Talk:Paterson Joseph

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Removed the description of him as 'black', it's completely unnecessary. --Oldy 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Rumours

Until there is an official announcement from the BBC do not add details of Paterson's alleged role as the 11th Doctor. Only a verifiable press release from the BBC is enough to warrant inclusion on this article. magnius (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? This is a news story ref'd in a significant number of news sources: whether he gets the job or not, it is notable. Please refrain from telling fellow editors what may or may not "warrant inclusion" in this unacceptably high-handed manner. 81.151.186.178 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about some of the recent edits like [1], Comic Book Resources may be considered a reliable source but the Comics Project discussed the issue of Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters and the consensus is that this (and other internet comic gossip columns) can't be used as a source (after all he does use a traffic light system to flag how reliable he considers the stories to be). Rich specifically commented on this in a column and pretty much agreed with the decision (or at least conceded the point).

Granted this is outside the Comics Project remit but if you look at the specific case it is a 50% hunch and 50% unsourced/uncorroborated rumours - hardly a rock solid source that he is Dr Who. Johnson is right an awful lot of the time and I suspect he is pretty likely to be correct here (if I was a betting man I'd probably have a flutter on this, if any bookies are still taking bets), however, as was said above, we need a more secure source for this, which will presumably be a statement released by the BBC at some point (as Paterson Joseph is unlikely to let is slip ahead of that). (Emperor (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Except that this piece of the article concerns the media speculation regarding Paterson Joseph as the Eleventh Doctor Who. If the piece said that he WAS the next Doctor and attributed this information to Rich Johnston, you might have a point. But it doesn't. It said that the first public mentions of his casting as the Doctor was by Rich Johnston in Lying In the Gutters. Which it was. (Wollikinz (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to put that he's rumored to be 11 or "In the running" for 11? I mean, you can certainly verify that there are rumors.

I would consider the article not mentioning that he is heavily tipped for the role to a terrible omission... I would also agree that stating that he has got the role to be presumptuous Malak1000 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see no reason why we can't simply say "There are rumours that he will be the 11th incarnation of "the Doctor" in the BBC's long running serial Doctor Who, however these rumours are as yet unsubstantiated." and provide a citation to one or more internet sites that mention said rumour.

In fact, if no one objects by 14 December 2008 I will make the modification. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it is a verifiable fact that there has been widespread media speculation about this, and I have reverted the most recent edit that removed the reference. 78.86.19.233 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe I'm missing something but you're statement doesn't make any sense. It is verifiable that there has been speculation, so you took it out of the article, why?59.38.32.9 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, it was Magnius who took it upon himself to overrule the consensus of pretty much everyone else who has spoken up on the talk page. (Which is especially annoying because it took me a goodly amount of time to get the referencing right).59.38.32.9 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition

There's a fair amount of repeated info in this article: appearances listed in both the body of the article and in the table below the main text. Anyone think it needs pruning? Twilight1701 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]