in the box.--Dr who1975 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to find common ground for all the Doctor Who pages as they're not all comparable. The point about the Doctor is that he's the series lead, and as such, there's a case for including just the actors that were contracted to be the series lead; Hurndall doesn't fall into that category. The Master's a very different case because only two of the actors have been contracted as regular characters in the show; but we don't then exclude Pratt because he's a one-off. Mark H Wilkinson 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
But Paul Mcgann was never a series regular and he's listed. Frankly, I think we do need to fidn common ground because (big breath) this is an encyclopedia... not a Who fan site.--Dr who1975 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are about displaying notable information simplistically. For the benefit of readers who have never heard of Doctor Who, it's simplest just to put the "main" Doctors (as listed by MANY sources, from TV documentaries to the BBC website and news sites) and the "and others" link to a list which should be an adequate compromise. Dr who1975, I'd refrain from referring to regular contributors as "vandals", it just contributes towards tension and anger which I don't think anybody wants to see :).~ZytheTalk to me! 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Romance

Just wondering if there should be an addition in Romance to mention the exchange in The Sound of Drums. The Doctor likens the perception filter to "being in love with someone who doesn't even know you exist". At this point Martha gives a look that clearly shows (along with comments in previous episodes) that this is the situation for her towards him, Jack then makes a comment to the effect of "you too?" showing (again along with comments and behaviour in previous episodes) that this is also the case for him. Just a thought, it seems at least as relevant as other things mentioned. AlanD 00:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The man who makes people better

I just removed this:

It has, however, been said in recent episodes the the Doctor chose his name (because he is "the man who makes people better."), as did the Master, implying that, perhaps when Galifreians become Time-Lords, they choose a new name or title for themselves.

I happen to think it's a wonderful quote, but it's already in the article, and this is the second time I know of that someone has added it an extra time and used it as a basis for speculation. In this case, aside from the misspellings, we don't have any basis for knowing whether the Doctor and the Master were unusual in this regard, or following the speculated convention. Are Valeyard and Castellan, Flavia, Borusa, etc. given names, chosen names, or (in perhaps one or two cases) job titles? We don't know, and have no references (as far as I know) for saying more than the article already says, that these two particular Time Lords chose the names "Doctor" and "Master". --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Past doctors.jpg

Just to let people know that the above image, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone wishing to offer their opinions can see the discussion here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible next Doctor

Look at the link I've provided. It seems to suggest that James Nesbitt may be the next Doctor when David Tennant steps down. Would this be worth including in the article?

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/02082007/21/nesbitt-new.html

Looneyman 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. My leaning is to wait for a more reliable source. This story originated in the Sun, which doesn't have a completely reliable track record for Doctor Who news. They've been right more often than not — for example, they correctly broke the stories about Cybermen vs. Daleks at the end of Series 2, and about Derek Jacobi and John Simm playing the Master in Series 3 — but they've also been spectacularly wrong on a few occasions (Zoe Lucker as the Rani springs to mind). If we do choose to mention it, we should be very careful to note the source and suggest that it may or may not be accurate. Something like "Tabloid newspaper The Sun has reported that James Nesbitt may be the next Doctor. This has not been confirmed by any official sources." — with a citation using {{cite news}} to the Sun story. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that we should wait for some more reliable source. Given Tennant's immense popularity as the Doctor, him leaving would cause quite an uproar. With that in mind, if any news agency had the slightest bit of hard evidence this was the case, they wouldn't hesitate to report it (causing an uproar is what the news is about, after all). Reading the article, it sounds like nothing firmer was said than "Nesbitt would be great as the next Doctor." No evidence that really implies Tennant's leaving, and if he stays on for another five years, things could easily change with regards to Nesbitt's availability. Of course, there could easily be something to this, but if so, we should get a more reliable source before too long. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks unlikely that any such reliable source will be forthcoming. Indeed Steven Moffat and James Nesbitt have both denied that the story is true. James' rebuttal can be seen here [1] and Steven Moffatt's has been referenced from other Wikipedia articles. Tsoram 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that article seems to state that Tennant is quitting, whether or not Nesbitt is taking over. If that's true, we should probably mention that somewhere. When I have a chance, I'll check around and see if I can find another source confirming this (hopefully with some supporting evidence). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Even though I personally expect Tennant to bow out at the end of Series 4, I wouldn't take the remark in the Coleraine Times too seriously. It looks to me like recycling of stories the Sun has put forth (for example, their spin on Tennant playing Hamlet was that he was leaving Doctor Who, which isn't necessarily so). I certainly don't think that this passing mention is enough to merit inclusion in the article. When Tennant does announce his departure, it'll be all over the papers, and you won't be able to move for sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I figured. Of course, I live in the States, so the papers over here wouldn't pay much attention to that. But I'll trust our British users in that they aren't seeing this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Title change

Why isn't this article called "The Doctor (Doctor Who)"? That is, after all, the character's name, and the way in which he is currently listed in the credits. --Mister Six (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia naming conventions, "the" isn't used at the start of article titles, unless it would be capitalized in running text. Since you'd write, "I met the Doctor," and not, "I met The Doctor", we don't capitalize. --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd write "The Doctor". It's part of his title; he has no name like "Doctor Ian Smith" he is "The Doctor". However my primitive logic is irrelevant - what do reliable sources call him? --kingboyk (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If the "the" was really part of his name, it would be used in direct address: "Save Me, The Doctor!" as opposed to "Save me, Doctor!". The nearest source I had on hand was one of the BBC novels (The Feast of the Drowned), and it doesn't capitalize the "the". --Brian Olsen (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening with quote

Hi, folks. An anonymous user recently edited the article so that it began with this quote:

"The man who makes people better. How sanctimonious is that?"

— The Master to the Doctor

I reverted the addition, because although I like the sentiment I think that in general starting an article with a quotation isn't very encyclopedic in style. The article needs to be able to serve as an introduction to the character for someone who's never seen or heard of Doctor Who. And such a person wouldn't necessarily know who the Master is, or understand the proper context for the quotation. (They might think that the Doctor actually is sanctimonious, rather than thinking that his arch-enemy considers him sanctimonious — a very different thing.)

Second, it's possible that opening the article with a quotation from one of the most recent episodes of a series with a 44-year history might give undue weight to the current incarnation of Doctor Who. A neutral point of view would present the character first in a context which is applicable to all of Doctor Who, and only subsequently go into aspects which may depend on the point in the series' history. Or, to put it a different way, why begin with this quote from the Master, instead of starting with this:

"A cosmos without the Doctor scarcely bears thinking about."

— The Master to the High Council of Gallifrey

In short, although it's a great line to open a fan article about the character of the Doctor, I don't think we can use it here in that context. We can talk it out though, if you disagree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You could do that for each Doctor in their own article. Put a quote said by the doctor at the start of the page. For example in the First Doctor article you could put a quote of what he said in the episode "The Massacre" - "Perhaps I sould go back. Back to my own people, but I can't" or in the Second Doctor you could put "I do tend to get a bit involed" - The War Games. It could be a quote that reveals something about himself in each incarnation. (Speaker180 (talk)) 23:01, 15 February 2008

∂³∑x²

LuGiADude (talk · contribs) has recently been adding the following sentence to the "Doctor who?" section:

In The War Games, the name of The Doctor is said to be ∂³∑x². This has not been confirmed by any of the writers or producers of Doctor Who.

Leaving aside the inadvisability of participating in an edit war, I don't believe that this is correct. I don't recall seeing or hearing that formula given as the Doctor's name in The War Games. (It certainly wasn't in dialogue — how would you say it?) It was, however, given as the Doctor's name in one of Terrance Dicks' behind-the-scenes books in the 1970s — I don't recall which one offhand. It's shown up a couple of times since then — the formula (or something very like it) can be seen on the obelisk in Rassilon's Tomb in "The Five Doctors", and I believe that it also showed up on the Doctor's calling card in Remembrance of the Daleks (along with a prominent question mark).

I'll need to do some research to find exactly where it first appears, and to confirm those later appearances, but I think that it's basically an idea of Terrance Dicks', which has generally been ignored by subsequent production teams. (Did he perhaps put it into the novelisation of The War Games?) If we can confirm the provenance of the information, we can put it into the article, but we need to get the info right. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have been in this book The Making of Doctor Who (1972, Terrance Dicks and Malcolm Hulke) .I have some memory of seeing symbols as his name and I do have a copy of this book.Garda40 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds right to me. If you can find your copy of the book, perhaps you could whip up a citation from it? We could say something like this:
In the 1972 behind-the-scenes book The Making of Doctor Who, Terrance Dicks and Malcolm Hulke wrote that the Doctor's name is ∂³∑x². This claim has not been reproduced in any other source; however, the same Greek letters and mathematical symbols appear on an obelisk in the Tomb of Rassilon in The Five Doctors, and in the 1988 serial Remembrance of the Daleks, the Doctor produced a calling card with similar symbols and a question mark on it.
How's that, assuming we can cite it appropriately? (I noticed that we've got a frame of the card already in the article — it would justify its inclusion better if we talk specifically about the lettering on it. It's not, in fact,the same as the formula from The Making of Doctor Who, but it's similar enough.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about this, I may have understood things wrong. Well, misunderstood. Yeah, I read that book and it said something about the war games, so sorry about that, I thought it was in the actual episode. I thought there was something dodgy about it lol
But again I apologize for what's happened LuGiADude 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, LuGi — but I hope this shows you why it's a bad idea to edit war. If you had come to the talk page and discussed the matter when you were first reverted, we probably could have figured it out sooner.
That said, I do think that it might be a good idea to add the paragraph I suggested above to the article, if we can get a proper citation. LuGi and Garda40 both have a copy of the book — could one of you get the info we need for the citation? (We'd probably use {{cite book}}, so you can look at that template to see what information is needed.) Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to Note

That the Orgins of the Alias "John Smith" can be found in the episode "An Unearthly Child". By all accounts the Doctor seems to have picked up the name from Susan, who was a fan of "John Smith & The Common men." 

  Perhaps further analysis and an entry should be made somewhere.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs)

That was just a coincidence. By all other accounts--the various books, DWM, etc.--he first got the name from Jamie. DonQuixote 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Brothers" speculation - or is it?

I've been watching the edits going back and forth about the question of the Doctor being the Master's brother for, what, about 24 hours now. The fact that there is a textual basis for raising the issue - the Grimwade/Saward line, the novel and the ridicule-without-explicit-denial in "The Sound of Drums" - takes it out of the realm of idle fan speculation and makes it notable and encyclopedic, IMO, not to mention interesting. I think Someguy has the right idea here: report what has been said in the show and spinoff material, but go easy on the fan theory angle, to the extent that it has to be mentioned at all. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, but it's all speculation at this point. Here's the text in question:

"Fans have occasionally seized upon the two Time Lords' rivalry to speculate that the Master and the Doctor are, in fact, brothers. Such speculation was fueled by the Master's last line in Planet of Fire, which was originally scripted by Peter Grimwade (with permission from script editor Eric Saward) to allude to this as "Doctor, could you do this to your own..." However, this line was excised in post-production, and the Master's last words in the story are somewhat obscured. On the other hand, Lance Parkin's novel The Gallifrey Chronicles implies that the Doctor and the Master had different fathers. In "The Sound of Drums", Martha Jones asks if they are brothers, and the Doctor does not answer directly, merely saying that she "has been watching too much television"."

There are no citations for the "fan speculation", the notes about the script (and who gave permission), or the reason for that line being cut. If the last line is "obscured", is that intentional, a technical issue, a problem with a particular copy of the show, or a subjective interpretation? With regards to the novel, it is described as "implied" - which means it is again subjective interpretation. The same goes for "The Sound of Drums". Basically, we've got nothing concrete. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculation over meetings of different Doctors

In the same vein as the above discussion I've noted the addition of quite a bit of speculative material since I started this section. Most of this needs to be removed because it isn't referenced in the series. I also removed the claim that RTD "misdirected" fans by his comments regarding multi-Doctor stories. Aside from being unsourced and therefore in violation of WP:BLP, it's also meaningless. RTD made his comments in the early days of the series and a producer has the right to change his mind. Plus, no one has really firmly indicated that Time Crash is canonical anyway, though Moffatt left it a possibility. 23skidoo 07:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Someone has proposed that Shalka Doctor be merged in here (and not left a place for discussion) I Oppose - he is a different incarnation, and should have a separate page like the regular doctors. StuartDD contributions 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

8 oppose in 3 days - I think that's enough consenus top close this at OPPSOSE StuartDD contributions 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Age

The BBC Trailer for Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) has the Doctor stating his age at 903. Should this be added to the article now, or should we wait till VotD on Christmas Day? - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been mentioned. The Doctor says that he's 900 years old in Aliens of London, hence he's 903 now. We don't need to keep updating this every year. DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that said age is flat-out wrong, unless he's refering specifically to his tenth incarnation, since he was 953 as of "Time and the Rani", and is mentioned as being over a thousand during the course of the Eighth Doctor Adventures. MartinMcCann (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep...darn those continuity errors. If it weren't for the fact that the Master also mentions this, we could've chalked this up to the Doctor's vanity. Oh well. DonQuixote (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the series would supplant eighth doctor adventures. "Time and the Rani" is another matter. john k (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's even more irritating since it implies the Doctor was being literal when he claimed to be 900 in "Aliens of London" - hasn't the script writer ever heard of rounding? The only explanation that makes sense is that the Tenth Doctor is 903, with the gaps being filled at the end of "Doomsday" (between the Doctor leaving Torchwood and contacting Rose), and between "The Runaway Bride" and "Smith and Jones". MartinMcCann (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, we should just say that the Doctor has been inconsistent about how old he is. john k (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed... though I'd think we'd want the statement to be that the writers have been inconsistent. - J Greb (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. john k (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Worth noting another factoid often dragged out with this issue - in "The Empty Child" the Doctor mentions that he's had "900 years of travel in a phone box," making it impossible that he's only 900 himself unless he's somehow been flying his TARDIS around since birth, which we know he hasn't. Rob T Firefly (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
When I saw the trailer and it said 903, I assumed that he'd just rounded up from 880. It's like Yoda - what are the odds that he was exactly 900? I have a feeling that once you go up over that 700 hill, exact numbers don't matter so much. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Doctor/Archive_2&oldid=1240630485"