Talk:List of Doctor Who villains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use image removal[edit]

Disputes not withstanding, the indiscriminate use of fair use images in list articles such as this one is not supported. For the supporting policy, see WP:NFCC. For supporting guideline, see Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. See similar discussion at Talk:Supporting_Harry_Potter_characters#Overuse_of_fair_use_images and Talk:List_of_James_Bond_henchmen_in_Die_Another_Day#Fair_use_image_removal (and observe that fair use images remain removed or tightly limited on those two articles). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reluctantly agree that the current interpretation of the "minimal use" requirement restricts the usage of fair use images in articles like this. However, I really wish that there had been an attempt to discuss which images were most appropriate to keep, instead of a blanket removal of all of them.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of Doctor Who, in most circumstances there are no "cast shots" of multiple villains, companions, and so forth. It might be possible to find a BBC-created montage from something like Justin Richards' Monsters and Villains and other reference books; would a scan from a source like that be acceptable?
I do think that some of the images used in this article can be justified. The guideline says, "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." The Abzorbaloff, for example, is not easily described (although the text attempts to do so, and contains [IMO] sufficient "critical commentary" about the appearance of the creature to justify the use of Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who 03.jpg, or a screenshot from the episode. (Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who 03.jpg was uploaded by someone who thought, erroneously, that a photograph taken at a Doctor Who exhibition was free enough for Commons' purposes; turns out that it's not, and it's been tagged for removal, so I suppose we could use Image:Loveandmonsters.jpg and/or Image:Absorb1.jpg with as much justification.
Based on which images are a) discussed with "critical commentary" in the text, and b) are unusual enough to be difficult to describe in text, I suggest that the following images be restored to the article:
That provides a selection of images from the new and classic Doctor Who series, and reliable sources exist describing the makeup or CGI techniques used to create each character, which could be provided for the critical commentary required by the NFCC. I hope that this proposal can be seen in the spirit of compromise in which it was intended. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That other one... that was never seen...[edit]

In The Five Doctors, the Second Doctor mentions a female villain, I think it started with a 'V', to the Brigadier, then mentiones that he hasn't heard of her because the encounter hasn't happened yet.

Later, much later, the Sixth Doctor mentions this character as well.

I cannot remember the name, but I'm almost certain it starts with a 'V' and is referred to as a female. She may not have an appearance, but has been referred to as "a real villain" by the Sixth Doctor, and deserves a stub of mention here.

Can anyone recall who that was?

(For the record, it's my theory that it was her hand that picked up the Master's Ring at the end of Last of the Time Lords, just because it would be more amusing than it being The Rani like many other people have surmised.) 96.225.212.89 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's the Terrible Zodin (sp?). DonQuixote (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:The Next Doctor.jpg[edit]

The image File:The Next Doctor.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference page[edit]

[1] Could be of interest?Hrcolyer (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion in this list[edit]

What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? The header describes it as "a list of villains from the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who".

Most of the entries are from the TV series, as per header, but there are several from novels (e.g. Eve), comics (e.g Pied Piper), and audio adventures (e.g. Sebastian Grayle, Headhunter).

My initial thought is that they don't belong in this list, given its description. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are some from the spin-offs, like Torchwood. I would be willing to change the heading to reflect that the list includes villains from spin-off materials. 101090ABC (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already pretty long. I'd favour creating a "Spin-off" and/or "related works" list, rather than extending this one. Allowing novels, comics etc. into this list is inviting a slide into inclusion of every "fan fiction" villain that's ever been created. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting works also. However, I don't think that letting novels etc. into this list is inviting fan fiction, because Wikipedia's standards state that no such material is important. 101090ABC (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

Not meaning to nitpick, but the section on Sutekh is quite fundamentally wrong. Sutekh was imprisoned on Earth, not on Mars.[1] I haven't checked any of the other entries. Poglad (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramids_of_Mars

It's been corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked Spoilers[edit]

Viewing this page on mobile results in a giant black screen popping up spoiling the season finale. I can't find it in the edit code, so it must be some type of inject through secondary means. Can someone with more knowledge on Wikipedia fix this and maybe lock the pages? 173.62.183.163 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's bad. You should bring it up at the wp:Village Pump (technical). These are the people that can fix this. CSB radio (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t any more. I edit from an iPhone SE, so I don’t know if that changes anything DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War Chief, synthesis, and over-quoting[edit]

Just like to point out that citing one source that says one thing, citing another source that says another thing and putting them together within the context of a single character, as is the case here, is synthesis. That is to say, quoting the War Games novelisation, which mentions the War Chief, and quoting the Colony in Space novelisation, which mentions the Master, and then juxtaposing them under the War Chief to lead the reader to the conclusion that they are the same character is original research. We need a reliable source to say that that's what's going on here in the novelisations. What we can do, however, is summarise each novelization in such a way as to retain what the texts imply without leading the reader to a conclusion, such as the summary of Tymewrm: Exodus. Also, there is excessive quoting of the source materials as if to prove through interpretation of the text (original research) that the connection should be emphasized (with the corresponding personal emphasis of key words and phrases).

Bottom line: the way that it's presented now is original research that favours one POV. (Note that the editor of the new material removed the bit about FASA mentioning that the Master and the War Chief were allies [2]...which, incidentally needed a cn tag.)

Also, see talk:Master (Doctor Who) for previous discussions. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a, eh, creative way of interpreting things. The Colony in Space novelisation recaps what is The War Games. And leading directly into that is the two Time Lords talking about the Doctor and The Master and the younger one asking the older to tell him more about the Doctor and the Master. You only consider it synthesis, because you don't like what it says. It is also properly sourced, unlike more than 90% of this article. And certainly unlike the FASA piece, which was someone just stating something, without a WP:RS(for which see WP:BURDEN. And indeed, the only part of the Timewyrm:Exodus piece (the paragraph that that you seem to hold up as the shining example) that was sourced, was sourced by me. Yup, the rest has no WP:RS, has never had a RS, yet you regard that as being the thing to aim for. It is only the last sentence that was given a RS, and that was by me.

There is nothing that I added that was unsourced. In addition, every source explicitly mentions The War Chief and/or The War Games. What you don't like is that the source material also happens to make it clear what became of the War Chief after the War Games, and to remove that bit would destroy the source material. I have not made any pronouncements, I have merely provided relevant RS(which mention the War Chief and/or the War Games), removed unsourced statements(and haven't even scratched the surface of those unsourced statements). Yet this upsets you to the point that you felt the need to break the WP:3RR, and have now started this totally unnecessary discussion. 41.135.172.46 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the straw man. If I didn't like what it says, as you claim, then I would have removed the Tymewrm bit as well. Look, unless the two novelisations actually point out the connection, we can't put those two things together to lead the reader. We can, however, put the bits in their respective articles and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion...like what you added in the Master (Doctor Who article (which I also didn't touch because it was fine the way it is). As I have said many times before, no one is saying that the Master cannot be the War Chief, and in fact we can describe those texts that do say that. The point is that we can't cross over into original research, which is what you're doing when you put those two sources together in an act of synthesis. Please try to understand, I (and the other people who have commented at talk:Master (Doctor Who)) have nothing against the War Chief being the Master or the Monk being the Master or anyone else being the Master, it's just that we as editors can't put our own interpretations (original research) into the articles. Citing Tymewrm here is fine, citing The War Games here is fine. Citing Colony in Space in the Master's article is fine but citing it here is crossing over into original research. DonQuixote (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a straw man. You are not even addressing the actual issues. The Timewyrm part was clearly the fact that you were happy to leave in a totally unsourced section, and even mentioned it as being how the whole article should be...while at the same time repeatedly removing(breaking the WP:3RR in the process) information that did indeed have valid WP:RS. You praise unsourced material, but start an edit war over sourced material. And again, you and you alone seem to feel that this some sort of WP:SYNTHESIS and/or WP:OR. However, every WP:RS explicitly refers to the War Chief and/or the War Games. The Colony in Space novelisation can be cited here as it specifically refers to the events of the War Games, and both gives background information on, as well as tells what happened to the Time Lord who had organised the War Games. Which is exactly what an article(well a few paragraphs in an article on the War Chief should do). And it is all properly sourced. Unlike the Timewyrm bit, where the only proper source was added by yours truly. So, it is not original research. And it is not synthesis. It is a set of WP:RS that both give background information on, as well telling the next move(s) of, the War Chief. I have not stated "the War Chief is the Master", because the sources I added do not say that in those exact words. They do however refer to the War Chief and the War Games, and give information on both. With proper RS. If someone wants to properly source the Legions Of Death, then please go ahead, and state exactly what it says there, word-for-word. And the Wikipedia reader can decide for him/herself, from whatever RS there are. And none of it is OR or SYNTHESIS. 41.135.42.99 (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Timewyrm part was clearly the fact that you were happy to leave in a totally unsourced section...."
"...the only part of the Timewyrm:Exodus piece (the paragraph that that you seem to hold up as the shining example) that was sourced, was sourced by me...."
So which is it? You're claiming that I "like" it because it's unsourced and then go on to take credit for sourcing it. I will go on record as saying that I don't object to it because of the fact that you sourced it and didn't include any original research. That's it. That's the point. If you can properly cite reliable sources and refrain from original research, then no one will object. And I will go on record as saying that I think that the Master and the War Chief have been portrayed as the same character. However, we must, again, cite reliable sources and refrain from original research. So you're claim that I simply object to the edit because I dislike the idea is bogus and a straw man.
Again, the novelisations imply that they are the same character but don't explicitly say it. The fact that we have to infer it makes it original research. Putting the two texts together to emphasise the inference is synthesis.
Again, inference is original research and putting the texts together to emphasise the inference is synthesis. That's the issue. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like the idea.
And your point about the novelisations providing background is fine, as long as it's in regard to the respective War Games and Colony in Space articles. However, putting it here by placing the texts together to emphasise the inference is synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of examples of similar synthesis and original research: Rory Williams and talk:Rise of the Cybermen#Cracks between the parallel universes. Yeah, and I have to guiltily admit that that last bit of original research was by me and it was rightly pointed out to be an inference and rightly removed from the article as well as the Doomsday article. So, again, no one is against your idea (that is, no one is trying to be antagonistic), it's just that we're trying to keep the articles from crossing over into original research (referee's trying to keep things from going out-of-bounds). And the fact that the rest of this article needs to be cleaned up means that the rest of this article needs to be cleaned up. It doesn't help to add more original research that needs to be cleaned up. DonQuixote (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fail to see what you are even saying about the Timewyrm part now. As I have already stated:

You said that you think the Timewyrm part is the best post-War Games part of the section. However, up until very recently, the Timewyrm section was completely unsourced and was complete OR(as is 90% of the List of Doctor Who villains article as a whole!) The only sourced section of the Timewyrm paragraph was added by me, not you DonQuixote...me. Are you now taking credit for adding sources?....And then you complain and start an edit war over the only section in the entire article that has been meticulously sourced? That is what I find strange, and that is what I have now stated again.

Now, as far as "inference" or anything similar...that is what you claim. Again the sections are WP:RS that refer to the War Chief and the War Games, and give deeper biographical detail as to the character of the War Chief(you know the subject of the section). Everything that was added was entirely relevant, and was reliably sourced. Now, does it infer that the War Chief is the Master? Indeed it does, but that is neither OR nor SYNTHESIS. It is the RS that speaks of the War Chief. As you say, as the sources do not say "The War Chief is the Master", that has not been added to the article. Neither was the War Chief section merged into the Master (Doctor Who) article. However, what is clear is that these reliably sourced bits come from official, verifiable sources, and they are all absolutely relevant. I don't really see why this discussion even exists. As I stated, if someone finds a WP:RS that states something to the contrary, and it is properly sourced then it must be added to the article. However, your problem is with properly sourced material that is about the War Chief and the War Games. And it is neither OR nor SYNTHESIS. 41.135.42.99 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully.
You: "The only sourced section of the Timewyrm paragraph was added by me, not you DonQuixote...me. Are you now taking credit for adding sources?"
Me: "I don't object to it because of the fact that you sourced it and didn't include any original research."
Note that I acknowledged your contribution. The point was that you sourced it and didn't include any original research. I was complimenting you on doing it correctly.
As for inference (dictionary.reference.com): "something that is inferred"...and infer: "to hint; imply; suggest". Given those definitions, the Colony in Space novelization is inferring that the Master in that adventure is the War Chief in The War Games--it does not explicitly say it. That's the point. Again, you can reflect the inferences in the source material, but you can't combine those inferences together to claim as fact, or even imply, something that they just infer, that's synthesis. From WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Given that and the above definitions of inference and infer, it is definitely synthesis. You are combining material from multiple sources (War Games novelisation and Colony in Space novelisation) to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is why it's synthesis. Please read this paragraph carefully. DonQuixote (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I gave WP:RS that all refer to the War Chief and/or the War Games. This expands the biographical detail of the War Chief. The reason I used the sources I did, and not any others, is that these are the ones that do just that. End of story. Anything else is entirely your problem. 41.135.42.129 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been your intention, but the point is that your edit still matches the definition of synthesis, as outlined above. Original research is not desired on Wikipedia. As it stands now, the best thing to do is to just edit it out and find better sources which explicitly mention the connection without the need for synthesis or original research. A case in point, the FASA roleplaying game explicitly mentions that the Monk was a prior incarnation of the Master, and as such is mentioned in the Doctor Who Roleplaying Game article. Similarly, any other explicit statements made by any reliable source can be added to the appropriate articles. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. it is not OR. And it is not SYNTHESIS. All it is is a collection of RS, all of which specifically refer to the War Chief and/or the War Games, and add biographical detail about the War Chief. What you object to is the content of this biographical detail of the War Chief. Whatever you may claim, everything I added is a RS, everything I added specifically refers to the War Chief and/or the War Games, and everything I added gives additional biographical detail to the character of the War Chief. You are only claiming SYNTHESIS and OR because of what the Reliably Sourced information says about the War Chief. As I stated, if someone can properly source something like the Legions of Death FASA Game, then please go ahead immediately. I don't have a copy of the module, so i can not. And if someone does just that, I will most definitely not claim OR or SYNTHESIS, like you are doing with these reliably sourced pieces of information about the War Chief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.93 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't say that it's not synthesis anymore since I used the explicit definition at WP:SYNTHESIS to show that it is synthesis. The Colony in Space novelisation does not mention the War Chief, however it does provide background information on the Master...which is appropriate for the Master article. Saying that it provides background information for the War Chief is synthesis. As for the FASA module, look, I'm trying to keep both sides from crossing over into original research. I might be getting the various anonymous dynamic IPs mixed up, but some IPs are saying that the Master=the War Chief, which is ok if reliable sources are cited and there's no original research involved, and some other IPs are saying that the Master=the Monk, which is also ok if reliable sources are cited and there's no original research. What's happening is both sides are complaining when I point out any original research that they are involved in. Please, understand what original research is and understand what synthesis is. DonQuixote (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your argument is nonexistent. You said "synthesis", so that means it is "synthesis"? You need to explain how it is synthesis. Not merely say "I said synthesis". And, for the umpteenth time, all of those are WP:RS. They all mention The War Chief and/or The War Games. Therefore all they are are RS that add additional biographical detail to the War Chief. Please understand that if you claim something, you need to explain why that is relevant. Which you have failed to do. Let me say it for the millionth time....Everything I added was a WP:RS that directly references the War Chief and/or the War Games. That is not SYNTHESIS. That is not OR. The only one who has a problem is you, because you dislike what the RS actually state(and again 99% of this article is completely unsourced, yet you take no issue with any of that...). So, it is not SYNTHESIS, it RS that directly relates to the actual topic of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.135 (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension. From WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." And from above: "You are combining material from multiple sources (War Games novelisation and Colony in Space novelisation) to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is why it's synthesis." That's a direct one-to-one mapping between the definition and your edit. You are not paying attention.
As for the other 99%, most of them summarise the primary source without original research or synthesis. Any original research and synthesis have been edited out. DonQuixote (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you need to work on your reading comprehension, as well as your manners. Let's say this for the millionth time... Every source I added explicitly mentions the War Chief and/or the War Games. And this is a section about the War Chief. Wow! Fancy that. That's not synthesis, that's just trying to improve the article. The only reason you are claiming synthesis, is because of the content of those WP:RS that explicitly mention the War Chief and/or the War Games. Did I at any point ever state or imply anything that is not directly mentioned in the sources? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.135 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er...no it does not. The Colony in Space novelisation does not mention the War Chief. It alludes to the War Games, and as I have pointed out above, it makes an inference that the Master is the War Chief. Please listen closely. This part right here, where source B implies alludes to the events of source A and thus implies that the Master is the War Chief is synthesis. Neither of those sources explicitly states that the War Chief is the Master. So, yes, you are implying something "that is not directly mentioned in the sources"...thus it's synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions the War Games, and adds information on the Time Lord who organised the War Games. That's not SYNTHESIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.135 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:SYNTHESIS yet? You have taken wildly disparate items and synthesised them into a theory about the War Chief and the Master. The canonicity of the books. radio plays etc is always in doubt. In any event reading the books is not considered a WP:RS as they are the original item. What you need are secondary sources to back up your theory. In thiks case that would be interviews with the authors stating that they were alluding "On Purpose" to the Master as they wrote about the War Chief. Lastly DO NOT remove the OR tag until this discussion is closed. You should consider yourself lucky that DQ has compromised by using it as I to (and others I suspect) would continue to remove the whole section outright since it has no business being here. BTW thre are blogs, facebook and even a DE Wikia where you can post this theory as an alternative. MarnetteD | Talk 18:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. Didn't DonQuixote just state that all the sections here give an overview of the story they're in? But now those stories themselves don't count? Should this entire article(from A to Z) be deleted then? And how can the original themselves not be a [[WP:RS}]? because then we would have to remove most of the articles about audios, novels etc. as well as all the characters contained therein. And are you seriously bringing up the canonicity argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.46.222 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources (episodes, novelisations, etc.) can be summarised. "Reading the book", that is, interpreting the allusions and implications requires "secondary sources to back up your theory" otherwise it's original research. It's your interpretation of the text, and others, like myself, might share it, but we're not acknowledged experts in the field and thus, in regards to being editors of Wikipedia, it's non-notable. We can, however, publish our analyses in a secondary source, such as Doctor Who Magazine, and let other editors cite our work (otherwise it can be construed as a conflict of interest). DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to actually answer the questions I have posed to you. And your own arguments are self-contradictory.

1)There are virtually no sources whatsoever for the article at large(your "summaries" are unsourced. For that matter it is most unusual that you criticise text which is quoted verbatim from the sources, and praise "summaries". Surely the "summaries" are the OR, and the quoted text is properly sourced)?)

2)There is nothing whatsoever in the sources I provided that is in any way OR. I have placed text(all explicitly referring to the War Chief and/or the War Games) from WP:RS into a section on the War Chief. In fact, this is the only section in the entire article that actually meets the WP:RS standards. Your problem is what these Reliably Sourced make clear. I have not stated anything other than what is stated verbatim in the text, all with RS. Your proposed "solution" to this nonexistent "problem" is to use OR, and summarise it! There is no conflict of interest. All we have here are Reliable Sourced sections of text that are relevant to the section of the article. That is it. That is exactly what Malcolm Hulke and Terrance Dicks(the men who created the character of the War Chief) stated, word-for-word(except the Timewyrm:Exodus bit which still needs stronger sourcing). Yet you have some problem with that, and your solution is to use OR, and rewrite it, removing RS, and using OR to rephrase it to your personal tastes. Clearly, you have a problem with the one and only section on this article that is RS, simply because of what those RS actually state. Lastly, what do you mean by "[my] interpretation of the text"? That is the text, the text written by Malcolm Hulke and/or Terrance Dicks. I did not write it. The men who wrote the War Games did. They selected those words very carefully, being professional writers/authors, and Dicks was Script Editor for the television series, and Editor for the Target Books line. There is nothing whatsoever in those Reliably Sourced sections that is "mine". It is the words of the creators, who are indeed acknowledged experts in the field. And as you admit, you are not...197.87.8.92 (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite page and line where the words "War Chief" appear in the Colony in Space novelisation, otherwise, you're implying what the source does not explicitly state. And please exercise a little reading comprehension. I was stating that the only way to get your original research into this article is to publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you, otherwise it doesn't belong here. DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your attempt at humour that is a personal attack, you have been contradicting yourself over and over, and refusing to read what i have actually posted. Since you persist in trying to make this an endless loop, how about this....On this very discussion page, below this post of mine, post a draft what you believe the section should look like and we can take it from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.8.92 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the acceptable draft...which is the section as it is with only the synthesis and original research edited out:
The War Chief was a renegade Time Lord who assisted a group of alien warriors in the 1969 serial The War Games, which was the last to feature the Second Doctor.
The warriors had been kidnapping soldiers from various wars in Earth's history to play war games on an unknown planet. The War Chief provided the warriors with basic TARDIS-like travel machines, called SIDRATs, which they used to kidnap the human soldiers and travel between era-specific zones they had created, as well as supplying the aliens with hypnotic mind-control devices to gain full control of the human armies.
When the War Chief and the Doctor came face to face, they recognised each other instantly. The Doctor initially feigned compliance in order to gain the alien's trust, but after exhausting any possible way of removing the soldiers himself he reluctantly summoned the Time Lords for help. The alien War Lord discovered the War Chief's plans to betray him and his people, and after cornering him in the SIDRAT hanger as he attempted to flee the Time Lords, he was shot by the War Lord's guards.
The New Adventures novel Timewyrm: Exodus has a further out-of-sequence [16] encounter between the Doctor and the War Chief who had survived his execution by the War Lord's guards, but was left heavily deformed after an aborted regeneration. Using the alias Kriegsleiter (German for War Chief or War Leader) he attempted to alter the history of the Second World War by supplying the Nazi party with weapons and technology. It ends with the War Chief regenerating into an incarnation described as "a young man, tall, dark and satanically handsome",[17] just as his base is destroyed by a nuclear explosion.
No synthesis and no original research. And no, I haven't been contradicting myself since my main point is that the current edit is synthesis, which, if it is to be included here, needs a secondary reliable source to state it explicitly (not you, not me, an acknowledged reliable source). Again, please cite page and line where the words "War Chief" appears in the Colony in Space novelisation otherwise you're implying something that the source does not explicitly state, which by the definition at WP:SYNTHESIS is synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC

Now, what is so wrong with the Role Playing game that it had to be deleted from the section? It's exactly what it says in the sourcebook, does something need changing? If so, it can be changed.86.31.131.239 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i just wanted to point out that i am massively suprised this is all still going on after all this time. Out of curiosity, is this a common thing that happens on wikipedia or quite rare? It really is an insight into human behavior. Hats off to 41 and Don Quixote for managing to do this for well over a year, i gave up after a few weeks.86.31.131.239 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, nay and thrice nay.

First to 86, you did not cite any references or sources. Unless you explicitly state the ISBN, page no, and quote it word-for-word, it counts as WP:OR. And as it stands now it is very much OR. In fatc I would be well within my rights to delete it immediately, but I'll give you the opportunity to correct it.

Next, the Colony in Space novelisation explicitly mentions the War Games. That is not or synthesis. Or if it is, then approximately 80% of Wikipedia articles relating to Doctor Who need to be seriously pruned or far worse cases of or and/or synthesis.

Lastly, the Target book has the War Chief(named as such) explicitly stating that the Doctor(as he is travelling in a time-space machine) can only be one person. I noticed that that never made it into your "acceptable" version.

Oh, there is more. By your "summarising" things, and completely rewording events, making assumptions, and giving your own interpretation, you are clearly using OR. Which is why what I included was cited word-for-word from the original sources, all of which were meticulously cited. Unlike your "summary" or the totally unsourced FASA section.

Which does rather beg the question as to why DonQuixote is so obsessed with this one section, while happily accepting the remainder of the article's lack of ANY sources. Or the HUGE amounts of what must totally be synthesis or OR according to his definitions, all over pretty much every Dr Who article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.102 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, it is quoted word for word. I can guarantee you on that. I just haven't gone into it in massive detail. The thing is with source books, they aren't comprehensive novelisations from cover to cover, to inform you, the author tends to write in a non-fictional matter-of-fact fashion, treating the reader like they are playing a game every now and then. I can't explain it too well, but because they exist as a wikipedia page, i think they must hold some water when giving some background into a character. For instance it holds that the Master and the War Chief began an uprising on Gallifrey, the War Chief has a SIDRAT hanger in his model 43 TARDIS, his new incarnation looks like a strange cross between Nicolas Cage and Esther Rantzen. I could scan any relevant pages and link them from an image host if that helps? I could even do that for the August 1984 Malcolm Hulke interview in DWM if you like 41, i'm not all bad :-). Just say the word, in the meantime i'll work on my little addition to the War Chief entry.86.31.131.239 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've added the ISBN, page number and fully maintain it IS quoted word-for-word. I could try and insert a pound of flesh into my discdrive if that helps ;-). I can't do much more, except scan those pages. But thank you for not deleting it in the meantime.86.31.131.239 (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything against any relevant text being quoted, as long as it is cited properly. If the Legions of Death states that, and you have quoted and cited it properly, then you have done a great job. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is about providing all reliably sourced material relating to a subject, citing it properly, and at all times maintaining a neutral point of view. So, the quoted texts from the War Games(television serial and novelisation), Timewyrm:Exodus, the FASA Game and the Doomsday Weapon are all equal, provided they are all properly sourced(which they now are, except the Timewyrm one is still a bit OR). I was in two minds about Time's Champion, as it was already commissioned as a PDA, but ended being an unauthorised charity publication. Best not to include that one, probably.

However, DonQuixote(and a friend of his over on the Master(Doctor Who) article), clearly do not agree. For them, it is important to maintain their point of view. This leads to some rather self-contradictory statements. As an example, the FASA Game explicitly stating that the War Chief is not the Master is a valid source. However, the same FASA Game stating that the Monk IS the Master is NOT a valid source. DonQuxiote using OR to "summarise"(without a single WP:RS ) a story is a valid source. Me quoting something verbatim from the same story, with correct citations is both an invalid source AND OR. Oh, and SYNTHESIS! Doctor Who is an interesting thing, as different sources give conflicting takes on the same thing. I assumed it was Wikipedia policy to give fair weight to each(provided each is properly sourced, with correct citations, and what it actually says, not what someone "summarises" it as).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.102 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, i'd like to add more FASA material to the Meddling Monk page but i fear it would only add to any contention, which i really don't want to do. I only want to be neutral in these matters. FASA has some fascinating ideas though, i think they were the first to posit that the Klingons of TOS were a result of genetic engineering combining the DNA of humans and Imperial Klingons. And later Enterprise, essentially, gave us the same scenario. 86.31.131.239 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, as I've said many times before, it's not about the idea, it's about your improper methodology. You can cite a source that says that the Master is the War Chief as long as it explicitly says it. You can even cite sources that imply the Master is the War Chief as long as you avoid synthesis (which has been defined several times above with links to the official definition at WP:SYNTHESIS). The crux of the matter is the Colony in Space novelisation explicitly states the Master so it's ok in his article. Timewyrm: Exodus explicitly mentions the War Chief so it's ok in this article. Timewyrm does not mention the Master so it's not ok in his article. Colony in Space does not explicitly mention the War Chief so it's not ok in this article.
Again, please pay close attention: yes, you did cite the sources, but you put two sources together to emphasise an inference (something that's not explicitly stated in either text). That makes it synthesis. That is, the sources (War Games and Colony in Space) don't "actually say" (quoting you here) that the War Chief is the Master, it only implies it.
So your comment about me advancing a certain POV is rubbish...which can also be shown by me not objecting to the addition of the Colony in Space novelisation in the Master's article (which implies that he's the War Chief but doesn't explicitly state it) and me not objecting to the addition of TimeWyrm in this article (which implies that the War Chief is the Master but doesn't explicitly state it). I don't even object to the Master and the War Chief being allies (which is in the FASA module...thanks other anonymous IP). So, yeah, I'm actually neutral about this.
As for the rest of the article, I've skimmed it and saw nothing wrong. If I missed something that you see, feel free to help improve the article by removing any synthesis and original research. But, as I've mentioned before, adding more original research does not help improve this article.
Finally, think of this. Yes, it can be mentioned that the War Chief is the Master, etc., even if the source materials only imply such a connection, but it does not have to be mentioned everywhere--especially in places where putting it there would involve synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Colony in Space novel explicitly refers to the War Games, and explicitly links a character called 'The Master' to that. No, it does not use the phrase "War Chief". However, it does specifically refer to the events of the War Games... Your earlier proposal removed multiple OR that do use the exact phrase "War Chief"...Lastly, the rest of this article contains virtually no RS. it is a bunch of people giving summaries of stories, characters etc., with no RS. And, of course summarising means using OR. perhaps the Doomsday Weapon piece may not be appropriate here, but it is certainly relevant to the The War Games article...I also feel that you have a bias, in that over at the Master article, one source stating that roger Delgado had played the Master was relevant, whereas another RS that stated that peter Butterworth had played the Master was dismissed out of hand. As I said, Wikipedia needs to maintain a NPOV. There is indeed much conflicting evidence, and it is wrong to state that "x is relevant", but that "y is synthesis". That is the very definition of POV and OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.102 (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PRIMARY
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
...which means that summaries are fine, according to Wikipedia policy, but interpreting inferences is not.
Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
...which means that you need a secondary source that says the Colony in Space novelisation is referring to the War Games or the War Chief.
As for a RS stating that Peter Butterworth had played the Master...I don't remember that. What source was that? Are you referring to the FASA game? If so, then that didn't say anything like that. The only thing it said was that the Monk was a previous incarnation of the Master...which is all we can say. We can't say that Butterworth played the Master because we have no reliable source that he was playing such a character, especially since no such character had been created yet. It's similar to this example: we can say that Orson Welles played Moriarty, but we cannot say he played Irene Adler, even if later works say that the two characters are one and the same (Elementary (TV series)).
And as for your last line, that's bollocks. We can say that "y is synthesis" if it fits the definition of synthesis as outlined in WP:SYNTHESIS. So no, it has nothing to do with POV (or even OR) to point out that...it fits the definition of synthesis as outlined in WP:SYTHESIS. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please join the discussion that everyone else is having? It may help.

The Colony in Space novelisation specifically refers to the War Games. Therefore it's relevant to the War Chief. It's not synthesis or OR. If we were to take your extreme viewpoint, then about 90% of all Wikipedia articles would have to be removed as being synthesis and/or OR. It is unusual that this one small section in particular elicits such passion from you, yet none of the totally unsourced and rambling articles that I see you have made minor edits to.

The Master Module lists actors who have played the Master, and Butterworth is one of those(it should be noted now, in case yo 'discover' it later, that Brayshaw is not listed as one of them). As far as "no such character had been created yet". That is just YOUR POV and OR. Was Alex Kingston playing Mels in Silence in the Library? Well, according to you, no such character had been created yet! Please stop pushing your OR on this discussion.

As far as summarising, well you are NOT using the original text. You are rewriting it in a different manner, that hopefully gets the bullet points across. But by changing the original wording, you are most definitely using OR. As well as using OR to decide which points are important, and which are not. And, in your case, which are relevant and which are not. It's not rocket science. Especially since it explicitly states that the War Chief remarked that a)there is only one person the Doctor can be and b)the War Chief and the Doctor are two of a kind, yet BOTH of those statements escaped your proposed summary. Fancy that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.30 (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er...pot, kettle, black.
Anyway, the Colony in Space novelisation refers to the War Games so it's relevant to the War Games. It does not mention the War Chief and only implies. This last bit is what makes it original research and thus synthesis in this article. We need a secondary source that specifically says that that is a direct reference to the War Chief and not your interpretation. And 90% of all Wikipedia articles are not synthesis or OR because they cite secondary sources stating things about primary sources rather than assuming that one editor's interpretation of the primary source is acceptable. That is, they follow the policy explained at WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. So no, you've just constructed a straw man. And summarising sources is what 90% of wikipedia articles are doing. This can be clearly seen by the low number of direct quotations and high numbers of summaries with inline citations. So yeah...please join the discussion that everyone else is having that has been summarised at WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and other such helpful articles.
And as for being "passionate", yep, my passion is adhering to the consensus and policies of Wikipedia. Sorry to disappoint you because I'm not passionate about the thing that you claim. Here's a recent example where it has nothing to do with this article but rather synthesis and original research: Talk:The Dark Knight Rises#This poll is becoming a bad joke.
As for the Master module, what sources does it cite?...what documents do they provide? From WP:RS
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
...which means, within context, the module is the background material for a game and is not a documentation of the production of the show. As the title of the section that I quoted from WP:RS states, "Context matters". So please, join the discussion that everyone else is having. Go read WP:RS and even start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.
Also, please provide any documentation that states that the character of the Master existed before the 1970s. That's the only way you'll show that he existed in the same year as Butterworth playing the Monk. So yeah, not OR if there's no documentation supporting your claim. DonQuixote (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully weighed by who? You no doubt. You have been rude. You have made wild exaggerations. When asked for specifics, you can only beat your chest and make vague statements. And if you are indeed so passionate about adhering to the consensus and policies of Wikipedia, why do you seem to have such a one-purpose account?

Lastly, your bit about background information/production etc? You can not possibly be being serious, can you? You have "summarised" lengthy sections, used your OR and POV etc. But...how many of these Doctor Who villains entries have any background information about the production? But, according to your ever-changing policies, that would mean that this whole article should be deleted. Furthermore, it doesn't care how many people are engaged in those activities. ONE person who is reliable and has published a book outweighs a bunch of illiterate blogging nobodies.

So please, before you post another lengthy retort...please provide a single stable position. You have shifted your goals so many times, we're not even on the same field as when this discussion started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.59.42 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining my neutrality here, the Master module makes an effort to inform the reader that it does indeed doubt it's own veracity and that of the CIA file extract on the Master that is included with it. Here's a direct quote from Page 4/introduction-
"A short module of the player's information is included in this supplement. Taking the form of a CIA briefing on The Master, the CIA extracts book is neither complete nor totally accurate. It sometimes reflects the opinions, conjectures, and outright fabrications injected into it's Time Lord authors, rather than absolute truth needed by the gamesmaster
Time Lords telling porkies?! What, are they using the Master as a scapegoat for the crimes of another? One of their own? Who knows, probably not, but it is fun to speculate. Now this doesn't mean that they are infering that the Monk isn't the Master, it could easily be refering to other information, maybe that the War Chief IS in fact the Master and they don't want people knowing about it. But overall it does leave a big question mark over everything, literally everything.
Also, i think it's worth noting that the front of the booklet does add Peter Butterworth as an actor who played the Master, one who added "Luster to the legend" in fact. It makes you wonder why, if this was incorrect, there wasn't effort made by BBC writers of old to disapprove the idea, or flat-out ask FASA to withdraw these books and re-write them. Perhaps the BBC were just happy to get the revenue? God forbid eh :-)
Finally, it's worth noting that both the Time Meddler and Daleks' Master plan are both referenced as sources by FASA for further education on the Master(page 13/Designing adventures). It does also list The War Games, but lets you know once again that the Master and the WC were 'associates', with the former working behind the scenes letting the latter become the fall guy quite happily when it went tits up.86.29.153.249 (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that the relationship between these two is described elsewhere in the Master module a number of times, and not on page 13. On page 22(Timeline of the Master's actvities) it speaks of a further collaboration between the two, one where they attempt to launch a Holy War on Earth, and bring about the fall of Jericho through hypnotically induced miracles. The Doctor, of course, defeats their efforts. Then it later goes on to talk of a collaboration between the Master and the Rani whereby they attempt to interfere with the rise of 'Mohammidanism'. Read into that how you will.86.29.153.249 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Carefully weighed by who? You no doubt. You have been rude. You have made wild exaggerations. When asked for specifics, you can only beat your chest and make vague statements. And if you are indeed so passionate about adhering to the consensus and policies of Wikipedia, why do you seem to have such a one-purpose account?"
Again...pot, kettle, black. Need I remind you of all the straw men you have created?...such as me being a "one-purpose account?" Wild exaggeration indeed. If you check my contribution history you'll see that that's not the case and that you have, unfortunately, been taking up much of my time recently and from your POV, because as far as I can tell this is the only thing you've been vocal about, it would appear that way because it reflects your own actions. You're not the centre of my activities, sorry. And as for "being rude", sorry that I have used your own words against you (so yeah, pot-kettle-black there).
And, it should be carefully weighed by everyone. I have provided the reason as to why it's not reliable in this context, that it's not a documentation of production. I have also asked what sources they use...which is a question asked of all sources when they refer to other sources and is the more important point. Again, please see WP:RS which you keep ignoring.
"Lastly, your bit about background information/production etc? You can not possibly be being serious, can you?"
Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. In terms of real world events, Buttersworth played the Monk in two productions. Later Letts and Dicks introduced the character of the Master, played by Delgado. Even later, a game combined two characters into one character and then listed actors who played their combined character. The later work (the game) does not retroactively change the historical event. So unless they show their sources, their supposition should be taken with a grain of salt. And this has been carefully weighed by several people at talk:Master (Doctor Who), so it's not just me who has come to this conclusion (it's just that I was the most vocal). So, yeah, "wild exaggeration" that it's just me.
"But...how many of these Doctor Who villains entries have any background information about the production?"
That's probably why there's a multiple-issues tag at the top of the article. Please help improve this article by providing them rather than adding more original research that doesn't help the problem.
"...please provide a single stable position"
When editing or adding new material, please keep in mind synthesis and original research. Please help improve this article rather than adding to the problem. Also, please review WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:real world and any other helpful articles that summarises the consensus of a lot of Wikipedia editors. Also, countering a series of false statements isn't an unstable position, it's just countering a series of false statements. When I haven't been doing that, I have provided a single stable position, which I just summarised. So, yeah, another "wild exaggeration" here.
And to the other anonymous IP, thanks for trying to keep things neutral. Those things can probably be mentioned in the Doctor who roleplaying game article. They can probably also be mentioned in the Monk's article and the Master's article. (And thanks for mentioning the relevant bits in this article.) I don't recall if we have an article detailing the CIA, but if we do then it can probably be mentioned there as well. DonQuixote (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The record's stuck...the record's stuck...the record's stuck... (and is it really necessary to repeat what I said back to me ad nausea?)

Let's go through this nicely:

1)You, and you alone, object to the inclusion of RELIABLY SOURCED material, because it is somehow OR and/or SYNTHESIS(despite the fact it directly references the War Chief and/or the War Games in the sources)

2)We agree that sources should be what is cited and not someone's intepreation of what it actually says.

3)You have repeatedly stated that information must be "out-of-universe".

4)You then state that it is best to summarise the storylines in the article.

5)But you ALSO state we must not have ANY "in-universe" details.

6)You state that sources by people who have analysed and studied the relevant material is ideal.

7)But not apparently if it contradicts your POV.

Basically, the best argument against certain points you have made in this discussion can be found in other points you have made in this discussion. Again, you have posted lengthy, self-contradictory confused essays that fail to make clear exactly what you are saying. The only thing that has been made clear is that you personally wish for certain Reliably Sourced and properly cited additions that i made to the article to be removed, as you do not like what they imply.

As far as the FASA Game, who exactly made you the authority? It is YOUR OR that the character was later joined together from two separate characters. That is a RS. It is not your place to make definitive statements. Especially since in this entire discussion you are the only one who has yet to provide ANY RS for any of the multiple tangled points you have made. Your POV is NOT a RS. Published sources which I and 86 have provided ARE RS. And your personal wishes do not trump Wikipedia Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.49.188 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a short passage in the Meddling Monk section, which has a greater amount of detail from the FASA RPG. I hope it meets to everyone's approval. I noticed that the prior information about people believing the Monk to be the Master had been removed, so i hope that this has a greater acceptance. I made sure that anyone who reads it will be informed that the module itself doubts it's own accuracy. This way people can be informed and not lead in anyway (i hope).
Can i ask, does Time's Champion have any chance of being presented as a reliable source? Logically i guess it wouldn't, but because it has it's own wiki page i perhaps thought it might have, at least, the same validity of the FASA RPG. In that it could be noted that it is not an officially licensed source etc, but because of it's status as being a published book, it might hold some validity to some degree. 86.29.153.249 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, Time's Champion involved a question of notability. I forget where the discussion was, but you can start another one at WT:DW. DonQuixote (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1...you forget the other editor who made a comment about it being synthesis too, so it's isn't just me. We can request further comments from other editors, if you like. And it's synthesis because it infers the War Games and the War Chief but doesn't mention them explicitly. Any inference, even if they are correct, has to be verified by a secondary source, otherwise it's original research. Putting two such things together results in synthesis as explained in WP:SYNTHESIS.
4...I didn't say that it was the best. I said that it was acceptable. Clearly it's not the best as this article is tagged with a "multiple-issues" tag...probably because it doesn't have real-world information to go with the summaries.
5...I never said that. In-universe details are acceptable if they're written from a real-world perspective. Writing an article from an in-universe perspective is unacceptable.
7...Patently false, as can be seen by all versions of the characters being mentioned in the respective articles in one way or another. So please, just because you're pushing a particular POV, it doesn't mean that everyone else is pushing some other POV.
So yeah, straw man there.
And for your last point, again I ask the question (yeah not my place to make definitive statements, and neither is it yours), what sources does FASA cite to support their claim that Butterworth played the Master? Unless they provide those sources, in this regard, they're about as unreliable as a Wikipedia article that doesn't cite any sources. It's also equivalent to how a physics textbook is a reliable source but is not a reliable source when it comes to molecular biology. Context matters, as mentioned in WP:RS. DonQuixote (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that a third opinion has been requested because this has gone on too long. The IP is still taking primary sources and synthesizing them into a theory about several different characters being the same one. Whatever the intentions of the creators of the role playing game were it, in no way, can be used to back up this theory. There is also no way that Butterworth's Meddling Monk can be construed as being the same as a character that would not even be created for several years. All of this retrofitting is fine for blogs or facebook pages or fan forums but it has no business being in an encyclopedia. DonQuixote has bent over backwards to try and explain things and even reach some kind of compromise. 41.132.49.188 you should consider that well because I would remove the whole thing as it violates all the policies that have been highlighted several times in this thread. MarnetteD | Talk 03:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that is your POV. Your statement about Butterworth is a POV. if there is a RS that states Butterworth played the Master, then it counts, whether you believe it to be true or not. As for DonQuixote, again he has not "bent over backwards". All he has done is make a variety of hopelessly contradictory claims, assertions and stating his personal feelings. He has still completely failed to provide one valid, stable position. Every time he makes a statement I have been able to explain. He then changes the fundamentals of his argument in such a way that contradicts something he previously said. It is clear that this whole article as a whole(and indeed a great deal of Wikipedia Doctor Who-related articles) are in a great need of proper citations, cleaning up, and general fixing. However DonQuixote has fixated on my adding some RS, simply because of his personal feelings. Again, if a proper WP:RS states something, then see WP:V. As anyone who has followed Doctor Who for any period knows, there is contradictory information about certain aspects of the show, its production, characters, dating etc. It must most definitely not be Wikipedia's position to choose one, and state that something else can not be valid. As has been stated, I provided RS, 86 provided contradictory RS, someone else may provide a RS with a third totally different set of information. However, DonQuixote has provided nothing. All he has done is make assertions, and drag this discussion out long after his points were shown to be false. Again, see WP:V. And to MarnetteD, you have shown POV and OR with some of your statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.49.189 (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is pure WP:WIKILAWYERing sophistry. Every statement that you have made is full of POV and OR not supported by any secondary sources. You have taken writers from wide ranging media separated by years pf publication and come up with a theory that any renegade Time Lord seen before the introduction of the Master is the Master. That is pure synthesis. OTOH there are numerous secondary sources starting with the "Who is Doctor Who" book released at the tenth anniversary that list these various characters as separate Time Lords who are not the same character. The WP:BURDEN falls on your shoulders to provide secondary sources not DonQuixote's. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You made bold statements, without any sources. You dismiss out of hand anything that may contradict your own POV. As an example, the WR:RS that 86 provided was blithely dismissed with some irrelevant analogy. Why? Your comment about "there is no way that...can be construed as being the same character..." is pure and unadulterated POV. You believe one point. You refuse to allow as WP:RS anything that even hints anything to the contrary. As I stated earlier, this is not a simple black-and-white issue. Like the infamous UNIT dating, there is conflicting evidence here, all of it equally WP:RS. It should, and indeed is, Wikipedia Policy to maintain a Neutral Point of View. However, you and DonQuixote both insist that Wikipedia maintain your point of view, and even dismiss official, licensed publications that 86 sourced, simply because it goes against your POV. And again, neither you or DonQuixote have provided a single source, reliable or otherwise, to back up your position. You claim about "Who is Doctor Who"? prove it. Cite it properly according to RS standards, otherwise it's simply an unsourced statement.

Lastly, and most importantly, where/when did I ever add "The War Chief is the Master" or "The War Chief is the Monk" or "The Monk is the Master" to this article? Nowhere, that's where. What I did do was provide properly cited WP:RS to an article about the War Chief. All of which specifically refer to the War Chief and/or the War Games. Also I am the only one to have added properly cited WP:RS to the Timewyrm:Exodus section of this article(which you don't have a problem with...) Had I stated something not in the sources, then it would of course be wrong. But I never did anything of the sort. Instead I merely added relevant, properly cited and sourced information, that is relevant to the subject matter. As did 86. And the information contains three scenarios, each contradictory with the other two. However, you and DonQuixote are objecting to one of the three, because you claim to definitively know information. And even while you staunchly maintain that the FASA Guide is not a WP:RS for one thing(Butteroworth played the Master), you are perfectly happy with what it says when it comes to something else(the War Chief and the Master were allies). Like DonQuixote, you please need to accept that a)you need to maintain a single stable position. and b)Your POV is not a WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.233 (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Fordx12 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by DonQuixote
The issue revolves around this edit [3]. The two sources are works of fiction (WP:PRIMARY) which in themselves are adaptations of television episodes. The second source (the adaptation of Colony in Space) alludes to the events of the first source (the adaptation of The War Games). This, in turn, can be read to imply that two previously unrelated characters (that is, no other source has related them before) are in fact one character. My assessment is that the two sources placed together like it is now is synthesis.
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
The article was a hopeless mess of unsourced OR, all taken from WP:PRIMARY(and some of it by DonQuixote himself). I added properly sourced and cited material to one section, including two accounts that are contradictory. Both are from novels. At once DonQuixote found one unacceptable, and the other perfectly valid. He has shifted his position several times(at one stage claiming that no PRIMARY material counts and that there must be no OR, then almost immediately stating how this article should be people summarising events in stories). He has dismissed as irrelevant certain information from officially and fully licensed the FASA Guide, while embracing as a WP:RS other information from the exact same Guide. The reality is that there are three accounts, each officially licensed and published, each written as PRIMARY. No two can really co-exist. Since Wikipedia must maintain a NPOV another IP and I have properly sourced and added all three, with no statement whatsoever about which one(if any) is "correct". However, DonQuixote insists that one of the ones I added must be wrong, because he does not believe it to be so. And as stated, he has contradicted himself several times in his explanations in order to maintain the position that the others are valid, while this one must go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.233 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Third opinion by Fordx12
....

Okay, allow me to see if I got this right. DonQuixote believes that the War Cheif and The Master are being linked as the same person despite the sources not stating this to be true (According to DonQuixote) and that the IP editor (hence forth known as "anon") feels that the sources do show that the War Cheif and The Master are one and the same and thus wrote this section to reflect it? Anon thus believes that DonQuixote does not see a clear connection (according to Anon) between the War Chief and The Master in the two cited sources? Fordx12 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear connection (although I do see the inference). DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither here nor there. This is a section on the War Chief. Anon(ie me) added properly cited RS that specifically refer to the War Chief and/or the War Games. I also added properly cited RS that refer to the War Chief under totally different circumstances. DonQuixote objects to the one set of RS because they may imply that the War Chief is the Master. Which he and Manette have both stated outright that that is not the case, and that anything implying or stating outright that the Master existed before 1971 can not be a RS, and can therefore not be a RS. Despite using other material from those sources as RS. Basically DonQuixote has his own personal POV, and wants to delete or at least question the reliability of anything that does not 100% back up his own personal POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.168 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's the centre of the issue. The question is did you cite properly? And please stop misquoting and creating straw men. We stated that we need a RS that states outright that the Master existed before 1971. Please provide one. And everything that I have stated is documented on this talk page and at talk:Master (Doctor Who), which doesn't match your straw man.
But ignoring all that, I make this appeal: isn't it better to have a source that passes all the checks rather than a source that doesn't? Also, everyone has the right to question the reliability of any source, including you. Feel free to question any source that you find questionable.
Finally, my apologies to Fordx12 for this interjection (but the continual use of straw men is getting offensive at this point). DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the parenthetical in DQs post. This IP has continually accused us of of things that it cannot provide an evidence for. MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is trying to confusing the issue. Quite simply, it doesn't matter when the Master was or was not created. What matters is that I have indeed added properly cited and relevant RS to an article. You object to their inclusion because of your POV. And your POV(which is actually irrelevant to this article) is that "the Master was created in 1971). So, you have now tried to make this discussion about that. When that is utterly beside the point. The point is that I added properly cited and sourced information, and you object to that information, as it may possibly be interpreted in a way you find unpalatable. Everything is else is just trying to confuse the issue. The main question is "Are these sources WP:RS?" Everything else is just your POV getting in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.47.168 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is my opinion and that is all it really is, an opinion. This sounds more like a discussion between fans, and Wikipedia is not that place. What do I mean? Well, either the sources say that the War Chief is or is not the Master. To say that the sources "imply" or "infer" it is original research. You need a secondary source (or another primary) to make such a statement. Wikipedia is not a place to publish ideas, or interpretations. So does the primary source in question directly say that the Master and the War Chief are one and the same? If yes, then something should be included. If no, then it shouldn't be included. That is my opinion.
A note of advice to the Anon, accusations take you nowhere unless you can provide evidence. If you have evidence, kindly mention it to the users and if that doesn't work, seek dispute resolution for conduct related deputes. Here is some info on how to avoid disputes WP:Discussion. And remember, assume good faith WP:AGF. If that doesn't work then read this WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for user conduct only. This is a good essay to read, a few things to watch out that may cause one to lose sight of things WP:DBF. Fordx12 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the situation and your comment. It's much appreciated. DonQuixote (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a long time since I read the Colony in Space novelisation, but if I take it correctly, Terance Dicks who both co-wrote the War Games and wrote the novelisations of that and Colony in Space, had a bit of fun and put a passage in the Colony in Space novelisation that implied that The Master was, in the past the War Chief. Now the problem is that while this passage is clear enough to be obvious to the likes of me, DQ etc, recognising that involves doing a little bit of interpretation and that interpretation is original research. It would be fine to put in that Terrance Dicks had in the novelisation linked the War Chief and the Master, if you have an independent source, DWM or one of the many proffessionally published guides to Doctor Who. Basically what is needed is for a third party in a referenceable source to have made the same observation our ip based friend has. Rankersbo (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014[edit]

Someone is deleting the relevant text, with references, claiming OR. However, it's all taken from actual WP:RS. What he/she doesn't like is what it implies. Note, I haven't said anything outright, only provided WP:RS relating to the War Chief.

As for Rankersbo's comment above, sorry but you don't take it correctly. Firstly, your suggestion that anyone "had a bit of fun" is pure OR. Secondly it was Malcolm Hulke who wrote both Colony in Space and The Doomsday Weapon, not Terance[sic] Dicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.8.39 (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the above discussion? You are echoing 41's exact arguments, which have been deemed original research. There is no place here on Wikipedia for fan-based theories and speculation. Citing sources is fine, but drawing conclusions or interpreting its implications is not. I am going to remove this again per WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless you can fint a third source making any conclusions, the removed text is not allowed here. — Edokter (talk) — 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing different about this than most other articles on Wikipedia.

Oh wait, there is. This is properly sourced. The only problem you have with it is you don't like what is implied by these Reliable, Verifiable Sources. So you blank an entire section, while at the same time leaving a LOT of totally unsourced, and frankly inaccurate nonsense. It's also bizarre how much of this article List of Doctor Who villains is COMPLETELY unsourced. Yet you have no problem with any of these rambling unsourced sections. You hone in on the "War Chief" section, deleting the sourced material, but leaving the unsourced material! This is not for the good on Wikipedia or to maintain an encyclopedic nature. This is clearly your WP:POV out of control.

You want to delete the only sourced material, while leaving paragraphs of badly written, unsourced material? Fine. I give up. Not because you've proved your point valid, but because it's a waste of time arguing with the likes of you. You know you're wrong. You know what you are doing and what you are saying are two totally different things. And I don't have the time to waste on this garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.8.39 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, 41. It has been explained very clearly, and by multiple editors, why this information is not desired; you can cite relevant facts from multiple sources, but you are not allowed to deduct or synthesize information from these sources that is not explicitly stated by either source. This constitues original research and synthesis. This infomation is better served at the Tardis Wiki Core. I must ask you to stop pushing your opinion by edit warring on the article, or we will have to ask an administrator to block your editing privileges. — Edokter (talk) — 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with all that Edoktor has stated. The third opinion that was rendered Oct 2013 combined with the consensus of several editors is that your theory does not belong in this article. You can jump to as many IPs as you want but that does not mean that you can edit war in this situation. BTW there are other places on the interwebs where you can put this like your Facebook page or in various chat rooms. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in Hulke's Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon to suggest that Hulke is saying that the Master and the War Chief are the same person. He discusses the events of the War Games, but not in terms of the Master (or War Chief) at all. On the other hand, I don't understand why the reference to Timewyrm: Exodus has been removed, since that explicitly has the War Chief as a character. john k (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of England[edit]

Should Queen Elizabeth I be included as an enemy of the Doctor? She proclaimed in The Shakespeare Code that the Doctor was her "sworn enemy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannynewman (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AHistory[edit]

At the request of User:MarnetteD, I would like make the case for AHistory as a reliable source. It is the culmination of research begun in the 1990s, that effort alone suggests reliability to me. Moreover, each fact is backed by reference to the episode and can be supported by other sources. Unauthorised is not a synonym for false. As two users, user:Bondegezou and user:Rankersbo have restored the source, that should suggest something about the lack of doubt surrounding its positive utility as a source. Also, in the acknowledgements (p. 22) it states that research help was given by Ben Aaronovitch, Andrew Cartmel, Sophie Aldred, Lawrence Miles, Paul Cornell (all of whom made enormous contributions to Doctor Who, TV or otherwise), Justin Richards and Gary Russell (these last two wrote a great many of the informative BBC books on the series (e.g. Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia (Russell) and Doctor Who:The Ultimate Monster Guide (Richards)), with contributors to the book having also done BBC-licensed projects on the series, surely it is reliable as a source?

So, MarnetteD, stop your pathetic edit war (I count three restorations of your edit and nothing on the discussion page by you to support it or find consensus), which I shall not report as I have made two ill-informed and inappropriate block-requests recently and would likely and justly not be taken seriously. I see future comments saying that I also reverted to my edit once and after three reversions by MarnetteD; is that not an edit war on my part? I think not as it was with a different source which I have no reason to suppose would be opposed by MarnetteD and the source was the only reason MarnetteD reverted, but I am extremely sorry if it was inappropriate. That last bit may be more suited to the user's talk page, sorry.

So, my fellow users "come gather, come gather" (Cassandra, The End of the World) and decide once and for all whether the source is appropriate. Let's have a consensus, please!

Thanks,

Gotha☭  Talk 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Gotha☭  Talk 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article desperately needs citations. WP:PRIMARY is clear that we should favour secondary sources where possible. On the face of it, "AHistory" suits. What's the problem with it? Bondegezou (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the article is too reliant on a priary source, and thus there is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also that AHistory is a solid and respected secondary analysis of the series. AHistory is unlicenced, but that doesn't make it unreliable. It is a respected reference work that documents and analyses Doctor Who in a variety of mediums. Perhaps the problem is that the included information is not within the scope of this article- and thus that AHistory does not adequately support the claim. However that was not reason for removing the material given was not "source does not support claim", but that AHistory is "not a valid source" and that is an invalid reason for a reversion.
We should be compiling reporting what secondary sources like AHistory make of the programme, not watching the programme ourselves and documenting it here, not watching the programme and documenting it straight- that's WP:OR Rankersbo (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be careful in that AHistory is written in an in-universe tone. Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective. That is, we're not too concerned about continuity but about the real-world history of the programme and all other published works. There were similar discussions about The Discontinuity Guide, which featured a similar in-universe tone (for example, search the talk page archives for Season 6B). DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of the book is "AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe". What is the policy for self-styled "unauthorized" sources? As a massive fan, I love these kind of books. But as a Wikipedian, the whole "unauthorized" thing has always been my concern with these kind of references. Actually, a good overview of the book is on the Tardis Wikia here. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia encourages the use of independent, secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia:Party and person). For most of Wikipedia, "unauthorized" is a good thing, because it means something is an independent source! Wikipedia policy says we should draw on such guides in preference to editors building up material from primary sources (i.e. the stories themselves) -- as User:Rankersbo has already said.
That said, there is an issue about WP:INUNIVERSE tone. But if we're going to take that seriously, I'd say wipe 95% of the content of this article. Nearly all of this article is written in an in-universe tone. Burn the whole thing down and start from scratch! Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: and @Rankersbo: I'm not an arsonist, so I'd rather not! None-the-less, I reckon there's something wrong with WP:INUNIVERSE, most fiction articles seem to have breached it (might just be me reading the wrong articles) and in all that I've read, which is many, it's seems to me to be abundantly obvious what's fictitious and what's not. The problem on this page, in my view, is not that there is focus on the continuity at the expense of focus on real-world issues, but that there is not focus on latter in addition to the former, given that most on pages about characters, as a opposed to episodes, would largely want read about the character within the continuity of the series (I reckon that if one were looking for cast members or production info the episode's page would seem to be the more obvious place to go). Never-the-Iess, seem to notice an odd lack of cast info on this page, which does need to be sorted, I reckon, even though, to me, ignoring the rules (flawed as they appear to me) for a moment, the existing content needn't be removed as it is interesting (to me at least and so I have taken the liberty of assuming that it is interesting to others interested in Doctor Who) and the creation of the continuity is the whole point of the real-world stuff so it would seem to ignore the fruits of the production team's labours, thus slighting them (in essence I believe that one complements the other). Am I the only one who thinks it's that rule (WP:INUNIVERSE) that needs changing? Gotha☭  Talk 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, if you want to change WP:INUNIVERSE then you can try at the community pump or at the in-universe talk page. However, I have to warn you that you're probably not going to get much support since it's the standard protocol for writing about fiction used by encyclopaedias, textbooks, etc. If you want to write in an in-universe style, there's the tardis wikia.
@Bondegezou, yeah you're right, this article should be overhauled, and I've been thinking about it for a while--I just didn't want to wade through all the rubbish and figure out what to keep and what to trim. So here's what I suggest, and what I'll do this weekend. For a start, we can reduce all the entries to something like "(Character) first appeared/appears in (serial/episode) and was portrayed by (actor/actors)." Then we can try to put some of the stuff back in, provided we cite everything appropriately. DonQuixote (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still favour burning the whole thing! But, if it is to be kept, could some sort of notability criterion be introduced? Villains appearing in only one story, for example, do not need to be covered here: they are covered sufficiently under those stories. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can skip the summaries for the minor villains that you mention and just link to the stories when we state "appears in (serial/episode)". This will cut down on a lot of the OR and SYNTH. DonQuixote (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some preliminary trimming in the A section to get an idea of what the process will be like. DonQuixote (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Great work. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DonQuixote: Fantastic, I agree; everything else need only be covered in the episode article. May protection be necessary while the article is overhauled to avoid dissenters undoing it?Gotha☭  Talk 15:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above discussion I'm unsure why the mass deletion of multiple entries on this list by Bondegezou last year was necessary or beneficial to the list.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hydroflax[edit]

Someone should add a section on King Hydroflax from The Wives of River Song. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge: Black Guardian into List of Doctor Who villains; dated: January 24, 2020. Proposer's rationale: I think that the content in the Black Guardian article can easily be explained in the context of the article about the villains in Doctor Who, and the article about villains in Doctor Who is of a reasonable size that the merging of The Black Guardian will not cause any problems as far as the size of the latter article is concerned. Pinging proposer @Pahiy: discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add ‘O’[edit]

I think ‘O’ should be added because he was technically The Master but this may be disputed as he appeared to assist The Doctor until the final minutes of the episode. What do you think? DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The Monk and the War Chief[edit]

@197.86.143.140: Seriously, dude, you need to stop trying to advance your POV. Wikipedia is suppposed to be neutral in these matters, so we list every version of the characters. Also, you really need to understand the concept of citing sources. Primary sources (such as television dramas) can be used to describe their contents. To describe any connection between two or more primary sources, implied or otherwise, requires the citation of a secondary source (such as an article in a magazine). This is how tertiary sources like wikipedia operates. It's all about citing and summarising reliable sources. If a source doesn't say something explicitly, then wikipedia shouldn't be saying it explicitly either. DonQuixote (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^ irony. yes, irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted that you were advancing a POV when you wrote The "nonsense" is what Virgin Books and Big Finish Audios served up. Being neutral means that we don't care to comment on whether it's "nonsense"--we only care that they're published works. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this:

  • From The War Games Episode 7:

WAR CHIEF: You may have changed your appearance, but I know who you are. DOCTOR: Oh, do you? WAR CHIEF: Your machine is a Tardis. You’re too familiar with its controls to be a stranger. DOCTOR: I had every right to leave. WAR CHIEF: Stealing a Tardis? Oh, I’m not criticising you. We are two of a kind.

  • From the novelisation of The War Games(page 104):

The War Chief took the Doctor into his private office just off the war room and told his bodyguards to leave. “Now, ” he said “a traveller in a space time machine. There is only one person you can be”.

  • From the novelisation of The Sea Devils(page 28):

The Master stroked his beard thoughtfully. Then, slowly, he shook his head. ‘I’m sorry, Doctor, it’s too much to ask.’ ‘But what use is your TARDIS to you while you’re in here?’ Jo asked: ‘It would be difficult for you to understand,’ said the Master, ‘but my TARDIS is my proudest possession.’ The Doctor laughed. ‘You don’t even own it! You stole it from the Time Lords!’ ‘As you stole yours!’ retorted the Master.

  • Got that? The Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. When the War Chief encounters "a traveller in a space time machine" , he knows there's only one person it can possibly be. But there's more..
  • From the novelisation of Colony In Space(pages 1):

‘The first TARDIS was very small,’ he said. ‘On the outside, yes,’ said the old Keeper. ‘Inside it could carry up to three persons, four with a squeeze. Later we built much bigger ones. There have been two stolen, you know.’ The young Time Lord didn’t know. ‘By our enemies?’ he asked. ‘No. By Time Lords. They both became bored with this place. It was too peaceful for them, not enough happening.’ The old Keeper smiled to himself, as though remembering with some glee all the fuss when two TARDISes were stolen. ‘One of them nowadays calls himself “the Doctor”. The other says he is “the Master”.

  • From the novelisaion of The Three Doctors(page 93):

In his various incarnations, the Doctor had found himself up against many terrifying enemies. With the exception of the Master, this was the first time he had found himself opposed by a fellow Time Lord. And in comparison to Omega, the Master shrank almost to a petty criminal.

  • Malcolm Hulke said of the character, and his relationship with the Doctor: "There was a peculiar relationship between the Master and the Doctor: one felt that the Master wouldn't really have liked to eliminate the Doctor...you see the Doctor was the only person like him at the time in the whole universe, a renegade Time Lord and in a funny sort of way they were partners in crime." (printed in Doctor Who Magazine 91, pp 17, 28).
  • From the FASA Role Playing Game (page):

On Temporal Nexus Point Earth in 1066 AD (Earth time), the Doctor encountered the Master disguised as the Meddling Monk. At that time, the Master was trying to alter Earth's history by ensuring Harold's victory over William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

  • There have to be cases where [4]. Seriously. The only reason to reject this is you are pushing your POV. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got that? The Doctor stole a TARDIS. The War Chief stole a TARDIS. The Master stole a TARDIS. When the War Chief encounters "a traveller in a space time machine" , he knows there's only one person it can possibly be. But there's more.., etc.
Yes, that falls under original research. That's the point. Wikipedia can describe the contents of those novelisations, but it cannot connect two or more novelisations together or with the television programme unless a secondary source (a work of nonfiction) does it first. You (and any other fan) can do the above, but you and I aren't considered reliable sources in terms of wikipeida. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources (which don't include editors). That's why the articles don't explictly mentions all that stuff. You need to realise that wikipedia has limitations. Seriously, you really need to review all the things that I have mentioned multiple times, including WP:CITE and WP:TERTIARY.
On Temporal Nexus Point Earth in 1066 AD (Earth time), the Doctor encountered the Master disguised as the Meddling Monk. At that time, the Master was trying to alter Earth's history by ensuring Harold's victory over William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.
The FASA game is already mentioned in the articles. It, being a game (a primary source), can only be used to describe itself. Again, wikipedia has limitations. It, in all acadaemic honesty, cannot mention more that that.
Seriously, wikipedia is only here to document all the different publications--it's not here to fill in the blanks or connect the dots. Again, wikipedia has limitations. DonQuixote (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "ignore all rules" has more weight when it's more than one person waving it about. DonQuixote (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, you mean? Whereas the article right now IS "connecting two or more novels..". The "monk" appears in the tv show. The novel "No Future" has a character called 'Mortimus'. The novel "Divided Loyalties" has a(nother) character called 'Mortimus'. All three of these characters have very different biographies. Yet, this article uses WP:OR AND WP:SYNTHESIS to link them all together. Using your "logic" the Doctor should be in this article as well, because in The Bells of St. John's someone says that "they call him the Mad Monk". And the time-travelling Monks from The Pyramid at the End of the World/The Lie of the Land as well.
But no, using actual sources is "original research". Yet, you stitching together several bits to form this ghastly Frankenstein's monster of an article is perfectly within Wikipedia's standards? Come on, that's absurd, and even you must see that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I haven't read any of the novels--I've just assumed good faith on the editor who listed and summarised them. If you want to add a citation needed tag (which probably isn't the most effective thing to do) or bring it up at WT:WHO, go right ahead.
And as for the "actual sources", if you look at the things you have chosen to quote above, the actual sources don't actually say anything, rather they imply things. From WP:OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources (emphasis mine). Unless you can get a direct quote explictly stating what you want to cite them for, it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you "assumed good faith" when it came to something you liked. But, someone posts something that upsets you, you're on it like a rabid pitbull. Are you now going to attack the vastly unsourced, WP:SYNTHESIS that is the mess of this article? Or are you just going to leave it? Why the different sets of rules? And, there we go "[you] haven't read any of the novels"! So, how can you make such outrageous claims, trying to come across as an expert?
Had you actually read what you have been so obsessive about, you would know that it requires at least both WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to tie characters from these stories into one single character. Unlike, say, the FASA Manual which EXPLICITLY names the Master as the "Monk".
But, I bet you don't worry at all about the open sewer-like state of the "Monk" article. After all, it follows your WPPOV, and that's all that matters to you, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I've assumed good faith by asking you to cite reliable sources. I've assumed good faith by explaining what original research is and why that's unacceptable on wikipedia. I've also assumed good faith by pointing out that the FASA game is already mentioned. Also, the FASA game is a primary source, as I have pointed out several times. It can only be used to describe its contents. And, yeah, the only thing that matters to me is the proper citation of reliable sources whilst avoiding original research. Please go and do that. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least try and answer the question that was actually asked?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)
The answers to your questions are in WP:PRIMARY, etc. And adding more unsourced material to an article already tagged as needing improvement isn't an improvement. Also, I haven't made outrageous claims about the novels, so me not having read them is irrelevent. The only claims I've made are in line with WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can learn about them too by reading WP:PRIMARY, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, and it doesn't need any level of expertise to understand basics,
  1. Claiming something not explictly stated in a source is original research
  2. Citing a source involves directly quoting the source or paraphrasing what the source explictly states
  3. A primary source can only be used to summarise its contents
  4. A secondary source is a work of nonfiction that comments on a primary source and can be cited in lieu of original research
That's the basics. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that relevant? Actually answer the question, or just drop it. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bottom line to most of your questions--it's a summary of everything I've been saying this entire time.
Also, as I've responded before, adding more unacceptable material to an article that's already tagged as needing improvement isn't an improvement. And, to be even more specific, you're the one trying to foist your favourite version of the character as you did here :[5] and in this article. That is purely distrupitve behaviour. The Monk as a character appeared long before the FASA game, which is a primary source and thus has its own version of the character. Likewise for the War Chief. If the Mortiums editor did something like that, I would have responded in the same way. And, as I've said many times, wikipedia documents every version of the characters.
Seriously, you really need to understand the basics of what sources are and what original research is (see the above summary). DonQuixote (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, still no real answer? Just prepackaged slogans, and personal insults. You "one-size-fits-all" answers don't work here. Answer the question, or just drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)
Dude, what specific question do you want answered? I've answered most of the ones that I can see above, and the answer to most of those are understanding the difference between primary sources and secondary sources and understanding what original research is. Please restate the specific question that you want answered. DonQuixote (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one that's right there. Do you actually know how to have an actual discussion? Or have you been programmed to just quote irrelevant text? Do you work in telemarketing, by any chance? And stop calling people 'dude'.
Let's recap 1)You admit to not having read any of the relevant material.
2)You seem to think forcing ONE POV is somehow "neutral".
3)You refuse to reply to certain queries.
4)You are fixated on this one issue. Bt you have no problem with identical similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)
Please restate the question clearly so that I know which one I've missed. That would help move things along. And the text that I quote aren't irrelevant in that they show you that I'm not the one making the rules, mate. As to your other points,
  1. Also, I haven't made outrageous claims about the novels, so me not having read them is irrelevent. The only claims I've made are in line with WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can learn about them too by reading WP:PRIMARY, etc.
  2. And, as I've said many times, wikipedia documents every version of the characters.
  3. Please restate the specific question that you want answered.
  4. That's because it's the one issue that you're failing to understand, and it's also central to wikipedia, as Bondegezou pointed out below. And please bring up these other articles so that they can be discussed on the talk page.
DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look above. Read up. it's all there. Ot, is this a ploy to try and derail the discussion, if 'discussion' it can be called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that I'm missing it. Please be helpful in restating it clearly so that I know what question you want answered. DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you're wrong. DonQuixote is right. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Right", how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)
In following and applying Wikipedia's guiding principles. Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you can't say HOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)
Numerous references to Wikipedia policy and guidance have been given above. I would also recommend you read WP:INUNIVERSE. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to push your POV and projecting it onto other people[edit]

Seriously, @197.86.143.126:, of all the things in the main article you chose those two things?--you're the one trying to push your POV by giving undue weight to two obscure works. STOP IT ALREADY. If you're not even going to try to cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or some other behind-the-scene work of nonfiction, YOU'RE the one trying to push your unsourced POV. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, come one, it's about as inappropriate as mentioning that his name is Mortimer. Seriously, you need to get the facts straight.
  • A character that is only referred to as the Monk appeared in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan.
  • A character that is only referred to as the War Chief appeared in The War Games.
  • A character known as the Master first appeared in The Auton Invasion and appeared in many more episodes since.
That's the only thing that can be said about the television programme because nothing else is said by the television programme. Whether or not they're the same character should be left open to interpretation because that's how the television programme leaves it and no interview or production documentation says otherwise. After which,
  • The board game states that the characters are the same character
  • The FASA game states that the Monk and the Master are the same character
  • The novels state that the Monk and the Master are separate characters
  • The audio plays have the Monk and the Master and the promotional materials for the audio plays don't combine the characters
  • A couple of literary critics make the connection between the above characters.
That's all we can say about the characters. We can't push one version over another, because it's original research and thus POV pushing. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When were you born? Clearly long after the event. The novels do NOT state what you claim. In any case, how is adding to this webpage with reliable sources a bad thing? Only because it doesn't suit your personal POV! I am not "pushing a pov". That is you, you , and only you. I am adding reliably sourced information. If you remove reliably sourced information from a Wikipedia article, then you are a vandal. And that's what you're doing. Do it again, and you'll be reported for blanking articles for no reason other than your personal pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly advancing your POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Unless you can cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes book, like you have been asked multiple times to do, you can't just put your POV on a pedestal. And as for the novels, I have said before that I took what the other editor has added on good faith--but the point remains, you have shown bad faith by not citing interviews, etc. DO NOT TRY ADVANCING YOUR POV without citing interviews, etc. that support your POV. DonQuixote (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you have shown that you're the one advancing a POV by trying to remove all traces of a character, like you did here [6], or by cherry picking sources (a primary source and an opinion piece, BTW) like you did in this article. Please stop doing that. As I have requested multiple times, please cite a secondary source (which I have explained as being an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or some other similar work of nonfiction) that actually supports your claims. And no, simply claiming that there are interviews or an abundance of material just won't cut it if you can't actually point to them. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah blah. Here's the simple facts. This article is about Doctor Who villains. I posted reliably sourced and cited material about those villains. You are blanking the reliably sourced and cited material that is 100% relevant to the article. Anything else is just you blowing hot air out your backside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you're cherrypicking only two things. Why aren't you listing the other things? And why expand this one character and not any of the other characters with main articles. You're being acadaemically dishonest. DonQuixote (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you? Oh, look. You changed accounts to blank RELIABLY SOURCED material. AGAIN. And now the article is locked. After you blanked an entire section, for no other reason than your own opinions and personal prejudices. (PA removed Woody (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking why I don't go ahead and include the other things? It's because it'll be most of the main article. It's redundant. It'll be easier for the reader to just click the link to the main article and read the main article instead. DonQuixote (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that there is no point adding a summary to this one character and not any of the others with main articles. 197.86.143.126, if you want to discuss this material, it should be at the Talk page for The Monk (Doctor Who) about possible additions to that article. I don't see why you are pushing it here, leaving aside the issues with what you want to add. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Jack Frost (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (197.86.143.126)
....

I added relevant, reliably sourced, material to this article. DonQuixote blanked it. Then (s)he launched into personal attacks. I never added lengthy, rambling text. Merely a few succinct sentences, which were a) reliably sourced and b)help give additional information for those reading the article. DonQuixote blanked the reliably sourced information, because (s)he accused me of "pushing a pov". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by (DonQuixote)
There's no need to expand a single entry with a link to a main article, especially if that expansion isn't about the source material itself but a single adaptation and a single opinion piece that is only used to buttress a particular POV version of the character in question.
Third opinion by Jack Frost
Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of Doctor Who villains and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
Based on the information provided, a review of the relevant articles (including talkpages), and a review of the relevant sources, I am of the opinion:
  1. Given the existence of a standalone article for The Monk (and the norms for this article which are apparent to the reader), it appears more useful for the proposed content to be merged into that article rather than being included within this list. That is, the content should not be included on this page.
  2. Given it appears likely to be controversial, any changes should be proposed on that article’s talkpage for discussion prior to being made.
  3. Further sources would be helpful to support the assertions which are being made in the proposed content.
I hope this is helpful. Jack Frost (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request[edit]

I have requested temporary semi-protection for this page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection given inapproriate behaviour by an IP editor, e.g. [7]. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the article rather than block those involved for edit warring. Note I'm not taking sides and the article is protected in whatever form it is found in. Please discuss the issue. I can't personally see how adding content is vandalism though I don't know the background to the dispute but please see the guideline on disruptive editing. Woody (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2020
No complaints from me about a full protection. My particular concern, Woody, was when the IP editor violated WP:NPA by referring to another editor as an "emotional troll", as in the diff I gave previously. I cannot see any progress occurring within that context. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: good point; I admit I hadn't spotted that edit summary. In any case earlier I warned the IP about personal attacks. Hopefully the discussion on this page can go back to the content not contributors and a consensus can be found about the article going forward. Woody (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The war Chief[edit]

OK what does the BBC say, not some bloke who wrote a book, a not a game, the BBC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Editor (Doctor Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Editor (Doctor Who). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#The Editor (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_villains&oldid=1212516280"